Federal Marriage Amendment














	"Without exhaustive debate, even heated debate of ideas and programs, free government would weaken and wither." — Dwight D. Eisenhower

MARRIAGE: SOCIAL CUSTOM OR
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN?

by M.H., Akron, Ohio

I am writing in response to the Federal Marriage Amendment legislation floating around Congress. These proposals seem designed by frightened legislators to keep gay couples from engaging in the social custom of a wedding ceremony.

Well, I am all for the defense of marriage — especially for heterosexual couples who have chosen to bear children but aren't always too keen about putting in the parental effort it takes to raise them. If you ask me, the sanctity of marriage is threatened much more by heterosexual couples who marry and then exhibit no better than a 50/50 chance of staying that way.

Where is the threat to American society if two loving gay people wish to solidify their relationship in a legal marriage ceremony? Marriage is one of our many social customs — customs that change over time. As is often the case, social practice precedes social custom. And social custom precedes recognition by the law. Just because the law has not yet caught up with a social practice doesn't mean that it should be prevented from ever doing so.

Just as interpretations of the Constitution change over time, cannot also social customs change and evolve? If that were not the case, many in Congress would still own slaves while others would still be without the right to vote.

No one is asking that legal gay unions be recognized by anyone's religion, just that they be recognized by the State.

I urge Congress to quit trying to hide its prejudices behind the flag, the Bible, and the Constitution.

BUSH: "I believe that a traditional marriage — marriage between a man and a woman — is an important part of stable families."

•

KERRY: "The flag of the United Sates Senate should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes."

•

"This is outrageous! I can't believe that the writing of bigotry into our Constitution is even up for consideration."
Kevin G.
San Mateo, California

•

"(This) doesn't meet the threshold for constitutional importance. Constitutional principal of inclusion has expanded since inception, and this seems to not be in that spirit."
L. S.
Atlanta, Georgia

•

"Government should stay out of the marriage issue. If two people love one another, and want to get married, government should stay out of it." Mari
Aurora, Colorado

•

"Marriage is already defined and does not need this issue which will only be a disadvantage to all people."
B. A.
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

•

"I believe that marriage is the only issue that crosses the lines of church and state. Marriage is a church function. Civil unions, partnerships, should be treated as a legal issue. If a couple wants to have their union 'blessed,' then they can do that at a church of their choice and call themselves married. Couples that choose civil unions can call themselves partnered. All civil unions would have the same legal status, and this should apply to all couples regardless of gender." B. L.
Atlanta, Georgia


		H.J. 56: FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Should we officially define marriage with this Constitutional Amendment? 1. Absolutely 2. Probably 3. Don't Care 4. Probably Not 5. Absolutely Not Comments on this issue? Your name or initials Your city / town State / Province Your country Your e-mail How did you find this web site? Voter Votes does not share your personal informaton with anyone.

Proponents say this approach is ultimately fair. States can choose to recognize gay marriage if they want; they just can't make other states do it.

Opponents say it's the epitome of unfair. It's an unethical and illegal way to discriminate against homosexuals.

RESULTS OF VOTING (SO FAR)
Option 1		31.0 %
Option 2		0 %
Option 3		0 %
Option 4		6.9 %
Option 5		62.1 %


H.J. 56: THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

	The Constitutional Amendment proposed earlier this year, to define marriage at a federal level, was quite simple in its language: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." In other words, as a nation, we will not recognize marriages between two men or two women. Furthermore, the federal government cannot require any state to acknowledge gay marriage. In the words of one of the bill's sponsors, Congresswoman Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-CO), it "prevents states from exporting gay marriage." It also circumvents the rulings of federal justices who are questioning parts of the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 2002. To become part of the Constitution, an Amendment must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. This has to happen within seven years of May 21, 2003, the date this amendment was introduced. About a dozen states will have referendums on this issue on the ballot this November. Only one thing is certain: This is an issue that won't go away any time soon. What do you say? Go to the Voter's box and cast your ballot. Or submit your comments by clicking here.