2004.02.27

A Real Marriage Amendment

I’ve been working on a proposal for a functional Amendment to the Constitution which is inclusive rather than exclusive. I know this is a controversial issue with widely varying points of view and responses. Please have patience and read to the end before reacting. I will put forth my proposal and afterwards comment for each Section.

Proposed wording for an Amendment regarding Marriage and Civil Union.

Section 1. Civil Union shall be defined as the union between two citizens persons. The rights of citizens persons to join in Civil Union shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, gender, race or religion for any reason.

Section 2. Marriage is not a Civil Union; couples sanctified in religious Marriage must also seek a Civil Union if they wish to enjoy the benefits of the State.

Section 3: This Article shall not prevent anyone who was Married prior to ratification from enjoying the rights of Civil Union.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Let me begin by saying I believe marriage as traditionally interpreted is fundamental to the stability, morality and social health of a culture and nation. However, it is a religious definition. Our Constitution, various Federal and State legislation, and American culture have carefully maintained a separation of Church and State, and I agree with this. I would not see our country turned into a Christian form of Sharia (Islamic Law).

Further, our Constitution and its Amendments are designed to grant rights, not take them away. I believe the logical solution is to create a blanket definition -Civil Union- under which marriage retains its sacred meaning but which also allows other citizens like homosexuals to obtain the same rights under the law.

Section One

I believe a large part of the controversy surrounding marriage -homosexual marriage in particular- is that marriage has always been a religious definition. From the earliest Judeo-Christian traditions marriage was a convenant between a man, a woman, and God. Marriages are performed by an official of the religion for this reason. Unfortunately this theological definition as been woven into the fabric of most secular law.

This definition excludes a large segment of American from this form of union and enjoying its benefits. Homosexuals, atheists, etc. cannot be married according to this definition and because it is intertwined with secular law. Yet should not all citizens have the same rights and privileges? Civil unions have been proposed as a solution and many states have adopted them, but many States still do not treat civil unions equally as marriage, and certainly not between States.

Section One codifies what is a Civil Union, and that the joining of two people (”two people” was once required by Utah to join the Union) in civil union cannot be limited by sex (man, woman or other), gender (with a man, woman or other), race, or religion. This also leaves it to the States to determine the age of consent, the question of cousins, common law unions, adoption, and etc. Indeed it would be possible for States to pass laws allowing priests to perform civil unions, thus allowing the marriage and civil union to occur in the same event.

Section Two

This is the seperation clause. It says that a marriage is not necessarily a Civil Union. If you are married by a religious institution you are not automatically granted the rights of civil union. It maintains a seperation of church and state.

My reason for this clause is that a religious group like the Catholic Church cannot be compelled to marry homosexuals. It is against their morality and no one has the right to force change upon them. I am certain there are other religious groups like the Unitarian Universalists who would marry homosexuals. This would legally impinge in no way on the Catholic Church.

The differences between these two churches does not interfere with the law regarding civil unions between homosexuals. Section Two says, regardless of the marriage within a church the happy couple still has no rights under law until they obtain a certificate of civil union. It is possible that some couples will get married in a church and never obtain a civil union certificate; they will not get the benefits under law, though God will still smile on them.

Section Three

It is important that this Amendment not affect couples who are currently married from enjoying the benefits of the State. This equally applies the terms of divorces, though I admit I wasn’t sure how to include the word “divorce” because of its negative connotations. Section Three merely states that if you were married before ratification you are still married and automatically granted a civil union in the eyes of the law.

Other Notes

I wish there were a more palatable term than “civil union” which always sounded and felt unromantic. I am sure, were this Amendment adopted by the United States or any individual State, that couples joined in civil union would still refer to themselves as being “married” since it has become such a generic term for many.

Categorized: political   rights

You can follow any responses to this entry with a RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

4 Responses to “A Real Marriage Amendment”

1. Kip, the Chaste says  (January 1st, 1970 at 08:00:00 )

   OK, let me chime in, just because I don’t feel like working right now.

   First of all, since many groups pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow, I’ll go with your biblical references (March 24, 2004) A,B, and C. C will only be by choice, not automatic. The rest of it is just a bad idea.

   If I can’t have that, let’s look at your amendment (let’s look at it anyway — by the way, these comments are on the amendment, not your breakdown underneath, if I feel the need I’ll comment on that as well).

   Change “citizens” in the first section to “persons.” “Citizens implies that both must be citizens of the US, I don’t see the point of that in any case. I understand the concept (though I don’t think that was your intention), but I don’t think it matters. Also, I’d like to see the wording at the end of that section a bit more vague (instead of identifying groups that won’t be forbidden under this amendment, just say “for any reason”). Otherwise it sounds like a law. I’m not adamant about this, either way works.

   Section 2 is that redundant part that seems to be necessary in many amendments. Normally this is done automatically at marriages, a marriage license needs to be signed by witnesses (usually the best man and maid of honor). No real problems with this, it clarifies, which seems to be why we “need” the amendment (IF indeed we do).

   Section 3 is probably unnecessary because of what I just said in the above paragraph, but I don’t see the harm…section 4 is just standard amendment language.

   I might also add that while I agree with this idea, I’m capable of making a distinction between “marriage” and “civil union.” I’d like to think most people can do this but if that were true would we really need to have this discussion?

   What do you mean by “man, woman, or other?” with reference to your civil union? Is there a third type of gender…or are you referencing anything…dog, cat, gerbil? I’m not sure I understand the need for “other.” Sex is a reference to a person, not a preference.

   Overall though, obviously we have the same basic idea on what should be or should not be. The stuff I’ve mentioned appears (at least to me) to be just a couple of semantic things. The only question I have is about the definition of “other,” that might make a difference. The basic idea and principle is the same. I’m deeply upset that I have not been offended and was unable to get riled up about this, but it appears that in addition to agreeing, we actually agree for mainly the same reasons.

2. dugh says  (January 1st, 1970 at 08:00:00 )

   i incorporated the two recommendations for the first section. they are both valid. the idea with citizens was simply to say, “americans,” but this would impinge upon americans who wish to marry foreigners; this can be legislated (as it is). the idea of striking the qualifications (”on account of sex, gender, race or religion”) was my dissatisfaction at the lack of an equal rights amendment which may or may not be redundant at this time of legal evolution. i like both ideas you had.

   the “others” refers to those very very rare people who have fscked up gender roles, either both genitilia or neither. they should have rights as well. i can’t imagine them having much luck but it is possible. as i say in my first paragraph the goal was to be inclusive rather than exclusive. it does NOT refer to animals, plants, or non-living things (as much a disappointment that will be to some people i am sure).

   section 2 is required language to make distinct the secular civil union and the religious marriage. it isn’t entirely redundant. section 3 is necessary to close loopholes so everyone already married doesn’t have to apply for a civil union and to prevent all kinds of court jams as people sue for any variety of issues like divorce (see! we were never married!) to child support (see! we were never married!) to complaining about the whole issue (damn! we were never married?).

   i’m glad we agree in principle on this; i am wondering if mookee is going to chime in with a caustic comment…

3. douglas.nerad » Marriage According to the Bible says  (September 30th, 2006 at 12:26:33 )

   [...] Biblical marriage sounds harsh! I still like my idea better, but would personally rather not see any marriage amendment added to any constitution. [...]

4. douglas says  (October 27th, 2007 at 00:20:57 )

   Looking at this now I’m realizing that there should be some mention of a general minimum age for the couple, and probably something about mutual consent. Maybe someday when this become a huge issue again I’ll have to revisit it, reword it and post it again…