The US Seeks To Protect Marriage

In May, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) in the House of Representatives. It has not yet been introduced in the Senate. The FMA would amend the U.S. Constitution to say: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The FMA protects marriage from redefinition by state legislatures and the courts. It would also prevent the courts - where almost every assault on marriage has taken place - from giving away the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples or requiring their state legislatures to do so (as happened in Vermont.) State legislatures would retain their power - as the Constitution prescribes - to make decisions on matters of family law including the legal status of non-marital relationships and benefits. The FMA would take the precious institution of marriage out of the hands of judges, many of them unelected, and return it to the American people.

Why is the FMA necessary? The evidence is conclusive - marriage is under attack. To the dismay of citizens all over the country, current law is not expected to withstand the multiple challenges to marriage working their way through the courts now, and certainly not future challenges. Judicial activists are expected to soon strike down state marriage laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In 1996, Congress exempted states from this law for the purposes of marriage, but legal scholars are not certain the law will survive a challenge in court. A legal challenge is certain if even a single state enacts same-sex marriage. And that is becoming increasingly likely, as courts in states such as Massachusetts and New Jersey are predicted to soon create (by judicial decree) gay "marriage" in their states.

Of immense importance to these circumstances is the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution. The clause provides that states must recognize the laws and judicial acts of every other state in the Union. If the federal Defense of Marriage Act is declared unconstitutional, then even if a state - say, Indiana - upholds traditional marriage, the law or ruling of another state - say, Massachusetts - could require Indiana to recognize Massachusetts gay "marriages" in Indiana. There is no way to confine gay "marriage" once a state court decrees its legality.

Moreover, there is no legislation that can prevent the steamroller of attacks against marriage at this time, or the constitutional arguments that proponents of homosexual marriage claim. The only way to protect marriage now is by invoking the ultimate democratic measure - a federal constitutional amendment.

Family Update, November-December 2003, p. 2