The Federal Marriage Amendment that would official define marriage as between a man and a women has died in the US Senate as only 48 out of the needed 60 Senators voted for cloture on the issue. The issue is certainly not dead, and can be resurrected at a later time, but for now there will be no floor vote on the issue.
This isn’t surprising in the least, nor is it necessarily unexpected. More on this later here or on Red State.
Good riddance.
As Red State points out, I am surprised that Sununu and Specter voted as they did. Personally, I am glad it did cloture was not achieved. This whole thing is divisive and unnecessary. Yawn and mild disdain say I towards such political gestures.
I think critics of this measure need to understand how important it is for many, many well-meaning people to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. For some this may be no big deal, but to others it is highly significant, and these people should not be written off as extremist religious nuts.
Second, even though it did not pass, this very idea of this measure sends a message to activists courts to think twice about their usurping of power.
One thing we do know: if there is no FMA, it is inevitable that DOMA be eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, on the basis of the full faith clause in the Constitution. Thus, without some Constitutional amendment, gay marriage will become the accepted law of the land. Now one can debate whether that is desirable or not, but it is disingenous for many to say that they oppose gay marriage personally but want to leave it to the states, as if that makes the issue go away.
The government has no business in marriage at all. It is a religious term, and should have stayed that way. The ammendment itself is divisive and I think a waste of time given our current predicament, although I would hope the pro-gay community would be more willing to compromise and accept civil unions. If they want a formal marriage they can seek that within their individual religious institutions, if it is permitted within the particular grouping. I guess that puts me in realm of being frustrated with both sides. Ah well.. as a Libertarian I am used to it.
Justin writes “The government has no business in marriage at all. It is a religious term, and should have stayed that way.”
Perhaps ideally this would be so…but then, ideally govt wouldn’t be needed at all…
By necessity govt does play a role in marriage, as marriage has legal implications, especially with regards to children and property. There is no getting around that.
One could also argue that the society has a huge stake in marriage, as stable and functional marriages are perhaps the best way to ensure stable and functional children for the future.
The foundation of virtually all law in our govt comes from a religious source, in fact (whether one likes to admit it or not): the Judeo-Christian religion. So much of the basic laws really derive from the 10 Commandments.
In fact, analyzing it in a strictly secular sense, one can say that religion is an attempt to answer the big questions of life, including how people can best live together in relative peace and harmony. This inevitably leads to codes of conduct and laws. Govt laws have evolved from religious laws, again, whether one wants to admit that or not. So to say that marriage is derived from religous sources does not mean that govt should have no involvement. For instance, the laws againt murder derive from religious sources and in fact demand govt involvement.
It is a very complicated issue, but one that I imagine society will wrestle with for all of its existence.
jay – do you know where alex beverage is, i need to mail him something. thx.
I think critics of this measure need to understand how important it is for many, many well-meaning people to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
Too late – the “traditional definition of marriage” was “an arrangement where possession of a woman was handed from father to another man of the same race for the purpose of fathering children on her.” Well, we don’t use that definition anymore.
The reality is, the “definition of marriage” is something that evolves over time, evolving from an unbreakable, involuntary committment to a voluntary state; evolving from an intra-racial contract to a contract that is race-blind. So too will it evolve from the civil authorization of heterosexual relations to the civil authorization of sexual relations between any couple who can consent to it.
The foundation of virtually all law in our govt comes from a religious source, in fact (whether one likes to admit it or not): the Judeo-Christian religion. So much of the basic laws really derive from the 10 Commandments.
AT, have you ever read the Ten Commandments? Why don’t you read them now and tell me how many of them are actual US laws? I can only think of four. At least two of them are things that our government actually encourages us to do.
How on Earth do you reconcile “Congress shall make no law…preventing the free excercise [of religion]” with “I am the Lord Thy God; thou shall have no other Gods before me?” To say that the foundation of our law is the Judeo-Christian religion is to simply ignore how many of our founding principles are in direct contradiction to the Bible.
Govt laws have evolved from religious laws, again, whether one wants to admit that or not.
Oh, sure. Religion, in a sense, invented law – how better to enforce a law at the dawn of civilization than to say “the mighty Sky-Father bid this be so; he’s more powerful than you or I so you’d better do what he says.”
But that doesn’t mean that religion is the best at making law, or that religious laws should be adopted for any reason besides a merit to society.