The "Defend Marriage From Government" Amendment

[x_y_no]

I've been kicking around this idea for a while, and a couple of years ago I proposed this amendment on a couple of other boards and got some positive reaction, so I thought I'd ask here.

The basic idea is that as I've talked about the issue with people I know who oppose recognizing gay marriage, the big hangup seems to be that word: "marriage." Most of them at least claim that they don't want to deprive gays of rights. But for me, this is a civil rights issue. I don't buy the "separate but equal" argument of having marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals (but don't worry, the rights will be just the same).

So my answer is to get government completely out of the marriage business. And to frame it properly, I name it for what it does: defend marriage from government intrusion.

----

The "Defend Marriage From Government" Amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Neither Congress nor any State shall make any law regarding marriage. No law regarding civil unions may discriminate on the basis of sex.

----

Comments?

(Yeah, I know ... lots of people are lying when they say they don't want to discriminate against gays, but at least this would expose that motive.)

[Bostonian]

1. I agree, but think it's a lost cause

The problem is that government has already put itself into the marriage business, by assigning a special legal status to married people. This gives you inheritance rights, survivor benefits, the right to visit someone in the hospital, all kinds of stuff.

The government has already written scores of laws here, over centuries. It's not going to back out of that.

***
I think gay marriage will happen someday, when enough people chill out. And it makes sense. People tend to pair up, that's natural, and some people happen to be gay.

BTW, a lot of the Right agrees with me.

[blm]

8. Except Bush pandered to the worst of the right throughout the campaign

didn't he? He had to shake them out of every fundie church he could with the gay marriage boogeyman because he knew his real policies were fascist and totalitarian and wouldn't get them to the polls.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

2. In what respect would such an amendment "defend" marriage?

Wouldn't such an amendment have the effect of eliminating marriage as a civil institution altogether? That's what "getting government out of the marriage business altogether" means, right?

[Bostonian]

4. The point is that marriages would all be private contracts n/t

[x_y_no]

5. Yes, that's the point

But it leaves open the opportunity for the State to do everything marriage laws do now through the passing of laws for "civil unions." The difference being that "civil unions" may not discriminate on the basis of sex.

So then, you would continue to get "married" in church if you wanted to get that official religious sanction. And your church could remain free to assert that "marriage is between one man and one woman." But everybody, straight or gay, would have equal protection under the law for their partnerships.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

6. I think you guys are just playing around with words.

Even in civil jurisdictions that recognize (i.e., given legal status to) same-sex marriages, no church is obligated, as a matter of its own religious policy, to perform, sanction, or recognize a relationship between two persons fo the same sex as constituting "marriage."

Conversely, in those civil jurisdictions that do not recognize same-sex marriage, there's nothing to prohibit a church from performing, sanctioning, and/or recognizing a same-sex relationship as constitute a "marriage" within the eyes of that church.

As always, the real issue is whether same-sex unions (regardless of whether they are "blessed" by some church or not) are to have the same status, at law, as do opposite-sex unions. Except, perhaps, as a matter of political tactics, changing the terminology one employs doesn't change that underlying concept. I can enter into a private contract with another person, and call it "marriage" if I wish, but the contract has status only with respect to the person into which I've entered the contractual relationship.

[x_y_no]

7. The point is ...

Time after time, I've discussed this issue with people and I've argued that recognizing gay marriage is a civil rights issue - and that the state has every bit as much of an interest in seeing stable, mutually supporting family units regardless of whether the "married" couple consists of two men, two women or one of each.

But I keep bumping up against a religious argument that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman - because God made it so. So I'm looking for a way to separate that issue of religious and/or moral tradition (which seems to be a big stumbling block) and the legitimate state interest in promoting mutually supportive family units through such things as inheritance laws, next-of-kin status in medical matters, whatever.

EDIT: I should make it clear that I do not agree that "God made it so" - I believe God celebrates love regardless of whether you're straight or gay.

[peacebird]

3. I like it.

The government has no business involving itself in marriage. The legal aspects should be addressed but on the legal "civil union" level, which could be for any civil union regardless of genders - for taxation, and other legal issues.

Then the "sanctity" of marriage could be dealt with in the churches - with each church deciding to "consecrate" a union or not.

Of course the problem with this rational approach is that it doesn't allow the bigots control over other people, people they fear for being "different" than they are and therefore people they have decided God must need help in "saving". Seems they must secretly fell that their "all powerful" God is pretty puny and weak since He needs so much help from them....