New Federal Marriage Amendment

[CriticalThought]

I would like to make a proposition for consideration.

I think now would be an excellent time for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

However, unlike the marriage amendment historically proposed by social conservatives that would define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, mine would be considerably different.

My marriage amendment would do the following...

1. Establish marriage as a Constitutional right.
2. Be inclusive of same sex couples.
3. Establish a protection for religious persons and institutions from being forced to perform same sex marriages.
4. Define marriage so that it cannot be extended to relatives, children, animals, multiple partners, etc.

Would you support such an amendment?

I think this is an excellent compromise for both sides of the debate because it would do the following...

1. Distinguish civil marriage and religious marriage as separate entities and codify in the Constitution that it is alright to oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds.
2. Cease the "decay" of marriage by cutting off the slippery slope.
3. Advance the interests of marriage by elevating it to the same level as freedom of speech and religion within the supreme law of the land.

Given that conservatives no longer seem to argue against same sex marriage, but rather argue for protections of their religious liberty to oppose same sex marriage, this amendment should satisfy that argument and as the states adopt it, social conservatives should have no reason to fear being called "bigots" or any such derogatory term simply for dissenting same sex marriage on religious grounds.

Furthermore, the most commonly reported consequence of same sex marriage is not harm that it would cause, but rather the possibility that it would create a way for things like incestuous marriages or polygamy to become acceptable. This amendment would abate those concerns by defining marriage clearly as a monogamous union between unrelated, consenting adults.

At this point in time, even devout conservatives are arguing that same sex marriage is "inevitable" and if that is the case, then this is an excellent point in history to strike while the iron is hot and seek a marriage amendment that will begin a serious discussion on the importance of marriage to our society. In time I imagine that most states that have same sex marriage would jump at the chance to ratify a Federal Constitutional Amendment that recognizes it and most states that ban same sex marriage could be persuaded yield their bans in exchange for a federally protected definition of marriage and protection for religious liberties to oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality. If conservatives are genuinely interested in advancing the interest of marriage rather than simply opposing same sex marriage, then I think such an amendment is the right path to take.

 

[Perotista]

I would like to make a proposition for consideration.

I think now would be an excellent time for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

However, unlike the marriage amendment historically proposed by social conservatives that would define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, mine would be considerably different.

My marriage amendment would do the following...

1. Establish marriage as a Constitutional right.
2. Be inclusive of same sex couples.
3. Establish a protection for religious persons and institutions from being forced to perform same sex marriages.
4. Define marriage so that it cannot be extended to relatives, children, animals, multiple partners, etc.

Would you support such an amendment?

I think this is an excellent compromise for both sides of the debate because it would do the following...

1. Distinguish civil marriage and religious marriage as separate entities and codify in the Constitution that it is alright to oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds.
2. Cease the "decay" of marriage by cutting off the slippery slope.
3. Advance the interests of marriage by elevating it to the same level as freedom of speech and religion within the supreme law of the land.

Given that conservatives no longer seem to argue against same sex marriage, but rather argue for protections of their religious liberty to oppose same sex marriage, this amendment should satisfy that argument and as the states adopt it, social conservatives should have no reason to fear being called "bigots" or any such derogatory term simply for dissenting same sex marriage on religious grounds.

Furthermore, the most commonly reported consequence of same sex marriage is not harm that it would cause, but rather the possibility that it would create a way for things like incestuous marriages or polygamy to become acceptable. This amendment would abate those concerns by defining marriage clearly as a monogamous union between unrelated, consenting adults.

At this point in time, even devout conservatives are arguing that same sex marriage is "inevitable" and if that is the case, then this is an excellent point in history to strike while the iron is hot and seek a marriage amendment that will begin a serious discussion on the importance of marriage to our society. In time I imagine that most states that have same sex marriage would jump at the chance to ratify a Federal Constitutional Amendment that recognizes it and most states that ban same sex marriage could be persuaded yield their bans in exchange for a federally protected definition of marriage and protection for religious liberties to oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality. If conservatives are genuinely interested in advancing the interest of marriage rather than simply opposing same sex marriage, then I think such an amendment is the right path to take.

