Why we need a federal marriage amendment.

AuthorStaver, Mathew D.
PositionLaw & Justice

"We must draw a line in the sand and preserve marriage once and for all between one man and one woman."

ALTHOUGH FOR DIFFERENT reasons, same-sex marriage advocates and some states' rights proponents oppose amending the Constitution to protect marriage between one man and one woman. While states' rights are of paramount importance, it nevertheless is necessary that the Constitution be amended to protect traditional marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is, and always has been, a Federal matter, and the very act of amending the Constitution is all exercise in states' rights. To sanction same-sex marriage, would be to say that there is no relevance to gender, and thus result in the abolition of gender. Indeed, many same-sex and transsexual proponents advocate its abolition, stating that the concept of male and female is an outdated, stereotypic model.

Society never has supported every conceivable combination of human relationships. Utah's battle over polygamy is instructive. In 1862, Congress passed the Moral Act, which prohibited an individual from having more than one spouse, disincorporated the Mormon Church, and restricted its ownership of property.

In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the Act, stating that polygamy always has been "odious" among the northern and western nations of Europe, and from "the Earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society." The Court noted that "it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion."

In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act, prohibiting polygamists from holding political office and disqualifying them from serving on juries. In 1887, Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Bill. It required, among other things, wives of polygamous relationships to testify against their husbands. On Oct. 6, 1890, the Mormon Church officially approved a manifesto mandating that it no longer sanction polygamous marriages.

As a condition for admittance to the Union, Congress demanded the inclusion of antipolygamy provisions in the constitutions of Arizona. New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah. For all but Oklahoma, the Enabling Acts made clear that the these provisions were "irrevocable." Furthermore, in order to change their laws to allow polygamy, each state would have to persuade the entire country to alter the marriage laws. Idaho adopted the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT