Federal Marriage Amendment - Arguments Against The Federal Marriage Amendment

Arguments Against The Federal Marriage Amendment

This section contains arguments specific to the Federal Marriage Amendment. For arguments for and against same-sex marriage in general, see Same-sex marriage#Controversies

The first sentence of H.J. Res. 56 would provide an official definition of legal marriage in the United States. Proponents claim that this is a reasonable measure, based on established custom, which defends the family and the institution of marriage. To others, it is an unfair means of excluding same-sex couples from receiving benefits from that institution. Civil right activists and supporters of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community feel that the Federal Marriage Amendment has no place in the United States constitution.

Read more about this topic:  Federal Marriage Amendment

Famous quotes containing the words arguments, federal, marriage and/or amendment:

    Because a person is born the subject of a given state, you deny the sovereignty of the people? How about the child of Cuban slaves who is born a slave, is that an argument for slavery? The one is a fact as well as the other. Why then, if you use legal arguments in the one case, you don’t in the other?
    Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)

    It is odd that the NCAA would place a school on probation for driving an athlete to class, or providing a loan, but would have no penalty for a school that violates Title IX, a federal law.
    Cardiss L. Collins (b. 1931)

    What exacerbates the strain in the working class is the absence of money to pay for services they need, economic insecurity, poor daycare, and lack of dignity and boredom in each partner’s job. What exacerbates it in upper-middle class is the instability of paid help and the enormous demands of the career system in which both partners become willing believers. But the tug between traditional and egalitarian models of marriage runs from top to bottom of the class ladder.
    Arlie Hochschild (20th century)

    Every family should extend First Amendment rights to all its members, but this freedom is particularly essential for our kids. Children must be able to say what they think, openly express their feelings, and ask for what they want and need if they are ever able to develop an integrated sense of self. They must be able to think their own thoughts, even if they differ from ours. They need to have the opportunity to ask us questions when they don’t understand what we mean.
    Stephanie Martson (20th century)