SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the 'Marriage Protection Amendment'.
SECTION 2. 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.''.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
In my opinion the Amendment simply prohibits a judiciary the ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...
In my opinion the Amendment attempts to prohibit the judiciary from having the ability to interpret marriage or the legal incidents thereof to be anything other than the union of a man and a woman, and would also effectively close the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...
To me, its a tempest in a teapot.
The problem I have with it is (federalism issues aside), if a state supreme court legitimately finds that the state constitution is being violated for whatever reason, the FMA would seem to prevent that judiciary from so ruling. That could result in the state being in compliance with the US Constitution but not in complaince with their own. The obvious cure is to change the state constitution, and if they do, fine, then the FMA is meaningless. But if they can't we have created a constitutional crisis within the state that is unnecessary. Massachusetts is of course, the prime example. Since their court ruled traditional marriage unconstitutional they have written a good amendment to cure the issue, but the legislature is unableto push it through because of its constituency. This is a problem of Massachusetts and not of any other state unless DOMA comes under fire, which it has not. This is why I oppose it.
To me, its a tempest in a teapot.
Just when I think I am out -you pull me back in again!
Do you not realize this is about protecting our nations vital fluids from the communist menace!
/end sarcasm.
I do not see legislative bodies having their hands tied by the Amendment and I would suggest such a hand tying if perceived would be legally challenged by any legislative body wishing to consider legislation with regards to marriage in the case of anything other than the union of a man and a woman. Checks & balances work -in my opinion, this Amendment is but a legislative check on the judiciary.