American Conservative Daily Your daily dose of conservative offsets to combat annoying liberal global whining.

• • Home
  • About ACD
  • Interactive Polls
  • Join/Post
  • Media Relations
  • Quick Start
  • T-shirt Straw Poll
  • Terms Of Use
    • Book Reviews (General):
    • Communication/Email
    • Copyright:
    • Email Use Policy:
    • Moderators
    • Posting Comments
    • Responsibility of Authors:
    • Submission of Material:
    • Syndication:
    • Trolling Defined
• Conservative Shop
• RSS

I Say NO To The Federal Marriage Amendment

J.J. Jackson* | June 5, 2006 

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has gathered strong support from a couple sectors of society. However all those that are wishing for the FMA are really placing America on a slippery slope that I wish not to take her. My position on the FMA is not held by many in the conservative movement but it is one that is held by more classic conservatives and libertarians. When I tell other conservatives that I am against the Federal Marriage Amendment I get a lot of dirty and disgusted looks. Some even call me a closet liberal which I laugh heartily at!

The fact of the matter is however that the Federal Marriage Amendment is a bad idea because it puts government in sole discretion of what is, foremost, a religious issue. And I have a soft spot in my heart for the first Amendment which prohibits Congress from interfering with either dictating to religion how it will conduct itself or prohibiting the free exercise of legitimate religions.

I find that most of the support among the conservative movement for the FMA comes from two groups. Either they are the devout evangelical Christians tired of being beaten up on by liberals and wanting to strike back to protect themselves or they are neo-cons who I love dearly but still let their desires for government solutions which they have failed to shed to plague their actions.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is clear. It is unambiguous.

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

The problem with adding this language to the Constitution is that the Constitution is law.

Not only is it law, but it is the supreme law of the land

“Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. “

That means, that as law, ANY church that violates this mandate can be seen in violation of Constitutional Law. The Mormon Church, with as much as I disagree with their teachings, could certainly be seen as in violation for the practice of polygamy since their marriages are often between a man and several women instead of a man and a woman (singular).

If a church wants to wed homosexuals let them. I don’t care because I know that their membership will dwindle to the point where they will wither and die. But doing so would indeed also make any church that does this in clear violation of the Constitution as well.

Amending the Constitution, simply put, creates a new law for the land. If it did not there would be no reason to amend it.

I cannot reconcile this proposed amendment with the first with strictly prohibits interference with religion “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Since this amendment originates in the Congress, it would be law, and Congress is strictly prohibited from such acts against religion I strongly oppose it. Not because I want to see the institution of marriage become applied to any group of people that wish to be wed, but rather because to do so places us in a problematic position of the Constitution contradicting itself.

The solution to this problem is much simpler than most realize. The problem stems not from the legal recognition of marriage but from government control over the institution. When you get married you go to the courthouse to get your papers in order and get a “license”. This and other controls over a religious institution has lead to this problem we now face where certain de facto rights, privileges and other assorted rules apply to those that government permits to be married.

The answer is simple like I said. Return the control of marriage to the churches and get needless government out of our lives.
===============================
Other sites talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment:
Stop the ACLU
The Common Voice

The Constitution in Exile : How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land (Book) Authors:Andrew P. Napolitano Manufacturer:Nelson Current Released:18 April, 2006

Constitutional Chaos : What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws (Book) Authors:Andrew P. Napolitano Manufacturer:Nelson Current Released:07 February, 2006

Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com




*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.