|
In essence it allows the state to say marriage is any two people
that live together under the same roof, share expenses and pay a
judge to say they are married. This opens the door for
roommates of the same or opposite sex to also become "married"
as a manner of obtaining the same rights. It opens the
door for groups to become "married".
As a result there is now nothing standing in the way of
the Massachusetts courts destroying the legal status of
marriage - with immediate constitutional implications
for every state in the nation. Oral argument in the
Massachusetts case is anticipated in November or
December of this year, with a decision by the state
Supreme Court expected in early 2003.
On a national level several members of congress from both
parties filed for a Federal Marriage Amendment that will
permanently define marriage by the same standards it has been
defined as for the past 4000 years. This amendment defines
marriage as
- Only between a man and a woman and protects that
definition for all time
- Prohibits the recognition of Civil Unions, Domestic
Partnerships and other groups from attaining marriage by any
other definition.
- It prohibits the transference of any benefits associated
with marriage to non-married persons.
- It does not prohibit or penalize companies,
hospitals or other private entities from extending visitation
rights, health benefits or other services and considerations
to their customers. As part of free-enterprise, such
decisions are left to the companies.
The Amendment appears to be gaining momentum in congress and
has civil rights groups up in arms. The ACLU contends that “This
amendment is the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb. It will
wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families
and other unmarried couples."
Angela Colaiuta a national field organizer for the
ACLU Action Network has issued a memo to her organization
"oppose(ing) intolerance" of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"Representative Ronnie Shows, Mississippi Democrat, has
introduced a constitutional amendment that would attack the
basic rights of millions of Americans," she points out. "The
Federal Marriage Amendment would not only define marriage as
strictly between a man and a woman, but it would also invalidate
all legal protections for unmarried couples - gay or straight."
The Alliance for
Marriage, non-partisan research and education
organization dedicated to promoting marriage and addressing the
epidemic of fatherless families in the United States, is one of
the key voices behind the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"As usual, the ACLU deserves a creative writing award for
their inflammatory rhetoric and distorted description of the
legal impact of the Federal Marriage Amendment," notes Matt
Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage.
"Bear in mind that the amendment would only do two things:
one, define marriage in the U.S. as the union of male and
female; and two, protect the existing authority of the state
legislatures to decide all issues of marital benefits."
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
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.
MORE INFO
|
