Talk:Federal Marriage Amendment/Archive 2

Arguments in favor - Incomplete?

Are there any other arguments to be made in favor of the FMA? I was hoping to learn why self-described conservatives would support it, but wasn't able to find much. I did read the arguments listed, but there were only two, and they seemed weak and poorly written. Are there any other arguments that conservatives use to explain this move away from preserving the rights of states? MrZaius^talk 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole section needs redone. Specifically this:

"The same-sex marriage movement therefore, according to its opponents, threatens the core institution of marriage, challenges these essential constitutional principles, and imperils the very system of American government, and only the FMA can prevent this from occurring."

I've never even heard the last two be argued in my life, and nothing that was stated before that even points to it being possible in any way as a result of the arguments. It doesn't make sense. Also, it seems to argue for federalism, which alone means it can't be an argument FOR the FMA.72.206.97.34

Proposing Better Organization

It is becoming very apparent to me that the organization of the FMA article is hard to follow. I particularly have a problem with the "Process" heading (What it covers and where it is located in the article), compared to the "Campaign Issue" heading at the top. There is too much scattering of information. Perhaps we should set it up chronologically? I'd like to discuss how to better organize the FMA article with other people who contribute here. Anyone have any ideas? --Howrealisreal 16:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would propose something like this.

1. General Background - contains the existing "Federal & State Government" text, which is a good background.

2. Legislative History - strictly the chronological legislative history, including the language of the various proposed amendments. May include Bush's statements on the issue, to the extent that he called for enactment or changes to the bill.

3. Legal Analysis - move the interpretation of the various amendments here.

4. Impact on the 2004 Presidential Campaign

a. Summary - boil down some of the process stuff (like the filibuster, etc., here).

b. George Bush - list George Bush's various statements and stances on the bill.

c. State initiatives

d. Overall impact on campaign - include Kerry's stance here and the stuff about morality voters.

5. Proponent Arguments

6. Opponent Arguments

7. Ongoing Cultural Impact

TheronJ 20:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(I modified the proposd outline to incorporate Sandover's suggestion)

TheronJ 19:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would roll the whole Kerry response into the impact on campaign (which you have listed twice); Kerry was the rival candidate, after all, and not the President who called (and continues to call) for the FMA. In addition to the proposed categories above, we should have a section the social and cultural effects of the FMA during 2004 and beyond (quite apart from its implications within politics). Sandover 23:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• -*-*-*-*-****************************

Yes, this article needs some significant revision. I think Theron J's suggestion of reorganization would be a big improvement over what we presently have. Our current article does not read like an encyclopedia. Not only is the information scattered, but there is too much opinion where there should be technical facts. And being that there is an entire section of the article dedicated to criticism of the Amendment, and a conspicuous absence of the pro viewpoint, it's clear in which direction our article is biased.

I suggest that we try to stick to technical explanations. Other Wiki articles on controversial topics such as abortion and gun politics give decent examples on how we might structure this one. We should keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or debate forum. We should minimize the room allowed for arguments (like the abortion article). That is, instead of just regurgitating all the talking points of our political organization of choice, let's summarize a few of the more prominent considerations and put links in the addendum for readers who want to get the full debate. Our article should be the source for people looking for facts, not arguments.Gmoneyfinancial 21:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation of Contemporary FMA

Sandover, I liked your changes, but I have some questions on your interpretation of the current FMA.

1) Is it correct to say that "most scholars" believe that the current language would forbid civil unions? It seems pretty obvious to me that it wouldn't, as described below, but I could be wrong. My guess (and again, I could be wrong), is that the scholars concluding that the FMA forbids civil unions are interpreting the first version, not the second.

2) Given that the change occurred after Bush (through McClellan) called on Musgrave to draft language permitting civil unions, and given that they deleted the sentence that people thought would bar civil unions, is there any way to tell whether Bush, by endorsing the second Musgrave language, thought he was permitting or barring civil unions? In other words, even assuming your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, how can we tell whether it's tricky intent on Bush's part or an honest drafting mistake.

My guess is that Musgrave didn't really think about civil unions, so when she characterized the change as a "technical change," it was because she didn't intend the first bill to bar civil unions.

3) Finally, I think it's pretty clear that the current FMA would permit states to enact civil unions. Specifically, according to the article, the current draft provides:

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.

Your interpretation is that the "constitution" language would bar civil unions, but I don't see it. The language is that the state and federal constitutions may not be construed to require civil unions, not that they may not be construed to permit civil unions.

I think the most reasonable interpretation is that the current amendment, if passed, would prevent courts from finding a requirement to allow civil unions (as Massachusetts did with marriage), but would permit states to enact civil unions. I'd be interested in seeing legal scholars who differ.

TheronJ 20:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TheronJ, thanks for writing. The FMA page will be much better for the organizational overhaul you have proposed.

I disagree somewhat, however, with your legal interpretation of the revised version of the FMA (March 23, 2004). When I changed the entry to reflect the fact that "most" legal scholars (rather than "some" legal scholars) interpreted the revision as forbidding civil unions, it was a reflection of exchanges I have had with several constitutional law experts on this subject. I don't mind you changing that word back -- but I do think the controversy about various interpretations of Musgrave's second version of the FMA should be incorporated into the Wikipedia entry, perhaps in an "Interpretations and Possible Outcomes" section. (And by the way, I appreciate your admission that you could be wrong -- indeed, I could be wrong. It's fair to say that a lot of people were mistaken in their initial interpretations of the revised FMA language last March, and took on face value the assertion by its sponsors that it was limited simply to "protecting marriage." If that were the case, there would be no need for the second line of the amendment at all. The legal reality is considerably more complex than its sponsors have indicated.)

Taken at face value, the revised Musgrave language does leave room open for states to enact civil unions -- it just doesn't leave very much room open for those civil unions, enacted by state legislatures and under state constitutional protections, to withstand subsequent court tests or federal court scrutiny. Nor does the FMA offer much hope of individual states standing up to federal law on issues regarding marriage and marriage-like arrangements. Under the second FMA proposed by Musgrave, a hypothetical federal law outlawing gay civil unions (or civil rights protection in any form drawn from the recognition of same-sex relationships) would trump any one state constitution's interpretation or objection to it in part or in whole, and no state constitutional language about equality or equal rights could alter (i.e., require) the state to go against that federal law. I agree that the distinctions between the words permit and require are important here; I will let you puzzle it all out on your own, or better yet, through the editing process in a projected "Interpretations and Possible Outcomes" section. There are plenty of references which the Wikipedia entry can, and should, be citing.

