The Federal Marriage Amendment

[tsluver247]

The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic by Dale Carpenter

Executive Summary

Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states, without being cut off by a single national policy imposed from Washington and enshrined in the Constitution.

A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level.

There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.

More information on Cato Institute's website

[Mylon]

I think we should take this matter to the public polls and vote on in nationwide. Everyone that votes to ban marriage would be stripped of their voting rights and barred from voting until at least after the next presidental election on grounds of acting in an entirely unethical, immoral, and downright selfish matter that has nothing to do with government as it is meant to serve the people. That is, voting for it would be a flagrant abuse of power meant to harm one's fellow citizens.

[BeardedOne]

OK, help me understand this...

People are dieing from starvation, homeless, lacking in education, health issues...

The list is endless.

And all these dickheads (The vast majority of which are fucking lawyers) can think about is how to lower the divorce rate?

Fuck them! What a bunch of morons.

Marriage is an institution for people who believe in living in institutions. Far be it from the Congress/Senate/Legislature to deny same-sex couples from voluntarily committing themsleves to an institution.

[Robb]

Why doesn't anyone ask this...

Why do you need permission from the government to marry in the first place whether it be man and women, man and man, woman and woman? Your choice to marry is a right endowed by our creator. If it is a right, why do people treat it like a privilege, asking the government for permission.

A marriage license implies privilege, not right. Anytime you need permission it is no longer a right. So what is the point of putting it in the bill or rights?

[Robb]

I would also like to point out that the founding fathers never had marriage licenses. Marriage license were born after the civil war to allow intermarriage between blacks and white. This was required because blacks did not have rights therefore they needed a license (permission). It was a burden not an honor.

[Trogdor]

Why doesn't anyone ask this...

Why do you need permission from the government to marry in the first place whether it be man and women, man and man, woman and woman? Your choice to marry is a right endowed by our creator. If it is a right, why do people treat it like a privilege, asking the government for permission.

A marriage license implies privilege, not right. Anytime you need permission it is no longer a right. So what is the point of putting it in the bill or rights?

Cause freedom in america died a long time ago, plus the bush adminsitration is trying to keep as many followers as possible by trying to cover their asses with the dreadful condition the country is in.

[Robb]

Why doesn't anyone ask this...

Why do you need permission from the government to marry in the first place whether it be man and women, man and man, woman and woman? Your choice to marry is a right endowed by our creator. If it is a right, why do people treat it like a privilege, asking the government for permission.

A marriage license implies privilege, not right. Anytime you need permission it is no longer a right. So what is the point of putting it in the bill or rights?

Cause freedom in america died a long time ago, plus the bush adminsitration is trying to keep as many followers as possible by trying to cover their asses with the dreadful condition the country is in.

Still though, you see my point right? People are pleading to get permission for something they don't need permission for in the first place. It's retarded. I completely see your point about trying to keep as many followers as possible, it's sad. He should talk about illegalizing abortion again, that should make some people cheer. Of course he doesn't need to make it illegal. He just needs to talk about it and that should be enough to keep some retards satisfied. One excutive order and bam, it's illegal.

Furthermore, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, I wish people would stop calling it a democracy.

[BeardedOne]

It would be so much easier to just ban marriage in its entirety. But it's not likely that Congress would ever do anything that might make the divorce lawyers go out and get real jobs.

[chefmike]

Why doesn't anyone ask this...

Why do you need permission from the government to marry in the first place whether it be man and women, man and man, woman and woman? Your choice to marry is a right endowed by our creator. If it is a right, why do people treat it like a privilege, asking the government for permission.

A marriage license implies privilege, not right. Anytime you need permission it is no longer a right. So what is the point of putting it in the bill or rights?

That kind of thinking may well be accepted in certain militia compounds and religious sects, but we are also talking about equal rights under the law in regards to taxes, company health plans, etc...

And who is this (our?)creator you speak of, pilgram? Not all of us subscribe to your superstitions...

[LoadedRevolver66]

Why do you need permission from the government to marry in the first place whether it be man and women, man and man, woman and woman? Your choice to marry is a right endowed by our creator. If it is a right, why do people treat it like a privilege, asking the government for permission.

Because the government, not the creator, gives out tax breaks to married couples and asking permission to marry is the only way to get said tax breaks.

Either that or have an anarchist revolt. That always works.