| |
|
Before it could become part of the Constitution, it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures. The FMA was introduced in the House on May 15, 2002, and again on May 21, 2003, by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado), but no vote has taken place on it. Three-fourths of states already have enacted laws in accord with the similarly-worded Defense of Marriage Act. President George W. Bush announced his support for a similar amendment on February 24, 2004.
| Table of contents |
|
2 Proponent arguments 3 Opponent arguments 4 See also 5 References 6 External links |
The amendment propsed by Musgrave consists of two sentences:
Text of proposed amendment
The first sentence would provide an official definition of legal marriage in the United States. To some, it is designed to restrict the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples and to deny that right to same-sex couples. To others, it is designed to defend the institution of marriage of heterosexual couples and to reaffirm that homosexual couples cannot marry.
The second sentence goes further to prioritize judicial interpretation by implementing a different method by which federal and state anti-discrimination and equal protection guarantee interpretations for non-married couples, regardless of sexual orientation, are carried out. State laws include local city and county ordinances, codes and regulations.
The FMA refuses to grant (thus, removing the ability of) local governemnts "to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples" which could be used to overturn local employer domestic partner health insurance requirements and challenge inheritance rights of unmarried heterosexual or homosexual couples.
Some proponents of the amendment have argued for the first sentence while against the second. It remains unclear if both sentences in their current form will be included in the final version.
The proposal is a reaction to concerns about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, which has a similar definition of marriage. It also granted states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Concerns about DOMA are that it conflict with the Constitution's full faith and credit clause. That clause requires all states to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of other states. This is the reason marriages and other legal contracts agreed upon in one state are recognized nationally.
Proponents claim that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not a civil rights issue, and preserve the current authority of state legislatures over all questions of benefits.1 FMA is intended to provide a constitutional reaffirmation of opposite-sex marriage, and supporters hope that passage of the amendment will absolve communities and corporations from any obligation to accord marital rights to same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex unions.
Some supporters believe that the federal government should protect heterosexual marriage, characterizing allowing gay couples to marry as an attack. They assert that extending marriage rights to homosexual or unmarried heterosexual couples would be legislating morality and in violation of cultural tradition.
Gay rights advocates oppose the amendment, calling it discriminatory and an illicit attempt to legislate morality. Lambda Legal Defense, a gay rights legal advocacy group, said that the campaign for FMA was "designed to further anti-gay bigotry".
They added that, if passed, it would be only the second Constitional amendment to restrict, rather than expand, the civil rights of individuals in the United States.
(The first was the Prohibition amendment, which later became the only amendment to be repealed.)
Other advocates, such as San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (whose city has been marrying gay couples in defiance of California statute) have echoed this argument.
Another opposing force are states' rights advocates, who oppose a law that would federalize marriage, which since the founding of the country, has traditionally been under the purview of the individual statess.
The text of Musgrave's amendment prohibits each State constitution, not just the federal constitution, from being interpreted as requiring that State to recognise gay marriages.
Proponent arguments
Opponent arguments
Gay rights
States' rights
See also
References
External links