Text of Marriage amendment

[All-American]

"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."


From the looks of it, the wording would eliminate the legitimacy of "civil unions" or other unions similar to marriage.

Thoughts?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by All-American

"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."


From the looks of it, the wording would eliminate the legitimacy of "civil unions" or other unions similar to marriage.

Thoughts?

I agree. I never thought this was a war of semantics. I know which side I will be fighting for in this battle. Who wants to indian leg wrestle?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by All-American

"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."


From the looks of it, the wording would eliminate the legitimacy of "civil unions" or other unions similar to marriage.

Thoughts?

Here is what I think it says:

1. You can't have something called marriage anywhere that is other than between a man and a woman.

2. No CONSTITUTION (federal or state) may be interpreted to REQUIRE that marriage or the substantive equivalent be conferred on same sex couples.

This, however, does not prevent a legislature from conferring "the legal incidents thereof ... upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." It simply means that no constitution can be interpreted to require that a legislature do it (this is EXACTLY what occurred in Mass).

This is the same confusion people have over Roe. Just because something is not constitutionally protected does not mean that a legislature may not elect to allow it. It just means that the legislature is not REQUIRED to allow it.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Robin

I agree. I never thought this was a war of semantics. I know which side I will be fighting for in this battle. Who wants to indian leg wrestle?

No thanks on the leg wrestle.

I know that it is easier to throw ones hands up and say "I don't really care what the wording of the law or amendment is, it just feels wrong to me so I oppose it." The fact of the matter is, however, that the words of laws and amendments have meaning and what EXACTLY they say is of critical importance when you go to apply them.

The REAL opposition the left has to this, IMO, is that it will force them into the state house to get these sorts of unions as opposed to getting judges to find that state constitutions require them. I don't blame them, the former is infinitely more difficult than the latter.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

I agree. I never thought this was a war of semantics. I know which side I will be fighting for in this battle. Who wants to indian leg wrestle?

I sense a lot of people on this board think the semantics are a major issue. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Here is what I think it says:

1. You can't have something called marriage anywhere that is other than between a man and a woman.

2. No CONSTITUTION (federal or state) may be interpreted to REQUIRE that marriage or the substantive equivalent be conferred on same sex couples.

This, however, does not prevent a legislature from conferring "the legal incidents thereof ... upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." It simply means that no constitution can be interpreted to require that a legislature do it (this is EXACTLY what occurred in Mass).

This is the same confusion people have over Roe. Just because something is not constitutionally protected does not mean that a legislature may not elect to allow it. It just means that the legislature is not REQUIRED to allow it.

Very dangerous to interpret the clause so concretely today. The first sentence is the dangerous one. Remove it and you have the status quo. The key to that sentence is the definition of "marriage." Is marriage common law marriage? A civil union? A traditional understanding of the term "marriage?" A broad reading could prohibit any number of other activities.

An odd aside: Since the church believes that we are married for time and all eternity, would a second marriage in the temple be prohibited under this amendment? After all, it most certainly is the INTENTION of the parties to the second marriage to have what amounts to a polygamist marriage (if both are for all eternity). Should their intentions govern, or should the traditional notion that marriage only lasts while both parties are alive govern? I think it clear the latter would be the adopted approach, but the former does amuse me in a twisted way.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Very dangerous to interpret the clause so concretely today. The first sentence is the dangerous one. Remove it and you have the status quo. The key to that sentence is the definition of "marriage." Is marriage common law marriage? A civil union? A traditional understanding of the term "marriage?" A broad reading could prohibit any number of other activities.

An odd aside: Since the church believes that we are married for time and all eternity, would a second marriage in the temple be prohibited under this amendment? After all, it most certainly is the INTENTION of the parties to the second marriage to have what amounts to a polygamist marriage (if both are for all eternity). Should their intentions govern, or should the traditional notion that marriage only lasts while both parties are alive govern? I think it clear the latter would be the adopted approach, but the former does amuse me in a twisted way.

Of course things are always subject to interpretation, but I believe that mine at least is reflective of the intention.

I still scratch my head over the perceived irony on the polygamy issue.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Of course things are always subject to interpretation, but I believe that mine at least is reflective of the intention.

I still scratch my head over the perceived irony on the polygamy issue.

What do you mean "perceived irony?"

You don't find it at all ironic that the person promoting an amendment which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman just got married for the second time for all eternity?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

What do you mean "perceived irony?"

You don't find it at all ironic that the person promoting an amendment which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman just got married for the second time for all eternity?

No I don't. Why do you?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

What do you mean "perceived irony?"

You don't find it at all ironic that the person promoting an amendment which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman just got married for the second time for all eternity?

WHat in the proposed language says one man and one woman? It says it is between a man and a woman, but does not say it must be exclusive.