The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also called the Marriage Protection Amendment, was an amendment to the U.S. Constitution proposed first on May 15th, 2002, to the 107th United States Congress by Representative Ronnie Shows with 22 other sponsors. Its purpose was to define marriage legally as a union between one woman and one man. It would also barre the judicial extensions to rights of marriage to same-sex or gay marriages or any other unmarried homosexual couples (Albert & Richard et al., p. 2005). This paper will thus offer a broad understanding of one of the most commonly controversial Amendments of the U.S. Constitution ever proposed.
For constitutional amendments to be successful in the US, there must be support from two-thirds of Congress house with three-fourths ratification of all states. After the bill was first proposed in 2002, Congress took no action and left it pending. The bill has been mentioned and presented to Congress with no luck until 2006. However, on July 18th, 2006, the congressional vote on the proposed amendment occurred where the motion failed by 236 to 187, missing the 290 votes required for a bill to pass. Additionally, the Senate only voted on cloture motions of the bill on June 7th, 2006, where the motion also failed 49 to 48, lacking the 60 votes required for the bill to pass from the Senate and 67 votes needed to send the bill to states for ratification (Polonsky & Danielet al., p. 413). Former President George Bush endorsed the bill and took it to his campaigns in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. To this day, the bill has never made it out of the committee, with many Congress Representative citing that the bill was a violation of human rights and freedom to enjoy their equality with any disadvantages overshadowing the reason for proposing the bill (Polonsky & Danielet al., p. 413). The bill was last proposed on February 15th, 2015, to the 114th Congress by House Representative Tim Huelskamp, a representative for Kansas City. The motion gained about 30 votes, failing to make it out of the committee due to insufficient votes on the proposal. In May 2014, a nationwide Gallop poll found out that about 55% of Americans allowed for same-sex marriages while 42% of Americans opposed it, while the remaining 3% had no opinion on the matter (Polonsky & Danielet al., p. 413). However, the poll also noted variations in public opinion in different states.
Proponents of FMA supported the bill by stating that the Amendment would deter conventional marriage definitions from being reinterpreted by legal systems. However, through recent years, many states and courts have overruled many laws that prohibit same-sex marriages, with several state legislatures passing laws that make it legal for same-sex marriages (Polonsky & Danielet al., p. 413). Many FMA supporters believe that legalizing same-sex marriages would demean and damage the institution of marriage and redefine the word marriage. Thus, FMA would offer protection and meaning to the institution of marriage and prevent any redefinition of marriage and what marriage entails.
Cons
Opponents of FMA believed that the amendment was a violation of human rights. They thought that the amendment would discriminate against individuals who are in same-sex marriages. It would not only prohibit same-gender marriages, but it would also prohibit any legalization of acknowledgments of partnerships involving same-gender couples, including civil unions. They also believed that the bill would also violate same-gender couple’s rights to equality for protection under the law, making it unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples (Jaeger-Fine & Toni et al., p. 35). Opponents of FMA added that the bill would violate the right of individuals to define marriage according to what they deem appropriate. They highlighted that FMA would supersede the state’s laws governing unions and violate the state’s constitutionally protected rights to self-government, preventing the normal functioning of the democratic process. Opponents also argued that FMA would have negative impacts on public opinion on marriage, with bias against same-sex marriages. The FMA would, hence, foster a hostile environment filled with hate and discrimination against same-sex couples in public as the government would not have endorsed same-sex marriages as per the amendment (Polonsky & Danielet al., p. 413). The amendment would also deem couples of the same gender and would cause a lot of negative impacts on their lives, creating a toxic and unsafe living environment for all couples in same-sex marriages. Due to these reasons, FMA has since failed to pass from Congress or come out of the committee.
Pros
The proponents of FMA argued that the bill would help reinforce good morals in the community and create a safe environment where children could be raised adequately with natural marriage constitutions of one man and one woman. They continued to state that the amendment would not outlaw same-sex marriages but would merely maintain and promote conventional definitions and proponents of marriage. The bill would prevent courts from redefining marriages from a union between one man and one woman to any other considerations (Jaeger-Fine & Toni et al., p. 30). However, the Amendment would also only apply to the federal government and would not deter or interfere with states’ ability to define or redefine marriages however they deem appropriate. If the Amendment had been passed, only the federal government would have been subjected to the bill. It would have no impact whatsoever on the legal systems in the U.S. Each individual would still have the freedom of defining marriage, and legal definitions of marriage would still be subject to change as required by each individual freely (Albert & Richard et al., p. 2005). Passing this bill would mean that the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriage either publicly or privately. It would only be mandated to support marriages involving the opposite gender with one man and one woman.
Challenges can be experienced when amending the constitution. Some of these challenges can include a need for proper funding to foster advocative measures on educating the community and general public about the benefits of the proposed bill and why they should support it. Lack of appropriate convincing power also fails many House representatives who propose different amendments (Albert & Richard et al., p. 2005). However, some House representatives are biased when it comes to passing proposed bills; this bias can arise from political affiliation where some House representatives may fail to vote for a bill since it has been proposed by political rivals or the opposition side (Albert & Richard et al., p. 2005). Such challenges cause suitable amendments to fail to pass and benefit the general population.
In summary, the United States Constitution is considered the hardest to amend. This is due to the reflective genius of the U.S. Constitution, which is a key to its endurance. However, amendments are required for every constitution. This is due to the ever-changing norms and culture in the society. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment aimed to prevent same-sex marriages and withhold and support marriages between one woman and one man or opposite gender (Jaeger-Fine & Toni et al., p. 10). It has, however, been met with a lot of opposition due to its disadvantage of preventing same-gender marriages, which currently make up a vast population in the U.S. The amendment has since been submitted to Congress for review but has never passed due to the committee’s lack of full support (Jaeger-Fine & Toni et al., p. 20). Additionally, many surveys show that many Americans support same-sex marriages, which reduces the likelihood of success for the amendment.
Works Cited
Albert, Richard. “The World’s Most Difficult Constitution to Amend?.” Cal. L. Rev. 110 (2022): 2005. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/calr110§ion=52
Jaeger-Fine, Toni. “Marriage equality in the United States: a look at Obergefell and beyond.” Revista de Investigações Constitucionais 3 (2019): 07-41. https://www.scielo.br/j/rinc/a/VkpyDRFsZHDDD9rK6LmB4zS/?lang=en
Polonsky, Daniel. “Equal protection through state constitutional amendment.” Harv. CR-CLL Rev. 56 (2021): 413. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/hcrcl56§ion=19
write