Over and over again, I have asked constitutional law scholars what probable outcomes might come from a successful FMA in the second version. I admit that I have received a number of different answers, each of which predicated on hypotheses about how court challenges to state-sponsored civil unions might have been filed, how those challenges might have been interpreted based on the revised FMA language incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, etc. Every one I have spoken with has stressed the unknowns involved in a U.S. Constitutional amendment which overrides the validity of individual state constitutions to judge and interpret their own laws; this is truly uncharted territory, and scholars of constitutional history point out that this radical reconstruction of the U.S. Constitution would be quite without precedent. We don't know how everything would have shaken out from this; none of us have crystal balls or can predict the what-ifs (and I am not necessarily myself one to call Musgrave's revised amendment a "stealth" amendment, although others have, and for different reasons). FMA would -- at the very least -- be an extraordinarily powerful tool as a springboard for attacks on existing or future civil unions (or even attacks on gay-friendly laws in individual states or localities, for example, laws as seemingly innocuous as those permitting hospital visitation, laws offering permission to have joint insurance policies for cohabiting same-sex couples, etc).

It would be narrow and irresponsible for the entry to ignore the immediate or eventual effects of FMA on other Supreme Court decisions which define privacy in part or in whole based on what the Constitution does not (right now) directly address. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which safeguards the privacy rights of married (heterosexual) couples to use birth control, is frequently cited by constitutional scholars as a decision which might require re-evaluation should a court challenge emerge subsequent to the passage of Musgrave's FMA. (The key word is "marriage," which is at the moment absent from the U.S. Constitution and a matter left to the states.)

Does or did Bush know all this? What can we read into his silence? His silence does not necessarily prove a point one way or another, and it's definitely not for us to simply accept that silence and interpret Bush's "body language" (as the New York Times' reporter Elisabeth Bumiller did, quite famously, in her March 1, 2004 article) as tacit support for gay people and, possibly, gay civil unions. But we should accurately report Bush's avoidance of the term "civil unions" in his initial speech about the FMA on February 24, 2004 last year, as well as his failure to voice any opposition to the FMA in the form it was presented to the Senate and voted on in the House. Indeed, given the fact that the legal implications of the FMA were vociferously discussed last year in the gay, lesbian, and alternative media last summer, and in the Senate chambers in July 2004, Bush's curious silence on this issue is important. Sandover 23:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuits against churches?

Quoth the article:

Churches have concerns that legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to lawsuits against persons, churches or businesses who refuse to perform a marriage ceremony on religious or moral grounds.

I've heard this argument used, so I have no doubt that churches do have these concerns. However, if my understanding of the situation is correct, I think it's important to point out that these concerns don't have any basis in legal reality. The Catholic Church does not perform weddings for divorced people, even though such marriges are perfectly legal in the U.S. I haven't heard of anyone trying to sue the Catholics over this issue. Any lawsuit attempting to force a church that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage to perform one would similarly be rejected on 1st amendment grounds. --Jfruh 14:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Convoluted anon. argument reverted

An anonymous editor added the following after the "State's Rights" heading (which s/he changed to "Federalism":

Supporters counter this arguement by argueing that the FMA would protect federalism. They argue that the majority of Americans oppose gay marraige, and that without the amendment, either federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and/or state courts, could force states to allow same-sex marraige or recognize same-sex marraiges from other states, contrary to the will of the people thereof. Through the amendment, the people of every state, through their elected representatives in Congress and their respective state legislatures, would be protecting their interests from activist judges who they believe wish to unilaterally redefine marraige. Furthermore, they argue, the process of amending the Constitution is federalism, since no amendment can be valid unless it is approved by two-thirds of each house of Congress and subsequently ratified by three quarters of the states.

I removed it because it's in a section for arguments posed by opponents of the amendment (arguments for it can go elsewhere); plus, in my opinion, it doesn't really make much sense. Either you think marriage is an institution that should be defined by the will of a nationwide majority, or you think it should be defined state by state by the various government organs thereof. To try to argue that some state's decisions being overruled by the votes of a supermajority of other states somehow constitutes a states' rights victory borders on the ludicrous. --Jfruh 19:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments in Favor of FMA added

I added a few of the major arguments used by proponents of the FMA to NPOV the article. Having the criticisms listed without the arguments used in favor, strikes a reader as Bias against the FMA. Most of the arguments that I listed were held in three appellate court cases, Lewis V Harris, Hernandez v Robles and Dean V. District of Columbia. Justice Scalia also raised a couple of these points in his dissent in Lawrence. I understand that many of those who are against the FMA, don't agree with the arguments used to support it, but the reverse applies to those who are critics of the FMA. Both sides need to be addressed to maintain NPOV. Some of these used to exist in the article, yet somewhere along the line they were quietly removed leaving only the arguments against. Ghostmonkey57 04:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

NPOV. I move to delete the material entered by a series of anonymous users, notably 83.169.159.208, under "The Fundamental Nature of Marriage" (a dicey rubric in itself). If there are supporters of the FMA actually making these arguments, then they deserve footnoted mention in Wikipedia. But the article should not be a vehicle for anonymous editorializing. Sandover 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

'NPOV'. Actually you are correct. There was vandalism by both sides in the article. The stuff from 71.131.255.67 was worse in my opinion. (And is going to be reported). I've reverted back to the May 1st Article, that was void of the POV statements. Ghostmonkey57 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I think this article doesn't need arguments for and against same-sex marriage in general (e.g. the "fundamental nature of marriage" section, the polygamy section, the section on why ssm doesn't harm heterosexual marriage). This article should only include arguments that are specific to the amendment (e.g. states' rights, judicial activism), and then have a link to one of the articles that lays out the general arguments for and against same-sex marriage.--Fagles 05:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to POV the article again, by having a whole list of arguments against the FMA, and just one in favor. The fact is, EACH of the arguments that I listed in favor, have been upheld in various same-sex marriage litigation. They need to be included. Ghostmonkey57 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

• I have no intention of favoring one side or the other. I deleted arguments both pro and con that were generic to same-sex marriage (e.g. "same sex marriage is good because it promotes gay rights" and "same sex marriage is bad because it leads to polygamy"). Please feel free to add arguments specifically in favor of the FMA. The "critical mass preservation" argument works - it is a reason to enact the FMA specifically rather than simply to oppose same-sex marriage. However, "Polygamy," "Abolishment of Male and Female Distinctions" and ""Fundamental Nature of Marriage" arguments are simply arguments against same-sex marriage in general. Of course, arguments for and against ssm are relevant to the debate over the FMA, but I think it better to leave them in the article abount Same-Sex Marriage than to present them all here. --Fagles 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

