The Federal Marriage Amendment

The Federal Marriage Amendment is one of the strongest controversies today. Should the government have the power to state what marriage is? The FMA would define marriage as only, in the traditional sense, between a man and a woman. The amendment was first introduced by Representative Ronnie Shows (D-Mississippi) in the House of Representatives on May 15, 2002. Supported already by the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Bill Frist (R-TN) and Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). In this, courts/legislatures from every state would be prevented from redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. Also, nullifying any gay or lesbian marriages already in existence. This is completely absurd. For the government to interfere into the personal lives and preferences of individuals is expressly forbidden.

One strong supporter of this amendment is the American Family Association. The main argument used is the Church. They say, “The God-ordained institution of marriage is under attack in courts across the nation, and help is needed to save it before the one man-one women definition of marriage is completely and radically redefined”, and, of course, they believe that it’s their job to insure that the traditional meaning remains intact. They also go on to say that action must be taken before an activist judge re-interprets the Constitution by inventing a “right” to “gay marriage”. Of course, there are many ways to counter this argument. Under the first amendment, we are given the ‘freedom of religion’. So how can a Christian belief of monogamy be forced upon all of the citizens of the United States when you have SO many people with different religious beliefs and practices.

To use an argument based on religious practices is careless and ignorant. In a society that has established the ‘freedom of religion’ so many times in so many areas, it’s just impossible to successfully impose religious practices onto others. If it were to happen, there would be no end of people fighting till the end. So if people have a freedom of religion, which has been established, then how can the government of the United States, or any state, deny the marriage of any homosexual couple if it’s religious based? In the fourteenth amendment it states , “ . . . , nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, . . . ” Liberty is the state of being free from oppression. So to deny a homosexual couple from getting married is to oppress their way of life. Then finally I simply say to everybody: “Just mind your own business”. Who cares what another person does with his or her life. If they wish to marry a same sex partner, good for them, if not then fine. It’s just that simple. You don’t have to like what some people chose to do, but what right does anybody have to tell another person that what they believe in is wrong. So can’t we all just get along?

In conclusion, this Federal Marriage Amendment should have never even been thought of. To use the Constitution, the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment would advocate quite nicely against this amendment. Of course, talk is cheap. In the future, I plan to join the Democratic Party against this amendment. As a whole, I see this as nothing different than the fight for women’s rights or the fight for equality for all citizens. You will always have the ignorant trying to stop someone somewhere. In the end, however, the rights of the people, no matter how small or defenseless of a group, will be earned. The good fight will never end.