PROPOSED FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION TO THE BILL
AS ORIGINALLY WORDED IN 2002

Sponsored link.

Initial text of the proposed amendment:

Representative Ronnie Shows, (D-MS) introduced a bill into the House of Representatives on 2002-MAY-15, popularly called the "Marriage Amendment." By month end, the bill had 11 co-sponsors, including Representatives David Phelps (D-IL), Ralph Hall (D-TX), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) and Chris Cannon (R-UT), and others. ₁ If successful, it would become the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It would have major, long-term, cultural, moral and social implications.

The amendment, as introduced, stated:

"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, 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." ₂

This first sentence in the amendment would prevent any state from adopting the same type of legislation that was recently created in the Netherlands. In late 1999, the definition of marriage was expanded in that country to include same-sex couples. Gay and lesbian Dutch engaged couples can now get a marriage license-- just as any other couple -- and then marry. They can also adopt. They have received the full privileges that were previously considered special rights -- those restricted to heterosexual married couples only. The sentence would also prevent courts from requiring states to issue regular marriage licenses to same-sex marriages, and register their marriages as happened starting in 2003 and 2004 in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, Canada.

Comments from supporters of the amendment:

Comments from those opposed to the amendment:

Some groups believe that the wording of the second sentence would strip away certain rights, benefits, and privileges from families, including children, of unmarried spouses. Any rights given to married couples under present or future legislation could not not be also given to common-law couples, or to "civil unionized" couples as they have been in Vermont, or to "domestic partners" in California as they are scheduled to receive at the start of 2005. It would change the legal status of tens millions of couples in the U.S., and their children. In an attempt to oppress homosexuals, the supporters of the amendment would create major hardship for non-married couples, most of whom are heterosexual. The media concentrated on the same-sex couple aspects of the proposed amendment. The stripping away of rights of common-law opposite-sex couples rarely appears in newspapers or TV programs.

Some reactions:

The ACLU points out that the range of rights that would be wiped out is immense. For example, there are many state laws which protect unmarried elderly couples who decide to not marry because they could not handle the reduction of their pensions. There are laws that assure same-sex partners that they will have access to their spouse in the hospital. There are even state laws that allow a person to oppose the autopsy of a close friend or partner because of the deceased's religious beliefs. All would be suddenly become unconstitutional if the amendment were passed.

The ACLU points out that none of the existing 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have restricted individual freedoms. Many have granted new freedoms. The proposed amendment would be the only one that would strip away rights and freedoms. It would affect people from all walks of life, of both genders and all sexual orientations.