International Justification is flawed

I find it very interesting that the article references other countries around the world as supporting same sex marriages, but there is no reference to countries that don't. As if by listing these countries it somehow lends credibility or justification to such action. To base a decision within our own country on the legal precedence of other countries is to assume that the beliefs and social structure within those other countries mimic that of our own. Having lived over seas, I have found that nothing could be further from the truth and it is a dangerous precedent to make or set. 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Dan Collette

I find this to be the case with a lot of Wiki articles, and I am not certain the information is extremely relevant here...BUT there are some reasons to reconsider before an edit. 1) the rallies against judicial activism are premised, in part, on the notion that "foreign laws" have erroneously influenced the Supreme Court, and 2) the movement for gay marriage and recognition of gay partnerships has had far more institutional support overseas, particularly in Europe. However, I don't think there is necessarily a POV problem with listing countries that permit same-sex marriage (I would hope most people realize its a tiny minority of countries, or maybe something to the effect of "marriage recognized in following countries only"). And lastly, I have to take issue with your "base a decision within our own country on the legal precedence of other countries" line, because regardless of how much time you have spent abroad and how alien those places were from the US, common law countries (especially the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and the US) borrow heavily from one another in a variety of areas and have a common origin. Beyond the common law "anglosphere," there is liberal borrowing between other European and American countries when it comes to designing social and economic policy. Gibbsale 09:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, NO. And the New Chief Justice of the United States is pretty clear on why that's a NO. Foreign law IS NOT a basis for U.S. Constitutional Law. From his hearing:

KYL: It's an American Constitution, not a European or an African or an Asian one. And its meaning, it seems to me, by definition, cannot be determined by reference to foreign law. I also think it would put us on a dangerous path by trying to pick and choose among those foreign laws that we liked or didn't like. For example, many nations have a weak protection for freedom to participate in or practice one's religion. Iran and some other Middle Eastern nations come immediately to mind. But even a modern Western nation like France has placed restrictions on religious symbols in the public square. That would be highly unlikely to pass muster in U.S. courts. Should we look to France to tell us what the free exercise clause means, for example? Even nations that share our common law tradition such as Great Britain offer fewer civil liberty guarantees than we do. And the press has far less freedom. Nations such as Canada have allowed their judges to craft a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. There's a lot more to say on the subject. But I wanted to hear from you. So my question is this: What, if anything, is the proper role of foreign law in U.S. Supreme Court decisions? And, of course, we're not talking about interpreting treaties or foreign contracts of that sort, but cases such as those that would involve interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.

ROBERTS: Well, I don't want to comment on any particular case but I think I can speak more generally about the approach. I know Justices Scalia and Breyer had a little debate about it themselves here in town that was very illuminating to get both of their views. And I would say, as a general matter, that there are a couple of things that cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent. As you say, this isn't about interpreting treaties or foreign contracts but as precedent on the meaning of American law. The first has to do with democratic theory. Judicial decisions: In this country, judges, of course, are not accountable to the people, but we are appointed through a process that allows for participation of the electorate. The president who nominates judges is obviously accountable to the people. Senators who confirm judges are accountable to people. And in that way, the role of the judge is consistent with the democratic theory.

ROBERTS: If we're relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he's playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country. I think that's a concern that has to be addressed. The other part of it that would concern me is that, relying on foreign precedent doesn't confine judges. It doesn't limit their discretion the way relying on domestic precedent does. Domestic precedent can confine and shape the discretion of the judges. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don't find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it's in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever. As somebody said in another context, looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. They're there. And that actually expands the discretion of the judge. It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent -- because they're finding precedent in foreign law -- and use that to determine the meaning of the Constitution. And I think that's a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent.

Ghostmonkey57 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Ghostmonkey57

Well Roberts is not being forward, because he knows, as does every American law student, that foreign decisions influence our courts, both federal and state. The reason for this is clear: we are a common law country, common law is organic and common law countries often reference other common law countries, especially England. Discussing France, Italy, and especially Somalia or Indonesia is clearly erroneous, because those are countries with a radically different legal tradition (especially Somalia). As I noted above, policy-makers often reference some of those countries when determining social or economic policy (remember how same-sex marriage is supposedly leading to declining birthrates in the Netherlands?)

Further, when making legal arguments there are a variety of different types of authority one can turn to. Some are binding (precedent, whether US or state supreme court or an intermediate appellate court) and others are persuasive (academic commentaries, the Restatements, decisions from other courts in other states and FOREIGN COURTS). And by the way, Justice Roberts does not determine what is or is not the "correct" method of interpreting the Constitution. Gibbsale 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chief Justice Roberts appointment, along with the Appointment of Justice Alito will tip the balance at the Supreme Court against the use of International Law in SCOTUS opinions. We both know this. And he is quite correct in his nomination statement, his words don't need any further justification from me. :) Ghostmonkey57 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not "both" know this, because Justice Kennedy references foreign trends in his opinions, and the moderate to liberal wing of the Court does as well. That's still 5-4 against the idea that foreign law should have no influence. Anyway, returning to the ACTUAL discussion here, I would not be opposed to the removal of the description of the marriage laws in other countries; it is not a POV problem (after all, it also serves to illustrate just what a minority opinion same-sex marriage is), but I think it borders on irrelevance when it comes to this article. A link would probably be more appropriate, or a very brief description. Gibbsale 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-deletion clause

Looking at the proposed texts, am I right that the standard "this amendment will be rendered null if not ratified by sufficient states within seven years" bit present in most latter day amendments is missing? Timrollpickering 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not without precedent. The twenty-seventh amendment was sent out in 1789 and ratified in 1992. Gibbsale 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that was still pending from the 1780s... Looking through the ammendments proposed and adopted in the twentieth century, in my Dover Thrift Edition:

• The sixteenth and seventeenth say nothing.
• The eighteenth contains a "this must be ratified within seven years or it falls" bit.
• There's nothing in the nineteenth.
• The twentieth states that 3/4 of state legislatures must ratify within seven years or it falls.
• The twenty-first has a "seven years or falls" bit.
• The twenty-second has a 3/4 requirement. (Is this the convention for proposed amendments affecting the Presidency?)
• There's nothing in the twenty-third through twenty-sixth amendments.
• (The twenty-seventh wasn't started in the twentieth century.)

If I recall correctly, the Equality amendment failed in part because of the seven year clause, despite an attempt to extend that.

