# marriage in the constitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427 "2001-07-13T22:53:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![heyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@heyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heyjoe)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/1 "2001-07-13T22:53:47Z")
[http://www.journalstar.com/nation?story\_id=5251&past=](http://www.journalstar.com/nation?story_id=5251&past=) > [@](#): > > A racially and religiously diverse coalition proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution Thursday that would explicitly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman Gah! Would an ammendment like this ever pass? I know it would here in Nebraska (I’m still mad 416 (see article) was passed). What about the rest of the country? Also, what would be a likely punishment for going against this rule? Would a marriage simply not be recognized or would it go further? Go at it legal types! Also, i haven’t heard much about challenges to bans on same sex marriages…anybody know what’s going on? Chris P.S. (sorry if this has already been posted, but a search for marriage ammendment and alliance for marriage brought me nill) ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/2 "2001-07-13T23:35:26Z")
FWIW, here’s their website. [http://www.allianceformarriage.org/](http://www.allianceformarriage.org/) They’re not making any bones about their agenda, either. > [@](#): > > Dedicated to promoting marriage and reducing the epidemic of fatherless families in America. They’re using a quote from Sen. Patrick Moynihan, his “the principal object of American government at every level should be to see that children are born into intact families…and that they remain so.” as a flagship quote. Here’s their board of “advisors”. [http://www.allianceformarriage.org/board/board.htm](http://www.allianceformarriage.org/board/board.htm) Here’s their Federal Marriage Amendment page. > **[MULTICULTURAL COALITION REINTRODUCES FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN CONGRESS -...](http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reintroducing-federal-marriage-amendment-in-congress/)** > > Strong Bi-Partisan Sponsorship Reflects The Fact that the Future of Marriage In America Is More Important Than Partisan Politics WASHINGTON, DC – The Alliance for Marriage (AFM) has announced the reintroduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment to... > [@](#): > > …the text of the Federal Marriage Amendment reads: > > "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." ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/3 "2001-07-13T23:44:00Z")
Whoops, hit Submit instead of Preview. Well, right off the bat, I can see problems with how you are going to define “man” and “woman”. Genetically male or female? What about transsexuals, transgenders, etc.? I don’t think there’s much chance of this actually making it into the Constitution, for just that reason. This is kind of the opposite side of the coin to the Equal Rights Amendment, in that it’s based on gender discrimination. The ERA is “against” it, this Marriage Amendment is “for” it. And look how well they’re doing at getting the ERA into the Constitution. > **[Equal Rights Amendment](https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/)** > > The Equal Rights Amendment is a constitutional amendment that will guarantee legal gender equality for women and men. This website is dedicated to educating and inspiring citizens to ratify the ERA, which was written by equal rights activist Alice... ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2001, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/4 "2001-07-13T23:52:23Z")
Well, I dunno, DDG, I’d say they _are_ making bones about their argument (or however that would be put). What does banning gay marriage have to do with “reducing the epidemic of fatherless families in America”? If they really wanted to do that, they’d have to go after a.) divorce and b.) heterosexual fornication. But they probably wouldn’t get a whole lot of political support for those things, now would they? By the way, there’s also a [Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=77898) opened up on this. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/5 "2001-07-14T00:10:18Z")
Gaud, I am getting sick of seeing these idiots make a mockery of the Constitution. It seems like these days anybody with a half-baked idea that they know won’t stand up in court tries to get it into Constitutional Amendment. Can you imagine what our Constitution would actually look like if even half of these moronic ideas made it? The Constitution is supposed to set up the system of government and protect our rights – not worry about what the definition of “marriage” is. ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/6 "2001-07-14T00:27:28Z")
> [@](#): > > What does banning gay marriage have to do with “reducing the epidemic of fatherless families in America”? Nothing. These people are just trying to con people into supporting them by inventing a goal that anyone can appreciate. Of course, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see right through crap like this. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/7 "2001-07-14T00:30:59Z")
Be that as it may, there are a lot of non-rocket-scientists in this country… ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/8 "2001-07-14T00:36:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by heyjoe \* > \*\* > > Gah! Would an ammendment like this ever pass? > \*\* I don’t know, but a good starting point for finding out would be to look at the margins by which the house and senate passed the DOMA, and at how many states have passed their own versions via referendum, like Nebraska. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by heyjoe \* > \*\* > Also, what would be a likely punishment for going against this rule? Would a marriage simply not be recognized or would it go further? \*\* I imagine it simply wouldn’t be recognized. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/9 "2001-07-14T01:43:07Z")
Even if they got this amendment passed there is an easy way around this - just call the ‘union’ something else perhaps a ‘twryk’. Then just give twryk couples (quartets?) members the same advantages as married couples. Not that I support it but I see a this a a way around it. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/10 "2001-07-14T07:19:19Z")
Hence the great state of Vermont. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![jaimest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/48db29/32.png) [@jaimest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jaimest)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/11 "2001-07-14T07:27:58Z")