I would support your first 4 bullets. But I think it is way too early for a constitutional amendment. I would continue to let the states decide which way they will go on this. If this 56% or 58% of Americans approve of gay marriage it is just a matter of time. Besides, when 20 or a few more states approve of gay marriages, congress can use their power under Article IV, section 1 to make all states recognize marriages from every state.

 

[Fisher]

I'd pass an amendment saying marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of the states and the other states and fed had to recognize any validly performed and be done with it.

 

[chromium]

Of course it's a reasonable compromise, but I don't think fundies will be willing to sign off on anything that allows for SSM, even if it diffused every argument they had about 'slippery slope', because the "we're better than you" to them trumps all. It doesn't seem to be about mere strategy or leverage to some of the genuine crazies out there. Fundies = at least half of the repub party, so I don't see this passing, as well some dems in red states would possibly vote against it.

 

[CriticalThought]

I would support your first 4 bullets. But I think it is way too early for a constitutional amendment. I would continue to let the states decide which way they will go on this. If this 56% or 58% of Americans approve of gay marriage it is just a matter of time. Besides, when 20 or a few more states approve of gay marriages, congress can use their power under Article IV, section 1 to make all states recognize marriages from every state.

That is true, but the point really isn't to force acceptance of same sex marriage, but to use the current debate of same sex marriage to advance the interests of marriage for the whole country. I feel this debate will become more contentious as it goes on, and even though I think there is some inevitability to same sex marriage, I believe it is far more important that marriage itself be strengthened for the sake of the future stability of our society. If the debate becomes too contentious then this opportunity could be lost.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'd pass an amendment saying marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of the states and the other states and fed had to recognize any validly performed and be done with it.

That would be horrific. 50 different laws regarding marriage would mean absolutely no consistency and people could avoid responsibilities inherent in their marriage simply by running across state lines.

 

[CriticalThought]

Of course it's a reasonable compromise, but I don't think fundies will be willing to sign off on anything that allows for SSM, even if it diffused every argument they had about 'slippery slope', because the "we're better than you" to them trumps all. It doesn't seem to be about mere strategy or leverage to some of the genuine crazies out there. Fundies = at least half of the repub party, so I don't see this passing, as well some dems in red states would possibly vote against it.

You overestimate the social conservative base. It is actually pretty small. It is just really, really loud. With the current politics of division and the move to ideological purity those individuals are trying to take the party, it is unlikely they will retain much control of the GOP for much longer.

 

[Fisher]

That would be horrific. 50 different laws regarding marriage would mean absolutely no consistency and people could avoid responsibilities inherent in their marriage simply by running across state lines.

We have 50 laws now, well technically more; 40 states do not recognize common law marriages and about the same number don't recognize gay marriages/unions. It is hardly horrific. It basically delineates the full faith and credit clause and allows a gay married couple from Vermont to move to Georgia and still be married or get a divorce in Georgia without Georgia having to issue a license or perform the wedding.

 

[Perotista]

That is true, but the point really isn't to force acceptance of same sex marriage, but to use the current debate of same sex marriage to advance the interests of marriage for the whole country. I feel this debate will become more contentious as it goes on, and even though I think there is some inevitability to same sex marriage, I believe it is far more important that marriage itself be strengthened for the sake of the future stability of our society. If the debate becomes too contentious then this opportunity could be lost.

