|
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman.
Opponents of a Federal marriage amendment argue that such an amendment would violate the states' rights to regulate marriage by federalizing the issue, which they say should be left to the states. However, if it were not for judicial overreach, there would be no need for a FMA. The federalism proposed by the opponents of a constitutional amendment is a vehicle for permitting federal courts to impose same-sex marriage upon the whole nation, no matter what the people of the individual states desire. In essence, the FMA is largely a defensive measure that would not be necessary if the judiciary were not acting beyond its scope.
If we fail to define marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us. I, for one, believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges.
As such, I was an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Act. Introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and supported by members of both parties, this legislation would propose an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman.
As an amendment to the Constitution, H.J. Res. 88 required a two-thirds majority for passage. I voted in favor of this legislation. Unfortunately, H.J. Res. 88 failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote the House on July 18, 2006, by a vote of 236-187.
In addition, on June 7, 2006, the Senate version of this amendment also failed to pass. Of the 60 votes required to invoke the cloture motion so that legislative action could proceed, 49 Senators voted for putting the amendment to a vote and 48 voted against the cloture motion. However, despite this setback, I sincerely hope that this issue can be readdressed in the future.
|
