News Intelligence Analysis
The Marriage Boomerang Amendment
Or the Regulation of Everyone’s Marriage in the U.S.A.
June 6, 2006
[Editor's Note: This article was updated on June 7, 2006 to include the Five Talking Points on why all Americans must help to defeat this immoral amendment .]
By Katherine Yurica
(With a little help from Edith Earle Fonder)
I know and you know that the President and his dominionist congress have called this the “Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment.” But don’t let them fool you. Folks, wake up! This amendment isn’t about homosexual marriages—the word “homosexual” isn’t even mentioned in it. It’s about you and your marriage and how it can be controlled in the not so distant future!
Well, it was bound to happen. One day someone was going to actually read the proposed Constitutional amendment and blab it right out there: “The amendment has no clothes on!”
Just so we’re on the same page, I’m talking about the 2004 version:
(H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
1. Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
See, they had to do the 2002 version over because it was so terribly flawed that it couldn’t stand up in any sensible court. Now I have already written and rewritten about the 2002 version and the 2004 version, and the 2004 version still won’t hold up, but hardly anyone listens to me so I’ve got to shout what everyone would know if they’d just read the darn proposal. It needs to be shouted from the roof tops. (This amendment—one or the other of the versions--was drafted by a private right-wing organization that wants you to believe they’ve got nothing but you and your family in mind! And that’s just the trouble with it!)
First off, there are a number of problems with the amendment. Of course, when you think about it, it isn’t easy to draft an amendment to the constitution that will suffice sanely and soundly for all time, all states, all people, and especially all peoples’ religious beliefs—now—and in the future.
Speaking of religion, Americans love to create new religions. We need look no further than the union between evangelical Christians, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals and Christian Reconstructionists in the new and dynamic religion of political Dominionism. (In other words, theocracy.) Who would have thought it?
Unfortunately the “Marriage Boomerang Amendment” as I like to call it, lends itself to twisted interpretations by future judges. For instance, did you notice that the amendment fails to define marriage as consensual? This is no oversight. And the consensual part of marriage is a very big deal.
Keep in mind dominionists drafted the Marriage Boomerang Amendment (MBA) and only dominionists will vote for it. That’s enough to scare anyone! It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian—these folks don’t believe you’re a true Christian unless you believe in their right to rule over you!
Even if Americans trust all religious-political- power-driven-nuts-in-office, can anyone guarantee that a future generation of power-driven-nuts-in-office and in the judiciary won’t decide that the U.S. government can and ought to allow arranged marriages based on the amendment as written? It would, after all, be a very easy thing to insert the word “consensual” next to the word “union,” but alas the extreme-right-drafters left the word out. Heh. Heh. Heh.
Secondly, although the amendment defines “marriage” by default, as the forced or consensual union of a man and woman—it fails to limit the number of times a man can unite in marriage serially. That is, the MBA is so vague that it allows one man to marry one woman, then, marry another woman, then marry another woman, ad infinitum—without the necessity of divorcing anyone between marriages. Surely, true Christians would want to limit a marriage until the death of a partner or at least require the parties to divorce.
Thirdly, the MBA does not define when a person becomes a man or a woman—at what age does it occur? Without defining this all important stage of life, many young people may find that the courts or the states have determined that marriage can only be entered into at the age of twenty-one or thirty-five or whenever. So young Romeos and Juliets need not apply—because they may be prohibited from marrying until the wise men of the future determine they have achieved manhood or womanhood.
Fourthly, the MBA allows incestuous marriages: marriages between a father and his daughter; a mother with her son; a brother with his sister; an uncle with his niece. The only requirement to marriage in the amendment is that the partners achieve manhood and womanhood. As Edith Earle Fonder put it, “What a boon this amendment must be to a lot of southerners!”
In other words, the amendment defines all marriages so broadly that even adulterous, bigamous marriages are allowable marriages under its words! Keep in mind, the Constitution trumps all laws to the contrary! How ever you may want to categorize this amendment—it is decidedly not moral! What on earth are Congress and the President foisting on America if not a complete revision of our marriage laws!