I think about just the opposite. I think letting gay marriage work its way through the states, even if it is one by one, sooner or later you will reach the tipping point. Letting the states decide which way they will go on this issue is probably the less contentious. Heck, the federal government stepped in on the abortion debate in 1973 and it is still going on. What would have happened if that issue would have been decided state by state. I don't think there would be the animosity about it today. But we will never know as it didn't happened. If the SCOTUS rules and doesn't punt in June, I sure hope it is with a 7-2 or 8-1 or even a 9-0 decisions. Another 5-4 decision which ever way it goes will cause another 40 year or more ruckus with each side trying to stack the court.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think about just the opposite. I think letting gay marriage work its way through the states, even if it is one by one, sooner or later you will reach the tipping point. Letting the states decide which way they will go on this issue is probably the less contentious. Heck, the federal government stepped in on the abortion debate in 1973 and it is still going on. What would have happened if that issue would have been decided state by state. I don't think there would be the animosity about it today. But we will never know as it didn't happened. If the SCOTUS rules and doesn't punt in June, I sure hope it is with a 7-2 or 8-1 or even a 9-0 decisions. Another 5-4 decision which ever way it goes will cause another 40 year or more ruckus with each side trying to stack the court.

It is a federal marriage amendment, not a supreme court decision. To ratify an amendment you have to go state by state.

 

[Perotista]

It is a federal marriage amendment, not a supreme court decision. To ratify an amendment you have to go state by state.

Yeah, I tend to get off on tangents every so often. At least once a night. Like I said, I see nothing wrong with it. But you would have to get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress to pass it and then have it ratified by 3/4th of the states. That hasn't been done since 1971.

 

[CriticalThought]

Yeah, I tend to get off on tangents every so often. At least once a night. Like I said, I see nothing wrong with it. But you would have to get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress to pass it and then have it ratified by 3/4th of the states. That hasn't been done since 1971.

As I said in my OP, I think it has a good chance since the pro SSM states would opt for nationwide SSM whereas the anti SSM states would opt for protections for the religion liberties to oppose SSM and homosexuality on religious grounds.

 

[chromium]

You overestimate the social conservative base. It is actually pretty small. It is just really, really loud. With the current politics of division and the move to ideological purity those individuals are trying to take the party, it is unlikely they will retain much control of the GOP for much longer.

Well I'm basing it in part off the DADT vote, keeping in mind that was very barely 2/3 majority, and was less of a contentious issue compared to SSM being put into the constitution. In the near future, this may change, but I just don't see it right now. It's also considering the political hacks that have made any amendment impossible for decades now.

 

[Perotista]

As I said in my OP, I think it has a good chance since the pro SSM states would opt for nationwide SSM whereas the anti SSM states would opt for protections for the religion liberties to oppose SSM and homosexuality on religious grounds.

If the SCOTUS punts on both rulings come June, they what you say may be the way to go. But I do not think it would ever get through congress. But your amendment would be better than having people go after each other throats like they did on abortion.

 

[CriticalThought]

Well I'm basing it in part off the DADT vote, keeping in mind that was very barely 2/3 majority, and was less of a contentious issue compared to SSM being put into the constitution. In the near future, this may change, but I just don't see it right now. It's also considering the political hacks that have made any amendment impossible for decades now.

Ah, but the beauty of my proposition isn't that it is a Pro SSM amendment, but rather that it is a Pro Marriage amendment. It seeks to advance the cause and interests of marriage for all of society by defining it in such a way as to protect religious liberties, to solidify a definition of marriage for the nation, and to elevate it to the same level of discussion as guns and free speech.

 

[Paschendale]

You'd need to define exactly what is included in that "etc". Also, not sure about the multiple partners bit. There are legit legal arguments over polygamy. Everything else is okay, though.

 

[chromium]

Ah, but the beauty of my proposition isn't that it is a Pro SSM amendment, but rather that it is a Pro Marriage amendment. It seeks to advance the cause and interests of marriage for all of society by defining it in such a way as to protect religious liberties, to solidify a definition of marriage for the nation, and to elevate it to the same level of discussion as guns and free speech.

I don't think the religious leaders really fear having to perform gay marriages, as that's never happened to my knowledge, but I see what you mean about defining marriage in general as a constitutional right. Well, it could work.

