You know this is going to come up eventually.
Should America pass a Marriage Definition Act?
“Marriage is limited exclusively to two consenting human adults.”
Discuss.
no
Why?
Polygamy is already illegal. We do we need another law saying the same thing?
So what happens to those who currently can marry at ages below eighteen with parental or judicial consent? Is it your goal to prevent that from happening?
Because same sex marriage used to be illegal too.
A legislative solution in search of a problem.
I would have assumed that something titled “A Marriage Definition Act” would be an act that defines the term “marriage”. The text that you entered would leave the term “marriage” undefined while limiting who could enter into it.
I don’t see the point. Can you maybe start out with a good argument for one?
So citizens having their 14th Amendment rights violated isn’t a problem to you?
Well, that’s my point. I don’t know YOUR point is, but if you want to prevent polygamy from becoming legal, you’ll need a constitutional amendment (not another law). The SCOTUS can overturn 2 laws as easily as they can overturn 1 law, when the 2 laws are identical.
Why should there be a Federal Law when traditionally the matter is defined in State Law? Does the OP want brother/sister marriages or parallel marriages, does the OP want to forbid railroad companies from using “married” locomotives (two locomotives connected and pointed opposite directions are said to be “married”, as the pair can travel “forward” either direction on a line).
What about divorce … do we want distribution of marital assets left up to the US Congress, where there’s only 20 women in the Senate?
Let’s wait and see if people trying to marry their parakeet becomes a problem … then maybe we should legislate “human-only” marriage …
For what it’s worth, I don’t think a Definition of Marriage is strictly necessary either.
But we can expect more agitating on legalizing polygamy now.
That’s for certain.
I guess after all that it doesn’t matter. States are still not free to define marriage in a way that is unconstitutional (as determined in Obergefell v. Hodges).
There is a compelling reason for the former not being legal.
The later (IMHO) are constitutional as there is no compelling reason to make them illegal.
It will become a problem just as soon as they obtain the ability to give consent & sign contracts. A very tired argument that fails the logic test.
There’s a lot to be said for a person’s marriage being valid throughout that person’s country rather than valid only in certain parts of that country.
Full faith and credit does not cut it. I am not aware of full faith and credit having been effective for either or inter-racial (dealt with on other grounds in Loving v. Virginia, USSC 1967) or same sex marriage (dealt with on other grounds in Obergefell v. Hodges, USSC 2015).
Is a New Hampshire marriage of a 13 year old girl NH resident and a 14 year old boy NH resident recognized in Minnesota when they move there after their honeymoon, and is a Minnesota marriage of a two sixteen year old MN resident boys (with the consents of their parents) recognized in New Hampshire when they move there after their honeymoon?
To carry this further, parties cannot get divorced in the state where their marriage is not recognized, but due to residency requirements for divorce, the 13/14 year old opposite sex couple could not get divorced in their original state after having moved away, and the gay 16 year old couple couple could not get divorced in their original state after having moved away, leaving them married even if they want to get divorced in either there initial state or subsequent state, and that’s one hell of a state to be in.
Now there certainly is nothing in your laws that says that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage throughout your country, but one might hope that part of being a citizen would include a citizen’s marriage being recognized throughout your country.
No, because it would be completely ineffectual. The intent appears to be to protect SSM rights, but Oberfell v Hodges already does that far more effectively by enshrining it as a constitutional right. IIRC some other countries also arrived at SSM protections through Supreme Court constitutional interpretations.
Absent this Supreme Court ruling, such a law would still be of scant protection since anti-SSM ideologues coming to power could simply pass a new law that abolished the first one, much like the original DOMA which “defined” marriage (and purported to “defend” it) simply as a means of opposing SSM by depriving such unions of all federal rights. It was divisive and discriminatory in a way that did no one the slightest bit of good. If one seeks a definition of marriage, the appropriate recourse is a dictionary, not legislation.
Canada has such a law, passed by the federal Parliament, called the Civil Marriage Act. It changed the legal meaning of civil marriage for all of the country, defining it as:
The Supreme Court of Canada had never ruled on whether same-sex marriage is constitutionally required, although lower courts in eight provinces and one territory did so rule. The SCC had held that same-sex marriage is consistent with the Charter.
The Civil Marriage Act provided a uniform definition of marriage for all of Canada and changed the common law definition of marriage to permit civil same-sex marriages in Alberta, PEI, NWT, and Nunavut, the four jurisdictions where the courts had not ruled on same-sex marriage.
And its 2013 amendment dealt with the American problem of same sex couples who came here to get married not later being able to get divorced in the USA.
I like this one better:
“Marriage is not a matter of interest to the government of the United States or the states within it; no law shall recognize marital status or accord different treatment to people on the basis of their marital status”.
So does that mean that ANY two persons can be married to each other, or does it mean that only two persons in a “lawful” union can be married, thus making it mean whatever any jurisdiction wants “lawful” to mean?