No one—and I mean no one in their right mind should vote for this amendment—it will boomerang on all Americans and all future marriages in this country and that’s no laughing matter!
Fifthly, and what’s worse, I haven’t even gotten to the worst portion of the amendment yet. It’s the part that confers official recognition and financial benefits on certain approved married couples but denies those benefits to “unmarried” couples who are not true men and women. I’ll get back to this in a minute. Part one ostensibly creates the law on who can get married, and we’ve seen how poorly the proponents have defined it. But part two denies marriage to every one else except those who are true men and women. That is, true men and women are those folks who will submit to either a forced (or arranged) marriage (both of which are allowed under the amendment) or to a consensual union between a man and a woman. But part two actually prohibits the enforcement of the 14th Amendment (the equal protection of the law) so that the amendment grants some folks rights and benefits but excludes and out right denies all the fine financial benefits granted to legally acceptable marriages from other folks.
So, the amendment creates two classes of citizens! That’s nuts! Just think about it.
What does it all mean? Can you imagine future dominionists honoring your marriage if you are an atheist? If you are a humanist? If you don’t believe in the religion of Dominionism? Wait a minute, they can’t do that can they? Well—all they have to do—should the Marriage Boomerang Amendment pass is to define a whole class of people as sub-human. “Oh, honey, they’d never do that!” you say? What did they call Jews in Germany? What do a lot of folks in America today, call you? You don’t go to church? What does the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye say will happen to you? How graphic can they get? There’s a video game coming out that allows kids to zap you dead if you’re not a “Christian”! These are the folks who want to change the marriage laws in America and if you think they’ve got you and your church and your friend’s best interests at heart, you’ve got to be hopelessly naïve or just plain dumb.
Look! This amendment allows a city, state or federal government to decree which couples are made up of true men and women and what couples are not. Could it be that potentially, the MBA is the first step in authorizing the annulment of all marriages not made and authorized by the glorious one church of Jesus Christ of the U.S. of A? Then could it be the next step would be to cut off all marriage benefits and financial gains to everyone but members of the “ruling class,” (for lack of a better word) who, as we all know, were predestined from the beginning of time to impose their regency upon all the rest of us?
The Five Talking Points On Why Everyone Must Help Defeat this Amendment:
- (1) The amendment fails to define marriage as a “consensual” union. Thus the amendment allows arranged marriages and the buying and selling of women into marriages without their consent.
- (2) The amendment fails to limit the number of times a man (or woman) can unite in marriage serially without divorcing. In other words, it allows bigamy, polygamy and adultery.
- (3) The amendment does not define when a person becomes a man or woman, either by age or by physical attributes. This leaves the issue of deciding whether a male and female have attained “manhood” or “womanhood” open to the discretion of local churches, city, county or state officials without a national standard. The failure to establish a national standard means that marriage under this amendment will be denied to all those citizens deemed not to have reached adulthood (whether or not they are male and female applicants), thereby creating a new class of people denied marriage.)
- (4) The amendment allows incestuous marriages without limitation.
- (5) The amendment creates two classes of American citizens: those who are allowed to marry and those who are denied the right to marry. Also the amendment divides citizens into those who are entitled to the “legal incidents” of marriage (or the financial and other benefits conferred upon married couples) and those citizens who are denied the legal incidents of marriage.
That’s all folks!
Notes:
1. The amendment was written by the Alliance for Marriage, an organization founded by Matt Daniels, with the assistance of Judge Robert Bork and other conservatives. It was originally proposed by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave in 2002 and consisted of two clauses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment http://www.allianceformarriage.org/site/PageServer and see also: http://www.allianceformarriage.org/site/PageServer?pagename=prc_President
Effects From the Wikipedia:
2002
Version
The first sentence of the 2002 version would have provided an
official definition of legal marriage in the United States. The
second sentence went further by restricting how the courts are
allowed to interpret federal and state anti-discrimination laws and constitutional
amendments with regard to equal protection of non-married
couples, regardless of sexual orientation. State laws
would include local city and county ordinances, codes and regulations.
