I've been thinking a lot about this so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment." Enough has been written about discrimination, so I want to take a different tack. I am religiously conservative and am compelled to stand firmly against this amendment, but probably not for the reasons you think.
One of the first major challenges to the religion clause of the First Amendment came from an extremely unlikely source. In 1862, Congress passed an anti-bigamy law penned by
Justin Smith Morrill and signed into law by
President Abraham Lincoln, both members of the relatively new Republican party. It was the first federal legislation that was designed "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States." Veiled as an attempt to maintain the traditional, European view of marriage, it was actually a direct attack on the practices of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or "
Mormons") who were practicing
polygany in the Utah territories.
Latter-day Saints maintained that their marriage ceremonies were specifically allowed under the First Amendment, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Since, they argued, plural marriage was a God-given commandment and an integral part of their religious practices, Congress could not pass nor enforce a law that prohibited its use. George Reynolds, secretary to LDS President and Prophet Brigham Young, volunteered to be charged under the Morrill Act and in 1879, the Supreme Court heard Reynolds v. United States.
Citing quotations by the early Founders, rulings by King James I, and likening plural marriage to human sacrifice, the Court upheld Reynolds' conviction on a simple basis: marriage, at its core, is a civil contract, not a religious freedom.
In case you missed that, I will say it again. The Supreme Court of the United States found that marriage is essenially a legal contract, not a religious covenant. Chief Justice Waite wrote, "It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion: it was still belief, and belief only." As such, Congress could pass laws limiting or abolishing various forms of marriage, including polygany. Bigamy remains a federal offense.
You may sense that the argument can go in two major directions from here: 1. Congress can limit marriage any way they see fit OR 2. As a simple civil contract, "marriage" can and should be defined by the courts. Have fun with that. My issue is much more basic.
The Federal Marriage Amendment would constitutionally define marriage as a civil contract. The truth is, though, my relationship with my wife is deeper than a piece of paper issued by a judge. The federally issued contract we are obligated to sign should reflect our relationship, not the other way around. Don't get me wrong, I am not herein advocating the repeal of federal bigamy laws, but I find it nearly offensive that the Court would hold American law higher than religious commandment.
What's more, the ridiculous and hypocritical arguments coming from the "religious right" were shot down more than 125 years ago. They are using religion and history as their primary arguments, but both are legally and Constitutionally empty. To paraphrase, "It matters not that their beliefs are a part of their professed religion: it is still belief, and belief only." Religious people may not like that kind of blunt disregard for our deeply held convictions, but it is the law of the land nonetheless.
In the end, it is the Constitutionally provided right of the States to define "marriage." If that means marriages which look nothing like my own are legally allowed, so be it. That in no way diminishes from personal, spiritual, and eternal connection I have with my own wife. The more they argue for fedreally mandated limitations on their own relationships, the more religious rights they stand to lose from other federally mandated limitations.
In the end, the Amendment hasn't even a shred of hope. It will not even make it out of the Senate, let alone move on to be passed by the states. As has been pointed out several times, it's empty political soap-boxing for the 2006 elections. I should probably just ignore the whole thing.