What other proposed amendments in the last seventy years have made it to the state legislatures only to fail? Do they contain self-deletion clauses? Timrollpickering 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary and Ineffective

I cleaned up the editorializing in the "Unnecessary and Ineffective" block under arguments against. The previous version was way to POV. The new version is supported by legal reason and facts, (A Lawyer named Dale Carpenter formulated most of the "Unnecessary" argument in his CATO institute paper.) http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa570.pdf Ghostmonkey57 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The comments about 'printing suits' were sarcastic POV that has no place in rational discussion. Furthermore, Ghostmonkey57 removed and changed content specific to a seperate argument posited by Ghostmonkey57 that a critical mass of heterosexual marriages is necessary to propagate society, and personally, I think it does Ghostmonkey57's arguments a discredit to delete their rebuttals and replace them with sarcasm. Ghostmonkey57 should not accuse others of editorializing if Ghostmonkey57 freely edits articles in such a fashion. I hope you agree with my compromise edits, and that we will all be able to adhere to NPOV. kind regards- 09:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)frilledren2

If you would have read Dale Carpenter's paper, you would have seen that I used his language VERBATIM. The "printing suits" line was his, not mine. Since the article is supposed to cover actual arguments that are used against the FMA, a real life CATO paper against the FMA, is better than arguments written here in an attempt to POV and respond to further arguments down the page. The article is ment to list facts, not be a debate section. By your own admission, the argument deleted was a "rebuttal" rebuttals have no place in a wikipedia article. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE PAGE. It's an encyclopedia article. Further the "rebuttal" was NOT FMA SPECIFIC. Something that was already discussed prior, here in the talk page. Ghostmonkey57 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I'll point out here, line for line the specific POV problems with the section as it read:

Proponents of the FMA suggest that it is necessary to protect hetero-sexual marriage from being devalued and demeaned, and that the future of our society is at stake, however, such fears are not clearly explained.

This is just flatly incorrect. Many proponents of the FMA have explained how they believe marriage would be devalued and demeaned. The use of the "Counterfit" argument is just one example. Whether or not you agree with the argument, is irrelevant. When this type of material was included in the PRO-FMA section, it was removed, with the comments that all arguments had to be FMA specific. Specifically, the "Counterfit" argument in favor of the FMA was removed a while back, and put into the article dealing with same-sex marriage in general. You can't maintain NPOV while removing pro-arguments for the FMA, and allowing against-arguments that are not FMA specific.

Similar arguments were made prior to the legalization of mixed-race marriages by Loving vs Virginia.

This is a completely POV and misleading comment to make. The Supreme Court of the United States distingushed Loving from the Same-Sex marriage debate in it's summary affirmation in Baker v Nelson. Any appeal to Loving therefore is fallacious. Further, the majority of States in 1967 had repealed laws against interracial marriage, on top of it, the Loving Decision itself linked marriage to procreation. I could go on. But you get the point.

Proponents of the FMA suggest that a 'critical mass' of citizens who respect heterosexual marriage must be preserved, yet, banning or legalizing same-sex marriage is not likely to change the number of heterosexual marriages, nor would allowing same-sex marriage disrespect or diminish heterosexual marriage.

This was written in direct response to the "critical mass" argument put forward by proponents of the FMA. There is a slight problem with this, This article isn't ment to be a debate. It's supposed to merely list arguments pro/con and let the people reading the article make the decision on what they choose to believe.

A ban of same-sex marriage is unlikely to have any negative impact on procreation, as it would not cause homosexuals to 'give-up' and suddenly marry hetero-sexually. Conversely, as demonstrated in Massachusetts, allowing same-sex marriage has not caused hetero-sexuals to switch lifestyles, nor has it jeopardized birth rates or the state's society.

FMA proponents have put forth quite a few studies have been done on European Countries where Same-sex marriage has been enacted, that have shown that there is an impact on the number of children born out of wedlock, and the decreasing number of marriages. These things CANNOT be included here, because they are not SPECIFIC to the FMA. Rather, this type of argumentation belongs in the general article on same-sex marriage. Likewise, the response to such arguments must necessarily be moved to the general article, because they are NOT FMA specific.

The material that I provided for this section was all FMA specific, and came from an actual anti-FMA article written by a homosexual rights attorney. His legal argumentation is based on actual arguments and concrete legal facts, NOT rebuttals to arguments put forth by FMA proponents. I could list a bunch of rebuttals to each one of the anti-FMA arguments, but that's NOT what wikipedia is for. Ghostmonkey57 19:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Hi- these comments are principally intended for Ghostmonkey57- sorry I don't have the time for a longer digression: 1. I noticed you lifted things directly from article; things quoted verbatim and not cited are plagiarism- the cato article was nice and would be meaningful in its entirety. Quoting someone (especially when you don't say it is a quote) doesn't protect you from the statement's sentiment. If you have done this in other contributions, please cite your direct quotations. 2. Logical pro/con discussions are always debate; they key is to be fair and civil. 'Critical mass' by your logic shouldn't be a part of the pro argumentation, but out of respect for this perspective I simply pointed out that this has not been shown to be the case, nor is it clear how banning same-sex marriage would have any material effect on hetero-sexual behavior in marriage or otherwise. Unless this can be shown, I suggest that the CM argumentation be removed. If you had argued that same-sex marriage causes anything else not immediately logically obvious, I would also have had to ask for evidence to support such a claim. Moreover, continuing with your desire for limited debate, I would further suggest that any proponent line of argumentation that cannot be conclusively shown be removed, as I believe the burden of proof in changing a law lies with pro. It is a journalistic trick to use statements similar to 'some would say', as it allows you to claim anything without support, and I think this behavior should be avoided. I certainly do agree that wikipedia is not the place for a flame war, but of information, and that the more credible, logical, referenced sources that can be provided, should (don't just say you got it from 'somewhere', and have gleaned out what you felt was the relevant information), but deleting someone else's argument and replacing it with selective sarcasm cannot be construed as appropriate. In general, it may be worthwhile to delineate logical arguments from legal precedents in this section. kind regards, frilledren2 12:23, 15 June 2006

1. I thought I had inserted a footnote link to the cato article in my original submission. Apparently I didn't. I'll fix that. 2. The "Critical Mass Preservation" was a point that was already agreed was FMA specific. (Look above) & requoted here:

I have no intention of favoring one side or the other. I deleted arguments both pro and con that were generic to same-sex marriage (e.g. "same sex marriage is good because it promotes gay rights" and "same sex marriage is bad because it leads to polygamy"). Please feel free to add arguments specifically in favor of the FMA. The "critical mass preservation" argument works - it is a reason to enact the FMA specifically rather than simply to oppose same-sex marriage. However, "Polygamy," "Abolishment of Male and Female Distinctions" and ""Fundamental Nature of Marriage" arguments are simply arguments against same-sex marriage in general. Of course, arguments for and against ssm are relevant to the debate over the FMA, but I think it better to leave them in the article abount Same-Sex Marriage than to present them all here. --Fagles 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what was agreed upon.

