Posted on 04/28/2008 12:59:28 AM PDT by kathsua
The change for this step is to get the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) adopted. The proposed amendment states the following:
"SECTION 1. 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."
Marriage is currently considered a state issue. A number of states have passed laws protecting traditional (man-woman only) marriage, but judges in other states are giving legal support for same-sex marriages. States should not be deciding this on an individual basis because it is a fundamental societal institution and has significant inter-state impacts.
The main reason for preserving traditional marriage is because it is the best arrangement for raising future generations of Americans. Research overwhelmingly shows that children are most well-adjusted and successful in life when they are raised by a mother and father who are married. Despite the fact that there are single parents and same-sex couples who provide tremendous love, care and support for children, there is no real substitute for having both a mother and a father role model. Traditional marriage is too important of a building block in the foundation of a healthy society to allow it to be redefined by state governments and judges.
Having states pass legislation that allows marriage for same-sex couples is also problematic in a couple of ways. First, what if a married same-sex couple wants or needs to move to a state where legislation has been passed that only supports a man-woman marriage? Their marriage would not be recognized in the state and you can just imagine all the lawsuits that would ensue. Secondly, once a state has allowed same-sex marriage, it will likely be challenged to also allow other relationships (e.g. polygamy). How can a state rationally defend itself by saying that two men, or two women, can marry, but a man and multiple wives cannot? It is easy to think that changing marriage to allow same-sex couples will be the end of it, but it will only start us down a slippery slope where marriages can be any relationship people can imagine (two sisters, plutonic brother-sister relationship, a guy and his pet, etc.).
One thing to remember is that all the benefits bestowed on married couples within the income tax code are gone (see #3 Tax Revolt). Therefore, there are no longer any tax benefits that same-sex couples lose out on by not being married. Additionally, this amendment would not take away any legal rights from same-sex couples. If they want to commit to their relationship, they can develop contracts that provide joint ownership of their possessions and bank accounts, define beneficiaries for insurance, develop wills and estate plans, etc. While they can’t obtain a marriage certificate, they can still have a ceremony of their choosing to announce and recognize their relationship with family and friends.
This amendment really boils down to providing what is best for our country’s children. It is not meant at all to disparage gay relationships. Raising as many children as we can in traditional families will provide the best hope for future generations of Americans. The adoption program I discuss in the next step (see #11 Abortion No-Demand) also plays a part in strengthening the family in our society.
This country sorely needs conservatives willing to stand up for the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment right of states to govern themselves. If Massachusetts voters are willing to tolerate state-sanctified buggery, by all means, let them. Why should I focus my limited energy and resources on saving another state from its own stupidity? I imagine they’ll learn for themselves soon enough, but if not, as Jefferson said, “[i]t neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
While we’re at it, how about a Constitutional amendment forbidding citizens to have kids before marriage? Research shows that kids born to married couples are exponentially more successful than kids born to unwed parents. Society would be much better off, and also confrom more to Biblical standards to boot. It would probably be more expedient to just lobby Congress to pass a law prohiting pre-marital sex, though. A Constitutional amendment banning inter-faith marriages might be in order, too; you know, since we have government dictating to churches now, and all. Those Christian-Jewish marriages can be such an undue burden on the in-laws. There ought to be a law!
How about simply nullifying all the giveaways to unwed mothers of children born after, say, 4-1-2009? If unwed mothers don't want the financial responsibilities of motherhood, they can give their children up for adoption as was done before the government started encouraging single motherhood.
Zippit, troll.
You don't have to like it, but you have no right to stop it. As someone above pointed out: It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. Deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.