So folks like Gary Condit, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Hillary Clinton, in their infinite wisdom; will help us define what constitutes a proper marriage? I’d pass on that. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/12 "2001-07-14T12:59:06Z")
If they couldn’t pass an anti-flag burning amendment, then I think we are safe on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/13 "2001-07-14T14:20:37Z")
So, do these folk consider a non-christian marriage to be a marriage ? It seems that they’re being mighty choosy about which marital “abominations” should be outlawed. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/14 "2001-07-14T19:26:11Z")
Freedom wrote: > [@](#): > > If they couldn’t pass an anti-flag burning amendment, then I think we are safe on this one. Then again, there **has** been at least one twisted Amendment (the 18th) that made its way into the U.S. Constitution at some point. So I wouldn’t put it past 'em. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/15 "2001-07-15T01:59:47Z")
jaimest writes: \> So folks like Gary Condit, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and \> Hillary Clinton, in their infinite wisdom; will help us \> define what constitutes a proper marriage? Let’s be accurate here. None of those people are on the board of advisors of this group, and perhaps none of them would even be willing to support this bill. Certainly those four people that you name have wildly different politics. What was your point here - that you don’t like these people and you don’t want them deciding what a proper marriage is? O.K., fine, but these people haven’t said they want to do any such thing. The people listed as being on the board of advisors are all, at best, rather minor characters. This proposed amendment doesn’t have a snowflake’s chance in hell of passing. ---
**Author:** ![jaimest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/48db29/32.png) [@jaimest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jaimest)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/16 "2001-07-15T03:16:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wendell Wagner \* > \*\*jaimest writes: > > \> So folks like Gary Condit, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and > \> Hillary Clinton, in their infinite wisdom; will help us > \> define what constitutes a proper marriage? > > Let’s be accurate here. None of those people are on the board of advisors of this group, and perhaps none of them would even be willing to support this bill. Certainly those four people that you name have wildly different politics. What was your point here - that you don’t like these people and you don’t want them deciding what a proper marriage is? O.K., fine, but these people haven’t said they want to do any such thing. The people listed as being on the board of advisors are all, at best, rather minor characters. This proposed amendment doesn’t have a snowflake’s chance in hell of passing. > \*\* I was being a bit smart-assed, but my point is this. The people I mentioned are all legislators. They would vote on any constitutional amendment that is proposed. And I am not so sure that the support for such a “defense of marriage” amendment is as far on the fringe or as obscure as you suggest. It may very well become a _cause celebre_ within the right. So I stand by what I said. Do politicians have any right to judge how we live, lest they be judged themselves? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/17 "2001-07-15T03:26:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > \*\*Gaud, I am getting sick of seeing these idiots make a mockery of the Constitution. It seems like these days anybody with a half-baked idea that they know won’t stand up in court tries to get it into Constitutional Amendment. Can you imagine what our Constitution would actually look like if even half of these moronic ideas made it? > \*\* Yes, a ridiculous number of amendments has been proposed in recent years. We’re up to about ten per congressionnal term now. In the 1800’s, we had about that many per generation. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/18 "2001-07-15T04:36:12Z")
> [@](#): > > And I am not so sure that the support for such a “defense of marriage” amendment is as far on the fringe or as obscure as you suggest. The [“Defense of Marriage Act”](http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/pl104-19.asp) (DOMA) passed the [House of Representatives](http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/domavhse.asp) 342 to 67, with 2 “present” and 22 not voting; and passed the [Senate](http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/domavsen.asp) 85 to 14, with 1 not voting. In both houses, the act easily surpassed the two-thirds majority necessary to send a Constitutional Amendment to the states, which does not _necessarily_ mean an amendment would pass–Congressmen might conceivably search their consciences more thoroughly before going so far as to amend the Constitution, and at any rate it could now be argued that an actual C.A. is not needed, since they passed a law–but is certainly disheartening. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/19 "2001-07-15T06:13:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by k2dave \* > Even if they got this amendment passed there is an easy way around this - just call the ‘union’ something else perhaps a ‘twryk’. Then just give twryk couples (quartets?) members the same advantages as married couples. > > Not that I support it but I see a this a a way around it. The amendment does refer to everything **incident** to marriage, so I don’t think that would work. If this were to pass, it would make the idea of states rights completely dead ( **any** court case involving anything “incident” to marriage could be appealed to a federal court, even if it doesn’t involve a federal issue), so I think a lot of right-wingers would have a problem with it. There’s also the question of what “incident” means. Does this mean that allowing someone to will something to someone else will be illegal (that your property will go to your spouse is “incident” to marriage)? Hopefully, the SCOTUS would realize that acknowledging the existence of this amendment would make the rational decision of cases impossible, and so pretend that it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427/20 "2001-07-15T13:30:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Hopefully, the SCOTUS would realize that acknowledging the existence of this amendment would make the rational decision of cases impossible, and so pretend that it doesn’t exist. Well, as much as I think this Amendment sucks, I wouldn’t want the SC arbitrarily picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution they are going to enforce. (at least not anymore than they currently do) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-in-the-constitution/72427.md?page=2)