It's too bad though this wasn't the compromise sought in '03 or whenever instead of the attempt to full-stop ban gay marriage in perpetuity. It makes me less sympathetic now to right-wing sensibilities, but if it got them to stop bitching for once about things that have no effect on them, I could go for this.

 

[CriticalThought]

You'd need to define exactly what is included in that "etc". Also, not sure about the multiple partners bit. There are legit legal arguments over polygamy. Everything else is okay, though.

I don't think it would pass without prohibitions on multiple partners. While I am sure you can make legitimate legal arguments for polygamy, I have never really seen a decent case for how it advances the interests of marriage or would promote stability and economic security within society the same way that monogamous marriage does.

 

[CriticalThought]

I don't think the religious leaders really fear having to perform gay marriages, as that's never happened to my knowledge, but I see what you mean about defining marriage in general as a constitutional right. Well, it could work.

I was in the same boat as you in thinking that this was just a fake concern that conservatives brought up but after seeing a recent thread of the forum I am starting to think this is actually a genuine concern of theirs that acceptance of same sex marriage would lead to litigation or laws that forces religious institutions into a position to perform same sex marriages. Like you, I recognize that is extraordinarily unlikely, but if it is a concern of theirs, then I am certainly open to addressing it.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I would like to make a proposition for consideration.

I think now would be an excellent time for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

However, unlike the marriage amendment historically proposed by social conservatives that would define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, mine would be considerably different.

My marriage amendment would do the following...

1. Establish marriage as a Constitutional right.
2. Be inclusive of same sex couples.
3. Establish a protection for religious persons and institutions from being forced to perform same sex marriages.
4. Define marriage so that it cannot be extended to relatives, children, animals, multiple partners, etc.

Would you support such an amendment?

I think this is an excellent compromise for both sides of the debate because it would do the following...

1. Distinguish civil marriage and religious marriage as separate entities and codify in the Constitution that it is alright to oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds.
2. Cease the "decay" of marriage by cutting off the slippery slope.
3. Advance the interests of marriage by elevating it to the same level as freedom of speech and religion within the supreme law of the land.

No way in hell. Sorry.

I will not support simply moving the bigotry goal post towards polyamorous people instead of gays.

I also will not support giving MORE power to an institution whose sole purpose in the law is to legalize discrimination.

In my ideal world, the government gets the hell out of our relationships altogether (like it was prior to Jim Crow), and allows us to designate our legal rights as we please, and without extra fuss.

Until America is ready for that idea, I will accept making marriage more open and less bigoted as a compromise.

But I will not support further bigotry, or strengthen its ability to enforce it.

 

[CriticalThought]

No way in hell. Sorry.

I will not support simply moving the bigotry goal post towards polyamorous people instead of gays.

I also will not support giving MORE power to an institution whose sole purpose in the law is to legalize discrimination.

In my ideal world, the government gets the hell out of our relationships altogether (like it was prior to Jim Crow), and allows us to designate our legal rights as we please, and without extra fuss.

Until America is ready for that idea, I will accept making marriage more open and less bigoted as a compromise.

But I will not support further bigotry, or strengthen its ability to enforce it.

Oh I certainly would love it if government would get out of marriage entirely. That would be my first option. However, that is not going to happen. So I opt for the compromise I see most likely in the given political environment. Discriminatory toward the "polyamorous"? Perhaps. Marriage is inherently a discriminatory institution toward single people. That is just its nature and it is seen as acceptable as long as it promotes societal stability and economic stability. That is my primary interest in promoting such an amendment. Show me that polyamorous relationships advance the interests of marriage or the progress and security of society. As ideologically driven as I am to get the government out of my life, I cannot deny its fundamental purpose is to ensure a degree of predictability and security so that society can grow and flourish and the individual has their opportunity to seek happiness unimpeded.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Oh I certainly would love it if government would get out of marriage entirely. That would be my first option. However, that is not going to happen. So I opt for the compromise I see most likely in the given political environment. Discriminatory toward the "polyamorous"? Perhaps. Marriage is inherently a discriminatory institution toward single people. That is just its nature and it is seen as acceptable as long as it promotes societal stability and economic stability. That is my primary interest in promoting such an amendment. Show me that polyamorous relationships advance the interests of marriage or the progress and security of society. As ideologically driven as I am to get the government out of my life, I cannot deny its fundamental purpose is to ensure a degree of predictability and security so that society can grow and flourish and the individual has their opportunity to seek happiness unimpeded.

