I still don't know what you're saying in regards to the supposed slackening of standards of marriage. I am simply saying that the federal law does not need fooling with.
I think the real issue is that we have several million federal, state, county and municipal laws, regulations and statutes, and career legislators are under political pressure to create ever more laws. I am against that whole structure on principle. Marriage (legal term) is the State viewing two individuals as one entity for legal purposes. It is the interpersonal analogue of incorporation. The religious definition is a spiritual oneness of a man and a woman which is recognized by God as sacred.
The problem is that it isn't recognized by man as sacred. We fail to uphold its standards in our behaviour, in our treatment of our wives, in our selfishness and tendency to be self-indulgent. That can be fixed only by voluntary participation in a partnership of love with one's spouse. No manner of regulation, state intervention, or threat of imprisonment can possibly repair the damage that mankind has inflicted upon the sacrament of marriage. To attempt this is futile at best, and at worst, sets a dangerous precedent IMHO. That's all I am saying. We need to look to ourselves to fix the corruption in our society, not our government. Instead of bemoaning the lack of morality and going back to surfing for the Hawaiian Tropic chicks, we need to actually change US. Unless we can do that, no constitutional amendment will accomplish anything other than moving the cultural perception of Christians farther down the road toward obscurity. I am sorry that you feel you can accomplish something with this legislation. I disagree with that.
I disagree with your stance that Law has a moral component. I will agree that at most places morality and legal protection intersect, but I don't believe that relationship is causative as you do. I merely believe that both morality and Law have similar objectives, and thus will seek to enforce the exact same patterns of behavior. However, Law does not seek to control nonharmful behavior if it is executed properly. I will cite some examples of this intersection:
1. Prostitution is both illegal and immoral for separate reasons. The legal reason against prostitution is that it spreads disease and contributes to drug use and crime. It is generally associated with violence. The moral reason is that it objectifies sex without association with love. It also destroys the moral restrictions of sexual taboos.
2. Drug use is illegal because it is simultaneously addictive and mind-altering. Society restricts drug use because of its association with crazy acts, unstable people, and crime. A parent who is stoned is incapable of proper parenting, furthering the destruction to society. The moral reason is that in addiction, the drug becomes more important than God, and it is an attempt to gain bliss outside of God.
3. Speeding in your car is illegal for purely practical reasons. Reckless driving is a separate charge. Speeding laws enforce conformity, and provide other drivers the opportunity to safely predict your arrival at a particular location such as an intersection. No moral component.
4. Tax laws are imposed for purely practical reasons. It's to provide revenue for the government. No moral component.
5. Theft, child abuse, and assault are illegal because the law is charged with the duty of protecting certain rights among a nation's inhabitants, and each one of these causes harm to another. The moral component exists for identical reasons.
Now find me a law that exists not for practical reasons, but PURELY moral ones, and I will cease and desist. Find ONE law which is designed not to protect the rights of others, but to enforce standards which can only be attributed to moralism.
Public nudity laws. Who does public nudity hurt? What if a guy wants to masturbate in his own car? What if he wants to flash people? Who does he hurt? No one. Oh, unless you count his offense to their moral sense.