The legal consensus is that 2002 version would have barred state courts from requiring local governments to allow same-sex partners marriage or domestic partnership, or civil union status ("the legal incidents thereof"). This might have prohibited any court from ordering that homosexual couples be granted any of a long list of equal civil rights including joint parenting, adoption, custody, and child visitation rights, joint insurance policies, veteran’s benefits, and domestic violence relief such as restraining and protection orders.
It is unclear what effect the original version of the FMA would have had on the enforceability of state or local domestic partner or civil union laws. Many legal experts concluded that the second sentence of the original amendment would effectively prohibit states and local governments from passing laws granting civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other laws granting legal incidents of marriage by making such laws unenforceable in courts. Some supporters of the original wording disagreed.
2004 Version
The 2004 amendment would prohibit courts from interpreting any
state or federal constitution to require same-sex marriage.
The first sentence of the FMA would prevent any state from allowing same-sex marriage, even if the voters of that state amended the state's constitution to require recognition of same-sex marriages. Ratification of the amendment would cause the dissolution of existing same-sex marriages currently recognized in Massachusetts.
The 2004 version replaces the phrase "unmarried couples or groups" with "any union other than the union of a man and a woman." As a result, the FMA would not overturn state laws that grant "legal incidents" of marriage to unmarried heterosexual couples, such as those in common law marriages.
Because the second sentence no longer refers to "state or federal law," the Amendment would likely allow state or federal legislators or voters to enact legislation granting some of the "legal incidents" of marriage to same-sex couples. However, legal scholars question whether civil unions would be permitted under this revised language, which gives the Supreme Court power to overturn any marriage-like arrangement made between same-sex couples.
Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.
Send a letter to the editor about this article
Pending Dominionist Bills in Congress
The Federal Marriage Amendment:
Why Conservatives and Liberals
Alike Should Be Very Glad It Failed
by Bob Barr as published
by FindLaw.com
Friday, July 16, 2004 at 10:00 AM
On Wednesday, July 14, the Federal
Marriage
Amendment (FMA) failed in the Senate. That's a
good thing - because it was entirely unnecessary,
especially given the existence of the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), which
I authored.
U.
S. Senator Wayne Allard Re-Introduces
Federal Marriage Amendment Bill
An analysis of why the revised version still denies
the legal incidents of marriage to gays
By Katherine Yurica
The Yurica Report learned that U.S. Senator
Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) re-introduced his Federal
Marriage Amendment (FMA) in the Senate on March
22, 2004. "I have made some technical changes to
fine-tune the language of the FMA," Senator Allard
said. "The new language makes the intent of the
legislation even clearer: to protect marriage in this
country as the union
between a man and a woman...
For Whom the Bell Tolls
Dominionists New Version
of
Marriage Amendment Fails Again
By Katherine Yurica
The Federal Marriage Amendment
Bill was
amended on March 22, 2004. The text of the
revised version is just as murky as the original.
Read about the problems that still exist. The
Yurica Report's analysis is here.
If you have not read For
Whom the Bell Tolls,
by Katherine Yurica read the complete revised
version now.
Backers Revise Amendment
on Marriage
By CARL HULSE
March 23, 2004
WASHINGTON, The Congressional authors
of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban
gay marriage introduced a slightly reworded
version on Monday, saying the changes were
intended to make it clear that they do not seek
to bar same-sex civil unions
allowed by state law.
HR 3313: The Marriage Protection Act Bill Passed by the House of Representatives: Trying to Make Sense of the Nonsensical By Vickram David Amar One of America's leading constitutional experts analyzes the bill passed - almost entirely along party lines -- by the House of Representatives on July 22. The bill is known as the "Marriage Protection Act (MPA)." Congressional Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot again. Vic Amar writes, "The MPA is intended to bar federal courts from forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in another state. But as drafted, it does nothing of the sort. Indeed, if enacted it might even lead to more interstate recognition of same-sex marriages."
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2006 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.