When the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its ruling on DOMA and Prop 8, the American Dream of equality for all citizens took another step forward. The LGBT community celebrated nationwide. Those who were disappointed that SCOTUS voted for equality didn’t have much to say at first, but two anti-equality patriarchs did offer their thoughts.
Tony Perkins, head of the hate group Family Research Council, issued a statement, the first paragraph of which read:
“While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.” (italics added)
Apparently, Mr. Perkins is completely ignorant of how the time since DOMA has changed the minds of many, many Americans about civil equality. Time is most definitely on the side of those seeking civil equality. Not only have many older Americans changed their minds about marriage equality, many of those born in the 1990s are now of or nearing voting age, and they overwhelmingly support marriage equality.
In 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down its ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, I began using the topic in social sciences courses. Then, they were always very active discussion with students on both sides offering arguments and reasons for and against. When I used the topic in different issues-oriented social science course in the 2011–12 and 2012–13 academic years, there was virtually no discussion. When I asked why there seemed to be no interest, one student spoke for the classes: “Where’s the issue?”
One of the other first responders was William Donahue, president of the Catholic League:
“While they didn’t get everything they wanted today, certainly the court moved the ball closer to what they want, as opposed to people like myself who think that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Donahue tells KYW Newsradio.
Donahue says the court’s ruling technically covers only those states that legally recognize same-sex marriage, noting there are 38 states that do not allow or recognize such marriages.
Donahue says the challenge now for his group is to get some uniformity. The way to achieve that, he says, is a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The Federal Marriage Amendment—“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”—died an ignominious death in 2006. And Mr. Donahue thinks it has a chance in 2013? He seems to be as ignorant as Mr. Perkins about recent history. But perhaps he has a point. Perhaps it is time for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We could even use the former Federal Marriage Amendment as a model:
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
Article—
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Article may be cited as the `Federal Equality Amendment’.
SECTION 2. EQUALITY AMENDMENT.
In keeping with the founding principles of the country, all citizens shall have equal access to and the ability to participate fully and without restriction in all civil institutions, both state and federal, including the state-licensed civil institution called ‘marriage.’
Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to exclude any citizen based on sex, sexual preference, or gender identification.
Congratulations to all the married couples who will now be treated equally by the federal government and all those California couples who will now be able to tie the knot legally!
RSS
Perhaps it is time for a federal marriage amendment
Posted on June 28, 2013 by Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.
When the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its ruling on DOMA and Prop 8, the American Dream of equality for all citizens took another step forward. The LGBT community celebrated nationwide. Those who were disappointed that SCOTUS voted for equality didn’t have much to say at first, but two anti-equality patriarchs did offer their thoughts.
Tony Perkins, head of the hate group Family Research Council, issued a statement, the first paragraph of which read:
Apparently, Mr. Perkins is completely ignorant of how the time since DOMA has changed the minds of many, many Americans about civil equality. Time is most definitely on the side of those seeking civil equality. Not only have many older Americans changed their minds about marriage equality, many of those born in the 1990s are now of or nearing voting age, and they overwhelmingly support marriage equality.
In 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down its ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, I began using the topic in social sciences courses. Then, they were always very active discussion with students on both sides offering arguments and reasons for and against. When I used the topic in different issues-oriented social science course in the 2011–12 and 2012–13 academic years, there was virtually no discussion. When I asked why there seemed to be no interest, one student spoke for the classes: “Where’s the issue?”
One of the other first responders was William Donahue, president of the Catholic League:
The Federal Marriage Amendment—“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”—died an ignominious death in 2006. And Mr. Donahue thinks it has a chance in 2013? He seems to be as ignorant as Mr. Perkins about recent history. But perhaps he has a point. Perhaps it is time for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We could even use the former Federal Marriage Amendment as a model:
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Congratulations to all the married couples who will now be treated equally by the federal government and all those California couples who will now be able to tie the knot legally!