News Intelligence Analysis
Marriage On The Rocks
By Chuck Muth (01/10/2004)
The folks supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment want people to think it's just a measure to protect marriage. But if that's the case, why not a constitutional amendment banning divorce and adultery, as well? Any reasonable person would have to admit those two have been historically far more harmful to the institution of marriage than gay unions ever could be, right?
Or how about just defining marriage as being between one man and one woman ONE TIME (unless death do you part)? That way you wouldn't be banning divorce, only restricting and protecting marriage. Can I get an "amen"? Didn’t think so.
Anyway, the bottom line is I ain't buying the notion that the sole motivation behind FMA is to "protect marriage." That’s a pretty thin fig leaf.
Other FMA supporters say we MUST to have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage otherwise states which don't want gay marriages would have to recognize the gay marriages of other states under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
Leaving for a moment the fact that a number of legal scholars maintain that marriage would NOT be subject to this clause any more than one state's concealed carry laws transfer from one state to another, the fact is we already have a federal law - DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act of 1996) - which says states can't be forced to recognize the gay marriages of other states.
But, FMA'ers warn ominously, some federal judge might overturn DOMA.
Well, maybe. But shouldn't we wait until we KNOW, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said, we have such a problem before undertaking such a major revision to United States Constitution? I mean, don’t doctors wait until they KNOW you have a tumor before cracking open your skull for brain surgery?
Anyway, for the sake of argument let's say the motivation behind FMA is indeed fear that some federal judge might overturn DOMA. Then why not support “The Defense of Marriage Act” instead of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?
Introduced on October 16, 2003 by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) and eleven other Members of Congress, HR 3313 (http://thomas.loc.gov/) reads simply: "To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act."
Now, it seems to me that would take care of the prospect that some federal judge might overturn DOMA. And it certainly would protect states' rights. And it could be passed legislatively without amending the United States Constitution. So why aren't the FMA'ers backing Hostettler's bill?
Because protecting state's rights and protecting marriage are NOT what this movement is all about. In its current form, FMA is nothing but a punitive anti-gay measure, plain and simple. And realization of this fact is fueling growing opposition to FMA among conservatives, including Christians. But don’t take my word for it; read it in their own words at www.lawfullywedded.com.
In any event, what's the rush to pass the FMA this year?
I'll tell you. Because proponents know that every year more and more younger folks join the electorate who don't share the same anti-gay sentiments of their parents and grandparents. If FMA’ers can't pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment this year or next, they sure as heck won't be able to pass one in five or ten years.
But is it right for our generation to bind the hands of our kids and grandkids? Shouldn’t we let THEM decide? Isn’t that the American way? Founding Father Tom Paine thought so. You could look it up.
This page printed from: http://www.americandaily.com/article/1078
Biography: Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach.
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article