The Federal Marriage Amendment

This is an issue made to order for sensational news coverage. It's perfect. Here we are in an election year, presidential no less, heading into the convention season. Both parties are sure to make competing claims of disaster. Here we have disaster as viewed from the right,

Activist liberal judges are intent on destroying the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

and here we have disaster according to the left..

This would eliminate Vermont's Civil Union bill and the future that ANY states have to institute a similar bill. This could also leave the door open to the abolition of domestic partner benefits in the future.

So where does one come down on this one? One who professes libertarian tendencies, to boot? One thing I've come to realize over the years is that leaving things to be decided by people at the citizen level generally works out OK, so I can't get all worked up about this one. My prediction for the election season is that there will be an awful lot of noise, and in the end one way or another almost everybody will get more or less what they want. Here is the text of the proposed 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 on unmarried couples or groups.

Note the words "shall be construed to require". These words forbid nothing, outlaw nothing. They also meet the approval of President Bush:

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

It's interesting to note that passage of the amendment by Congress is not a foregone conclusion. And if passage by Congress is successful, then the amendment has to make the rounds of the states where two thirds must approve. It would very likely suffer the same fate as the Equal Rights Amendment, by failing to get approval from the states. And anyway, so what if it did get the required approval of the states? Note Bush's words "while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage". There is growing support for civil unions. I would go so far as to predict a number of states will support the amendment then turn right around and legislatively create civil unions. Massachusetts comes to mind. To get right to the bottom line, let's not get our knickers in a knot over this one.