Yes, and that is why it doesn't deserve to be exonerated to a higher status.

If it is natural, acceptable, and apparently even encouraged for institutions to be bigoted, then why are you pushing for gay marriage equality? Isn't it natural for you to be discriminated against?

There are no "interests" of marriage. Everyone's marriage is unique. Some people get married for kicks, some for love, some for business, and some for babies. And hey, guess what? A person can do any of those things WITHOUT getting married. It's not like we just have some piece of our brain missing which is filled in with a piece of paper.

People who want to be in stable relationships will continue doing so with or without the piece of paper, just like they did in this country for more than 100 years before we instituted marriage in order to discriminate against black people.

 

[Henrin]

Oh I certainly would love it if government would get out of marriage entirely. That would be my first option. However, that is not going to happen. So I opt for the compromise I see most likely in the given political environment.

That is the worst kind of logic. You are against government being involved in marriage and after realizing that isn't going to happen you decide to propose a compromise that would all but make that impossible to ever happen. Facepalm

 

[chromium]

That is the worst kind of logic. You are against government being involved in marriage and after realizing that isn't going to happen you decide to propose a compromise that would all but make that impossible to ever happen. Facepalm

It's because he realizes that government involvement in marriage is not going to end either way. It's so unlikely to happen in our lifetime that it's not even worth considering.

 

[iguanaman]

I would like to make a proposition for consideration.

I think now would be an excellent time for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

However, unlike the marriage amendment historically proposed by social conservatives that would define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, mine would be considerably different.

My marriage amendment would do the following...

1. Establish marriage as a Constitutional right.
2. Be inclusive of same sex couples.
3. Establish a protection for religious persons and institutions from being forced to perform same sex marriages.
4. Define marriage so that it cannot be extended to relatives, children, animals, multiple partners, etc.

Would you support such an amendment?

I think this is an excellent compromise for both sides of the debate because it would do the following...

1. Distinguish civil marriage and religious marriage as separate entities and codify in the Constitution that it is alright to oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds.
2. Cease the "decay" of marriage by cutting off the slippery slope.
3. Advance the interests of marriage by elevating it to the same level as freedom of speech and religion within the supreme law of the land.

Given that conservatives no longer seem to argue against same sex marriage, but rather argue for protections of their religious liberty to oppose same sex marriage, this amendment should satisfy that argument and as the states adopt it, social conservatives should have no reason to fear being called "bigots" or any such derogatory term simply for dissenting same sex marriage on religious grounds.

Furthermore, the most commonly reported consequence of same sex marriage is not harm that it would cause, but rather the possibility that it would create a way for things like incestuous marriages or polygamy to become acceptable. This amendment would abate those concerns by defining marriage clearly as a monogamous union between unrelated, consenting adults.

At this point in time, even devout conservatives are arguing that same sex marriage is "inevitable" and if that is the case, then this is an excellent point in history to strike while the iron is hot and seek a marriage amendment that will begin a serious discussion on the importance of marriage to our society. In time I imagine that most states that have same sex marriage would jump at the chance to ratify a Federal Constitutional Amendment that recognizes it and most states that ban same sex marriage could be persuaded yield their bans in exchange for a federally protected definition of marriage and protection for religious liberties to oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality. If conservatives are genuinely interested in advancing the interest of marriage rather than simply opposing same sex marriage, then I think such an amendment is the right path to take.

We don't need an amendment to stop people from marrying their parrot. Give me a break.