An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | December 29, 2003 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

ping

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Read later bump...

[farmfriend]

ping

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Some so-called conservatives are looking for an alternative to the marriage amendment.These people are just weaklings and worried about a few votes from an overblown(pun intended)minority.We have to stop listening to people like this and have the amendment anyway to lock this crap up once and for all.The amendment should be worded so strictly that their will be NO OTHER INTERPRETATION!!

[NutCrackerBoy]

core problem = the fact that marriage and family has already been ripped from its natural and cultural roots by Congress

One of the reasons there is a legal institution of marriage at all is that families needed the enforcement of government to hold fathers (and mothers and husbands and wives) to their responsibilities. I believe this was appropriate: the church and social disapproval would be ineffectual by themselves. This is a legitimate interest of society that should not fall only to vigilante justice.

The plight of fathers under today's social policies is very real, but I do not agree with the notion that this sort of thing should be placed fundamentally out of the reach of government.

[jwalsh07]

It can never be placed outside of government NCB, that claim is a canard. When a man and woman wed with or without the blessing of the state, they enter into a contract and a proper function of government is the adjudication and enforcement of those contracts. The state doesn't go away, marriage does. A fools choice.

[inquest]

Amending the Constitution for something like this will only turn the Constitution into a political football, and destroy it as an arbiter of our political affairs.

The way to defend marriage is through impeachment of judges who misapply the Constitution. We'll make much further headway by doing that, and it really is the more honorable course.

[jwalsh07]

The way to defend marriage is through impeachment of judges who misapply the Constitution.

Not going to happen.

[inquest]

It will if all the people pushing for an amendment will instead pursue the more sensible option.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Impeachment and the threat of it are an excellent and necessary correction for this mess we are in with judicial activism. However, I do not see that as the only response to the current marriage threat. I support the FMA and I hope it will be ratified. Even if it is only pushed toward the brink, it may do an enormous amount of good as a shot across the bows of the activist's ships. That might be enough.

Also, Amendments to the Constitution being political "footballs" I do not see as a problem. An active political process is good for the country.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Folks talk a lot about "Defending Marriage" by banning same-sex marriage. This author points out that the greatest harm to marriage comes from the current divorce and custody laws. That is where reform is most urgently needed and it requires no constitutional amendments.

[inquest]

An active political process is fine. It should be more active by involving more people, not by affecting more things. The Constitution, in particular, should only be amended when there is something actually wrong with the Constitution, not simply when someone wants to make a point.

There are two things we shouldn't take for granted: One is how well the Constitution, battered as it may be, still protects us from the abyss. The other is how deceptively easy it is to amend the Constitution, once it becomes an acceptable thing to do in response to whatever grievance. We shouldn't be playing games with something so important, not when we have another option that will do a much better job at defending the Constitution.

[NutCrackerBoy]

This author points out that the greatest harm to marriage comes from the current divorce and custody laws. That is where reform is most urgently needed and it requires no constitutional amendments.

That reform is in no way exclusive of the need to prevent the redefinition of marriage. Thankfully, this can all occur in the realm of the legislative, but the divorce and custody reform movement needs to build up momentum.

It is more urgent (even if not as important) to put up a defense against the redefinition movement that already has momentum, and the unfair advantage of judicial activism.

[jwalsh07]

This author points out that the greatest harm to marriage comes from the current divorce and custody laws.

The author is wrong. The greatest threat to the institution of marriage is from redefining the word marriage. There is no rational basis for excluding poly____ marriages or marriages of convenience if the meaning is liberalised to include those of the same sex entering into marriage. The inevitable result is the dissolution of the institution of marriage which I find to be a bad outcome.

That is where reform is most urgently needed and it requires no constitutional amendments.

Reform of marriage and the redfining of marriage are not mutually inclusive. Marriage law can be reformed while maintaing the meaning of the word.

[jwalsh07]

It will if all the people pushing for an amendment will instead pursue the more sensible option.

Where are the 67 votes in the senate for conviction?

[inquest]

Where are the 67 votes for the amendment? The only thing that's missing in going from amendment to impeachment is the belief that impeachment is an acceptable option. And that depends largely upon the people who are in the forefront of the push for the amendment.

[jwalsh07]

There is a difference between democrats voting for an Amendment and voting to impeach judges for cause. One's not gonna happen, the other, if DOMA, is any indication just might.

There are other methods to be employed by Congress if they so choose. They have article 3 powers to simply tell SCOTUS to keep their hands off certain issues. That would be doable, impeachment is not going to happen, the politics are too thorny.

[Orangedog]

The divorce and custody laws have turned the institution of marriage in a joke, and an financially and emotionally costly one at that. The lives of tens of millions of men and their children have been completely turned upside down. Where was the defense of marriage crowd when that was happening? A lot of them couldn't be bothered with their problems. I'll even go out on a limb and assert that many of them were cheering on the movement that labeled every father a "deadbeat" and made them visitors in the lives of their children.

I hope the defense or marriage people aren't seriously expecting those of us that have been (and still are being) screwed over by what is called marriage today to carry any of their water after society as a whole has turned it's back on us. From our perspective, what's left of this "institution" isn't anything we're going to get worked up to defend.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I don't know whether or not I am a member of "the defense of marriage crowd," I am just an Internet forum participant. That said, marriage is still at this moment something that matters, and I am more than amenable to reforms. Unfortunately, this piece here did not give me a clear sense of where the reform battleground is and how it relates to the marriage redefinition problem.