Secondly, You keep insisting that banning same-sex marriage has no effect on the institution of marriage, and put this forth as fact.

Here are a couple of articles that assert such a problem.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/126qodro.asp http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp

As for your other points. The burden of proof doesn't like with "pro". In fact, the burden of proof would likely lie with "anti", as "same-sex marriage" is not the established norm. The established norm would enjoy a long historical precedent that is lacking with "same-sex marriage".

Finally, No one was deleting out an argument and replacing it with sarcasm. Dale Carpenter made the comments about lawsuits, in response to the FMA proponent claims referencing them. Those are not my points, but his. Further, I already addressed why the "rebuttal" was removed.

Contrary to what you might think, I am only trying to NPOV the article. Before I made my first submissions to the article, strangely only Anti-FMA arguments were here. Why do you think that is?

Ghostmonkey57 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I went ahead and edited the "Critical Mass" argument, hopefully this edit would be satisfactory. I also fixed the Full Faith and Credit argument to reflect legal reality. Current Precedent does not support the view that the Full Faith and Credit Clause could be used to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation. (See Wilson V. Ake.) Ghostmonkey57 14:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Cleanup - Senate votes by state

The Senate votes by state section needs help. It lacks any form of context or explanation of when. what and why the following list is tacked on to this article. Davodd 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"All or most" VS "Some or most"

"Several other states including Vermont, California, and Connecticut allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide all or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law, but forbid same-sex marriages."

Since I've never seen evidence of any civil union providing "all" of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, I'm going to be bold and edit it to "some or most." If someone can show me a state that provides all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage in a civil union for same-sex couples, feel free to edit it back.

I offer this as extra information: Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

Vancar 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's illegal for a civil union in the US to be given all of the same rights as marriage, as the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" blocked well over 1,000 rights being given to nonmarried couples.

Weasel words

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Too many instances of uncited "many believe" and "some (people)" = weasel words. - Davodd 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

'Opposite Actions in Other Nations'

This article is about an amendment to the United States Constitution, why is there a section on what other countries are doing to their constitutions? Surely this is a domestic concern for America so it's irrelevant to have a section on what other states choose to do? Why is right in the middle of the article? At best it should be under 'See also'? - Johnbull 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is important to keep this in because if the US recognises marriages and divorces of other countries, by logic it is compelled to recognise "gay marriages" as well. I believe there are treaties to this effect. Callelinea 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)callelinea

I don't think there are any treaties to that effect that I know of. I think, for the most part, foreign marriages are only traditionally recognized here. The U.S. is not even capable of recognizing a same-sex marriage performed in any other country with its current laws, though individual states are free to.

Interracial FMA in the 1910s

I think the fact that less than a century ago there was a proposed interracial FMA, that would have banned marriages between Caucasians and non-Caucasians in the whole of the United States, should be mentioned somewhere.

See Anti-Miscegenation Amendment. - René van Buuren 14:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because the Supreme Court of the United States has summarily affirmed that there is no applicability of the Miscegenation issue to the Same-Sex Marriage issue. (See: Baker v. Nelson) No matter how much homosexual activists like to rely upon this argument, that reliance is misplaced. Ghostmonkey57 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Ghostmonkey57

The Minnesota Supreme Court (not the US Supreme Court, by the way) ruled that the US Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia was not applicable to Baker v. Nelson and that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was not unconstitutional. All I'm saying is that it's an interesting parallel, and very few people seem to know that not only did interracial marriage use to be illegal in a lot of the US just like same-sex marriage is now, there was even a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide, just like the FMA now. I think that is a piece of information that would interest a lot of people reading this article, regardless of any MN Supreme Court ruling. - René van Buuren 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Right and Wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Loving was distinguishable and that State Laws defining marriage as the Union Between a man and a woman DO NOT offend the Constitution of the United States. The case then went before the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question." Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts. While only a summary decision, Baker was a decision on the merits by the United States Supreme Court, and has been cited in numerous Court opinions since then. It was cited as absolutely controlling in Wilson v. Ake. Like it or not, the Summary decision in Baker v. Nelson 409 US 810 (1972) <-------- (Note the UNITED STATES REPORTER CITATION.) IS BINDING LAW on this issue, and that Summary affirmation confirms that reliance upon the Miscegenation comparison is misplaced. Ghostmonkey57 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Thank you for explaining that, however, it has little to do with my point. It confirms that the miscegenation comparison is misplaced as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, but my point was that it is an interesting parallel and it will be of interest to people reading this article. I'm not arguing about the laws or Constitution of the United States or anything like that. - René van Buuren 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

The entire Arguments in favor / Family protection section seems to have been lifted, with minor edits, from here. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I don't want to do the wrong thing on a page about such a contentious subject... what's the process here? Fredtheflyingfrog 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the article, that's most likely where the original article came from. However, it's not a copyright violation. The quoted portion is less than 20% of the original article, and has been altered to some extent. (I'll work on altering it some more.) I will thank you for adding the link. Because it verifies without doubt that this is an argument that FMA proponents are advancing, and it should be included in the article. Ghostmonkey57 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

• I don't think that's not good enough. Taking the first 4 paragraphs almost without change is not fair use. Also, by Wikipedia standards, "Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked[, and a]ll copyrighted text must be attributed." (WP:NONFREE#Text; emphasis in original). I've removed the content from the main page. As I see it, we have two options: rewrite from scratch, or create a direct quote. Given the obvious POV of the editorial, I'm inclined towards the first. I'll try to work on this, but I'm not sure how much time I have right now. Fredtheflyingfrog 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the quote. I summarized most of it in my own words. I did use a direct quote, and attributed it back to the author. This should fix the objections. Ghostmonkey57 13:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Arguments in favor / Family protection

I am concerned that the family protection section doesn't do justice to FMA proponents. It begins: FMA proponents say that under the federal Constitution, the regulation of marriage was not given to the national government to control. It is both ironic, and, more relevantly to this discussion, confusing to the reader that this is the beginning of an argument *for* a federal amendment on marriage. While there is an argument being made, it's undermined by the order of presentation and other aspects of it's presentation. If the primary point of the section is to talk about how the FMA "protects families" or "protects the institution of traditional families", then it seems to me that the section would be stronger if it directly addresses that point first, and gets how that is based in Constitutional history, if that part of the argument is relevant, later. (For the record, I'm an FMA opponent, I'd rewrite it myself but I don't think I can do a good job of keeping NPOV on the subject.) --Joe Decker 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think constitutional history is relevant. But I'm vehemently opposed so I can't argue in favor. 72.206.97.34

