Federal Marriage Amendment
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would give a federal definition to marriage, which to date has been defined by state law, and set limits to judicial interpretation and local governmental authority on granting marriage rights to non-married couples.
Before it could become part of the Constitution, it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures. The FMA was introduced in the House on May 15, 2002, and again on May 21, 2003, but no vote has taken place on it. Three-fourths of states have enacted laws in accord with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Text of proposed amendment
The proposed amendment consists of two sentences:
- 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.
The first sentence would provide an official definition of legal marriage in the United States. To some, it is designed to restrict the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples and to deny that right to same-sex couples. To others, it is designed to defend the marriage of opposite-sex couples and to reaffirm that same-sex couples cannot marry.
The second sentence goes further by targetting judicial interpretation by overriding federal and state anti-discrimination and equal protection guarantees for non-married couples regardless of sexual orientation. State laws include local city and county ordinances, codes and regulations.
FMA denies local governments the ability "to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples" which could be used to overturn local employer domestic partner health insurance requirements and challenge inheritance rights of unmarried heterosexual or homosexual couples.
See also: List of benefits of marriage in the United States
Proponent arguments
The proposal is a reaction to concerns about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, which has a similar definition of marriage. It also granted states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Concerns about DOMA are that it conflict with the Constitution's full faith and credit clause. That clause requires all states to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of other states. This is the reason marriages and other legal contracts agreed upon in one state are recognized nationally.
FMA is intended to provide a constitutional barrier to same-sex marriage, and supporters hope that passage of the amendment will absolve communities and corporations from any obligation to accord marital rights to same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex unions.
Some supporters believe that the federal government should protect heterosexual marriage, characterizing allowing gay couples to marry as an attack. They assert that extending marriage rights to homosexual or unmarried heterosexual couples would be legislating morality and in violation of cultural tradition.
Opponent arguments
Gay rights
Gay rights advocates oppose the amendment, calling it discriminatory and an illicit attempt to legislate morality. Lambda Legal Defense, a gay rights legal advocacy group, said that the campaign for FMA was "designed to further anti-gay bigotry," saying, if passed it would be the second Constitional amendment to restrict, rather than expand, the civil rights of individuals in the United States. (The first was the Prohibition amendment, which was later repealed.)
States rights
Another opposing force are states rights advocates, who oppose a law that would federalize marriage, which since the founding of the country, has traditionally been under the purview of the individual states.