Supporters of the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) have made their first strategic retreat. As originally introduced, the amendment read:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 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."
This wording would have voided any state or federal statute granting spousal partnership benefits, such as civil union laws (i.e., "the legal incidents" of marriage). Originally, the religious groups backing the amendment insisted that same-sex civil unions, or "marriage in all but name," were as big a threat as actual same-sex marriages. But faced with likely defeat, they've relented. The new wording reads:
"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."
While courts are still forbidden from interpreting the federal or state constitutions are requiring spousal benefits, by deleting the words "nor state or federal law" it appears that Congress or state legislatures could recognize civil unions and spousal-equivalent benefits, but not actual marriage -- still limited to "the union of a man and a woman."
The Alliance for Marriage and its leading member groups, such as Focus on the Family, are painting this as a small technical change to make the amendment's meaning clearer. Don't believe it. This is a fairly substantial retreat. Which is why the wackier parts of the alliance, such as the Culture and Family Institute, aren't happy with the alteration (as the New York Times notes).
And more may be in store. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is shopping around an even weaker alternative that would not define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but would simply say that "civil marriage shall be defined by each state" -- meaning that no state would be compelled to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. This change is too much of a retreat for the Alliance for Marriage, which is strongly opposing it.
Hatch, by the way, is from Utah, where a fair number of dissident breakaway Mormon traditionalists still practice polygamy, though these unions aren't legally recognized. Some months ago I saw Hatch on TV and was quite surprised by his semi-defense of polygamists -- that they shouldn't be thought of as bad people (similar to what some "tolerant" conservative types say about gays). Perhaps he feels some cultural affinity for Mormon fundamentalists and is thus disinterested in an amendment that would limit matrimony to one man and one woman.
The revised FMA now being pushed by the Alliance for Marriage is still terrible and must be defeated. Hatch's alternative is far less egregious, which is why the Alliance for Marriage is against it.
The Future.
Polls show the young are much less opposed to same-sex marriage
than their elders. In another generation or two, it won't even be
debated.