Nods. Same here. --Joe Decker 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging by peoples' inability to answer, I'm going to say the section should be removed. The only thing even close to "family protection" I've ever heard if that some people feel marriage will lose its meaning and be cheapened, but, is that really a concrete argumet to put in? I don't think so. Away with it! It needs completely rewritten, as it's 100% incoherent. 72.206.97.34

UH NO. The point of the Family protection argument is that marriage was not given to the Federal Government to control, however, since homosexual activists want to do this, then a standard must be set that protects traditional marriage. You might not like the argument, but it's one that is being made. Ghostmonkey57 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

It isn't a valid argument to warrant mention. You contradicted yourself, and that was the point of its initial removal. The amendment GIVES the federal government control, it's the federal government defining it - it's completely against federalism no matter how you put it, so it has no validity in being mentioned as it's so incoherent. There is also no federal movement to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, and all gay rights organizations that I know of approach it as a state-by-state issue. I don't like the argument, sure, but that's because it makes no sense.

Please try to rewrite it in a way that makes sense. Adamsmo 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You not liking or disagreeing with the argument, is not cause to remove it. Please don't do it again. The fact is, homosexual activist groups do have as a goal to legalize same-sex "marriage" nationwide. They would like nothing better than for the Supreme Court to "find" a right to same-sex "marriage" in the Constitution. The family protection argument states, that IF we are going to give the federal government control over marriage, or enact a standard for marriage nationwide, then the standard must be one man-one woman. The argument is that the FMA is necessary to preserve the unique special protection that conjugal marriage is given. Again, you might not like the argument, but that's the argument being presented. You can't stomp your feet, claim a "contradiction" (never mind none exists) and delete the argument because you don't like it. Ghostmonkey57 04:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Oh, I might add that the State by State approach is not one by choice. The Homosexual activist groups are smart enough to realize that 1. Precedent stands against them. 2. There are not enough votes on the current Supreme Court to obtain the result that they desire. Ghostmonkey57 04:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I'm sure that people who want same-sex marriage to be legal would love to have it happen nation-wide, but the sentence "same-sex marriage advocates want to disregard federalism and enact same sex marriage nationwide via judicial fiat" is a severe accusation, and, so far as I can tell, without basis in fact. The reason for not going that way is irrelevant - they're still not doing it. I'm going to remove this section, especially because there seem to have been 4 votes to remove and 1 to keep. Please bring this back up if you can find a reference that there is a group attempting to use "judicial fiat" to enact same-sex marriage. Fredtheflyingfrog 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an accusation backed by historic examples, (every federal lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act). And your contention "they're still not doing it." is absolutely incorrect. Several Federal Lawsuits have been filed attempting to gain FEDERAL recognition of same-sex "marriage". The lawsuits had the support of various homosexual activist organizations. I know that there is an overwhelming left leaning bias here at wikipedia, but the fact is, this is an encyclopedia article that is listing various arguments brought up for and against the FMA. It's rather amusing that those who don't want to see the Pro-FMA arguments, are uniformly against the FMA themselves. We either include the arguments that are being advanced by both sides, or we include no arguments at all. Period. Please don't take down the section again. It's referenced and it's an argument that is being advanced in favor of the FMA, whether you like the argument or disagree with the argument is irrelevant. Ghostmonkey57 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Arguments in favor / Restriction of judicial overreach

This section refers to Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, which was overturned. It was a lower court, and a lot of lower court rulings get overturned. I'm just not sure that it's at all that good of a reference for it to be a valid argument in any way. 72.206.97.34

So does no one know of a more legitimate case? Adamsmo 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter that Equal Protection v. Bruning was overturned at the 8th Circuit, the reasoning used by the lower Court judge (appointed by William Jefferson Clinton), could in theory be applied by a future Court. Ghostmonkey57 04:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Phrasing

"Constitutionally defining marriage would not only remove the states' choice, but it would reverse the choices already made in some states, i.e., Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, California, New Jersey and Maine." This wording makes it sound like the states' citizens chose to allow same-sex marriage (MA is the one I'm especially thinking of) when some of these states did not choose it but their Supreme Courts ruled for it under the equal protection clause. --71.65.202.41 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The FMA would reverse the decision in Massachsetts as regards to Homosexual "Marriage" but it WOULD NOT reverse the decisions in VT, CT, CA, NJ or ME. The Amendment would NOT prohibit State Legislators from enacting Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. The Second Phrase of the Amendment reads: [i]"Neither this constitution or 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."[/i] Meaning that while Judges could not Construe the Constitution or any State or Federal law to require marital status or similar status be given to homosexuals, the State Legislators COULD enact such laws. Ghostmonkey57 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Sentence removed from article

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

Some historians call it "republican marriage" because, in the Founding Era, it was understood to be the basic social unit necessary to inculcate civic virtue and nurture the individual and social values essential for the survival of a republican (representative democracy) form of government.

This is an exact (unattributed) quote from the source cited, FMA Time: We need a Federal Marriage Amendment., National Review, Feb 17, 2004. (Accessed May 15, 2007). However, the source is not neutral as it is advocating for a position, it does not identify any such references, and a search for actual historical references turns up concepts quite different from that referred to by the article - for example, of a forced marriage between a "republican" soldier and an unwilling bride[1], or the French revolutionary practice of "republican marriage, which involved tying a naked man and woman together and drowning them."[2], [3], [4]. Interestingly, another use refers to a "secular" marriage, with parents horrified to learn that their children planned a "republican marriage" instead of being married in a Church.[5], [6] bd2412 T 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Domestic Abuse"

I removed the Domestic Abuse section from the arguments against the FMA. This really never had any actual merit, but I was waiting until the Ohio Supreme Court ruled to remove the section. It just did so:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-3723.pdf

The overwhelming majority of the appellate courts in Ohio had already ruled that the State Amendment did not conflict with the Domestic Violence Laws. Only two Appellate Courts ruled otherwise. Homosexual Activists seized on the minority cases to use as a scare tactic in other states. That scare tactic has just been removed with the OSC decision.

It does not matter that the decision was overturned at the Ohio Supreme Court, the reasoning used by the two Appellate Court judges could in theory be applied by a federal court or a court in another state. -Fagles 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly does matter. The "reasoning" put forth by two of the Appellate Courts, stood in the face of the Constitution, the Marriage Amendment, and SETTLED LAW. The "reasoning" was put forward soley to advance scare tactics on the amendment. Everyone correctly predicted that the Ohio Supreme Court would strike it down. In no other jurisdiction was this even an issue. On top of it all, Ohio's Domestic Violence Statute is unique. In no way could the same situation be applied in other states, or at a Federal Level, as the Statutes in questions are not written the same way. I am REMOVING this scare tactic, please don't put it back. Ghostmonkey57 22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

No matterr what the ruling in Ohio, the information should remain in the article as it now serves as a means of historic context for the topic of the article. Include the new Ohio Supreme Court ruling, but the information should still be included in the article somewhere despite the fact that it appears to be an invalid arguement against the amendment. It was an arguement against/criticism of the amendment. ZueJay (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the argument was nonsense from the beginning. It was designed as a scare tactic to attempt to block other States from passing their own Marriage Amendments and to run interference against the FMA. Let me lay it for you. Ohio's Domestic Violence Statute was written in a very unique/awkward way, no other State has a statute written in the same manner. Even with this, only 2 of the 12 Appellate courts in Ohio tried to strike down the DV statute as it applies to un-married couples. Those two appellate courts just happened to be in the most liberal districts in Ohio. (Think agenda.) The other 6 or 7 appellate Courts that heard the issue said quite clearly that the Marriage Amendment did not interfere with the DV Statute. Yet homosexuals and homosexualists ran around the country trying to convince people in other States that their DV statutes were about to be struck down. Never mind that no other State has the same awkwardly written DV Statute, and nevermind that the majority of the appellate courts in Ohio rejected that argument. When the case got to the Supreme Court, the homosexualist fear-mongers were slapped down, and slapped down hard. The argument was not valid from the outset. Everyone, including the very liberal judges in the two appellate districts in Ohio that went along with the nonsense, knew that the State Supreme Court was going to say that the Marriage Amendment didn't conflict with the DV statutes. Homosexualists knew it as well. Yet they chose to continue to LIE to people in other States in an attempt to scare them out of passing amendments in their own States. The tactic didn't work anywhere except Arizona. Now that the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled, and considering that the argument was nonsense from the beginning, it's long past time for the fake scare tactic to be removed from this article. It's definatively not a valid argument. It would be the same as me putting a Pro-FMA argument that read: "If the FMA isn't passed aliens will come to earth and destroy the planet." The argument is a fraud, and should be removed. Ghostmonkey57 01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Very good. Now, say this in a neutral tone, cite sources and incorporate it into the article. Is it not better to include a potential arguement and debunk it, then to simply not address it? If you were preparing for a debate, would you not want to know ALL of the opposing sides arguements so that you may counter them, than to simply not know and have them pull it out at the last minute and stump you? I also believe this element of information has relevance because it has been to more than one court (a state Supreme Court among them!), and it has been a factor in the public's perception of the FMA. ZueJay (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. This is a list of arguments that have been advanced, not a catalog of which arguments the editors think have merit. In response to Ghostmonkey's criticism, I have restored the section and added a comment that some supporters of the FMA consider the argument to be invalid. I encourage knowledgeable editors to improve this section with strong citations to sources explaining why supporters of the FMA consider this argument invalid.-Fagles 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. There are homosexual militants who have advanced the argument that the children of FMA supporters should be killed. Should we include that violent garbage in the arguments against the FMA? But, since you want a through debunking of the DV laws, I've done so for you. Complete with LEGAL citations from various AG and Court Opinions. Be careful what you ask for. Ghostmonkey57 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The 'lesbian daughter' thing again

Vice President Dick Cheney (whose daughter, Mary Cheney, is lesbian[18]) Does this really need to be included in this article? What does this have to do with the legal issues around the amendment? Revolutionaryluddite 01:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its neccessary to mention in this article. It is interesting to note, but might be considered infocreep here and is more appropriate to his and her bios. I didn't find a mention of any previous debates on this particular item in this article's archives. ZueJay (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the statement. Revolutionaryluddite 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing

The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples, as well as preventing people from having multiple spouses.

The FMA would not stop/terminate/cease/kill/destroy/end/(etc.) gay marriage. It would prevent the judiciary from requiring the federal government to granting specific rights and abilities to gay couples. Phrases such as "end gay marriage" and so on should be avoided in the article unless they're a direct quote. Using the phrase "ban gay marriage" is debatable; it's been used so often in the media, I think it should be left in. Revolutionaryluddite 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The content/context seems baisically correct. Perhaps: "The FMA would prohibit judicial extension of federal marriage-like rights" ? I haven't tried to play with this sentence yet. There are no sources for the legal analyses of the various FMA versions; until sources are tracked down, I haven't really wanted to play too much with these generalizing interpretations of the effects of the FMA. ZueJay (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is fine. My point is that phrases used later in the aricle such as "outlawed gay marriage" contradict what the first sentence says. Revolutionaryluddite 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Feel free to clean these up as best you can. It seems, technically, it might be "prohibit federal civil marriage of any non-heterosexual pairings". The phrasing is tricky because it quickly becomes cumbersome. This article is under a POV tag, and I know weasel words and phrases have been a problem. Your help, any help, with this would be great. ZueJay (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

weasel words and phrases have been a problem How so? Revolutionaryluddite 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (If I sound sarcastic, that's not my intent.)

Hmm. You don't sound sarcastic at all - just trying to understand. Well, I can point you here in the archives, but the editor is not very specific. Just like you pointed out, I would consider "outlaw gay marriage" to be a weasel phrase in several regards, mostly due to its imprecision in that it doesn't imply federal level, civil marriage only, it doesn't indicate that there are a broader range of folks affected by the Amendment (LGBT, polyamorous and unmarried heterosexual couples) and "outlaw" is awful assumptive. Unless this phrase is used in the arguments section, perhaps only in a quote, its weasel-y. The phrase "gay marriage" is similar to when folks use the phrase "gay adoption"; its not correct, nor precise, more of a shorthand method of referring to a particular happenstance. There's an interesting note I read recently in same-sex couple that mentions "bisexual erasure" when the term "gay" preceeds a particular item such as marriage instead of the term "same-sex". That kind of shorthand vernacular neglects a huge chunk of the communities that are affected by these policies, laws, amendments, etc. There are not as many instances in the article of this issue as there used to be. ZueJay (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

"yea" and "nay" votes? Is that correct? Shouldn't it be more formal? --Heero Kirashami (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., that is the formal for voting. Kingturtle (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Unmarried heterosexual couples" section

