Drafted with the specific intent (at least on the part of two of its best-known framers) of banning a wide range of legislatively enacted “civil unions” as well as same-sex marriage, the ghastly Federal Marriage Amendment is anything but conservative: it would succeed in damaging both federalism and the principle of separation of powers. (Jacob Levy, “Law Breaker”, The New Republic Online, Feb. 18). See Alan Cooperman, “Little Consensus On Meaning Of Marriage Amendment”, Washington Post/Constitution Center, Feb. 14 (“principal drafters” Profs. Robert George and Gerard Bradley acknowledge that they intended to ban some forms of civil unions); letter from several libertarian/conservative law professors opposing FMA (Volokh Conspiracy, Sept. 11).
Yet more links: MarriageDebate.com (published by FMA supporters, but airing both sides); FamilyScholars.org (also a mix of views); Volokh Conspiracy (numerous posts, use search function); AndrewSullivan.com; LawfullyWedded.com; Jack Balkin, Feb. 14; Prof. Bainbridge, Jan. 21 (endeavoring to defend Bush stance); Three Years of Hell, Feb. 11 (arguing that FMA would merely curb judicial activism on civil unions); David Horowitz, “Wrong Idea, Wrong Time”, TechCentralStation.com, Nov. 24; David Brooks, “Give everyone access to the power of marriage”, New York Times/International Herald Tribune, Nov. 25.
2 Comments
Overlawyered: No to the FMA
Overlawyered summarizes numerous conservative legal arguments against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Marriages spreading
Civilizations across the globe may begin to crumble as other entities follow San Francisco’s lead. New to the list: Cambodia and Sandoval Co., NM. Menwhile Overlawyered.com gives a good roundup of why Conservatives should oppose the Federal Marriage Am…