I see that this section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Although I'm no specialist on this subject (in fact, not even American) I gave it a quick once-over... and my view is that the first half of the section isn't too bad, but that after that it descends into very clear POV. The markers for "weasel words" are one thing, but I think that second half needs a complete overhaul and rewrite by editors familiar with the subject, and that any such rewrite must have full references from the start. Phrases like "has proven to be a farce" have no place on Wikipedia outside of quotes. Loganberry (Talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would propose removing the section altogether. While opponents of the FMA have brought up the "unmarried heterosexual couples" argument time and time again, they have been proven wrong when it comes to a matter of law. Specifically there are WP:Weight issues to make reference to the decisions of two of the appellate Courts in Ohio, since the other 8 appellate Courts specifically disagreed with that holding. When the issue was finally decided by the Ohio Supreme Court, the lower court decisions are no longer binding in any way. Additionally, no other State had a Domestic Violence Statute similar in nature to Ohio's, so it would have been legally impossible for the FMA to affect DV laws as opponents indicate. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I did some re-wording, removing all the sections that contained weasel word and neutrality tags. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Kerry/Edwards absence text misleading?

From the article (emphasis mine):

On July 14, 2004, a cloture motion to force a direct vote on the FMA was defeated in the Senate by a margin of 50 nay votes to 48 yea votes. The two missing votes were those of John Kerry and John Edwards, who chose to remain on the Presidential campaign trail. The 48 votes in support of the cloture motion were 12 votes short of the 60-vote supermajority (three-fifths) needed to end debate and force a vote on the Amendment itself. A number of Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the cloture motion, citing concerns about the Amendment's wording and the principle of extending federal power into an area of policy traditionally managed by states.

The wording of the bolded seems to indicate that the missing votes being present would have changed the outcome, especially since the difference between the vote counts was two. From the rest of the text, it appears the vote would have become 50v50 instead of 50v48, and since the requirement was 60 votes the outcome would have been the same.

First, please correct me if I'm wrong on the above.

Second, is a senator being absent for a cloture vote unusual? If not, I'd remove this sentence entirely. If it is unusual, could it be moved to the end of the section, and re-worded to: John Kerry and John Edwards did not vote on the motion, remaining on the Presidential campaign trail. The reasoning is that it seems logically grouped with the party voting lines, and less substantive; and also that the supermajority description should follow the vote count.

Sorry to be so verbose, this seems like it might be politically sensitive ;) ❪User:tunah❘✎❫ 07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be of interest that once and future presidential candidate John McCain was one of the handful of Republicans who voted against cloture. bd2412 T 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Loaded Phrases

I have nominated this article due to the loaded language without rebuke, even on the first line we have "Marriage Protection Amendment" with no discussion as to the controversy this name may have for example homosexual couples would argue with this, I no it's a small thing, but it is an example of such phrases present in the article. --193.170.20.110 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the lead from "also known as" to "also referred to by proponents as" to make clear the source of this conceptual protection. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Uneeded repetition.

If the 2004, 2005-2006, and 2008 proposals all have the exact same wording, why repeat the wording three times? Why not just say in the appropriate sections that the later proposals used the same language as the 2004 proposal? bd2412 T 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I've taken care of these. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Obama?

Why would this be an Obama-related article? I don't recall his ever having expressed interest in the topic, and as President he has no constitutional authority to effect an Amendment anyway. bd2412 T 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But he voted against the amendment in 2006 (when he was a Senator). The White House website states that Obama opposes ANY constitutional definition of "marriage". --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but if we tagged every article for which Obama made a relevant vote or took a position, then anything with any political bearing would be in WP:OBAMA. Or, based on the Civil rights document (and undoubtedly on votes taken), do you plan to add employment discrimination, hate crime and racial profiling to WP:OBAMA as well? bd2412 T 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bush pro-civil unions?

A recent edit claimed that Pres. Bush was in favor of marriage-like civil unions, and gave a link to a brief news article from last October to back this up. I remember the controversy at the time and I seem to recall that, after some clarification, his position was as follows: he supports the right of states to create a civil union legal status on the federalist grounds that this is something within the purview of the states to do. However, he personally opposes civil unions, and if he were still governor of Texas, he would veto civil union legislation. Does anyone else remember how this thing ended up? --Jfruh 6 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

You are correct. Bush has also reiterated his continued support for the FMA in his second term, notably in his 2005 State of the Union Address. Sandover 6 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Quoting Pennoyer v. Neff is inappropriate

I removed the quote of this case for several reasons. First however I'll note that while this particular case is inappropriate, there are likely other cases from which you could pull a similar quote. Some reasons why this one is inappropriate (off the top of my head):

• 1) This case has nothing to do with marriage and therefore any reference to marriage is mere dicta. This excerpt from the case has never had any binding effect on any court - no court has ever had to follow it and none ever will.
• 2) The statement is incorrect. It is not true that the states have the absolute "right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved." For example, no state could enact a law or amend its constitution to prohibit miscegenation today. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 - just ten years before this case was decided. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses makes it abundantly clear that any such attempt by a state would be found unconstitutional.
• 3) This case was decided over 130 years ago. The part of the case that actually did have legal effect has since been overruled (or most of it anyway). Citing an old case that has been overruled, and indeed citing it for something that is mere dicta, is not appropriate.LegalAdvocate (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection of conjugal marriage

"FMA proponents argue that opposite-sex marriage in the United States has been given special legal protection. This protection has historically been granted only to the unique institution of marriage as the cradle for the family and to legitimize lines of inheritance. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment argue that same-sex marriage advocates want to disregard federalism and enact same-sex marriage nationwide via judicial fiat, then the Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to protect the institution of conjugal marriage by nationally preventing other forms of marriage.[citation needed]"

Can we please put something in this section about the separation of powers? I'm so tired of seeing this stupid argument without any context. Judges only do their jobs. There is no "imposing" or "activism" going on here. 174.58.138.200 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those words are in the text you quoted. More importantly, that section is specifically given an argument in favor. From many advocates' point of view, the concept of "judicial fiat" does exist. Naturally, this is disputed, just like the proposed amendment itself. Superm401 - Talk 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullet in wrong place?

Shouldn't "Definition of gender" be under Arguments Against rather than Arguments For? Waynesewell (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely, since it has no source (for over a year). Unfortunately, the page in general is low on sources, but I think this is a border-line argument to begin with. In my opinion, most supporters and opponents are probably not talking much about it. Feel free to put it back in if you find a source. Superm401 - Talk 00:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)