Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gay Rights, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and the States

  • Chapter
The Federal Nation

Part of the book series: Studies of the Americas ((STAM))

Abstract

Although often represented as a state prerogative, the legal regulation of marriage has both played a part in shaping and has been shaped by federal— state relations. In 1862, Congress prohibited plural marriage. Utah and other western territories only won statehood by incorporating a ban on polygamy in their state constitutions. Later federal statutes used marriage and marital status to determine eligibility for particular federal benefits. Marriage came to the fore again as a problematic issue for American federalism in the final decade of the twentieth century with enactment in 1996 of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. From 2001 onward, conservatives have increasingly pressed for the addition of a Federal Marriage Amendment (or Marriage Protection Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution. This chapter surveys the debate over this issue and explores why many conservatives support a federal ban prohibiting states from recognizing same-sex marriage in violation of their traditional concern for states’ rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. President Clinton did not record the signing of DOMA in his autobiography. See Bill Clinton, My Life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  2. The Library of Congress — THOMAS, Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate), H.R.3396, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:1:./temp/~c104WPK3xv:

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  4. U.S. Supreme Court, Romer v. Evans, No. 94–1039, FindLaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo1= 000&invo1=U10179

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Quoted in Alain Epp Weaver, “Drop-out Christianity,” Christian Century (March 17, 1999), http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_9_116/ai_54216295.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Civil unions or domestic partnerships were subsequently offered in California (2003), Maine (2004), Connecticut (2005), New Jersey (2006), New Hampshire (2007), Washington (2007), and Oregon (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Commission on Presidential Debates, Debate Transcript, October 5, 2000, The Lieberman-Cheney Vice Presidential Debate, http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000d.html.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Quoted in Ted Olsen, “Weblog: GOP Ticket Seems to Give Thumbs Up to Gay Unions,” ChristianityToday (October 1, 2000), http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2000/octoberweb-only/52.0.html.

  10. I am grateful to Martin Durham (University of Wolverhampton, UK) for this distinction.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Republican Study Committee, Legislative Bulletin, September 30, 2004, 2, http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/LB%2009–30-04.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hadley Arkes, “Gay Rights and Federalism: An improbable marriage,” National Review (August 6, 2001), http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-arkes080601.shtml.

    Google Scholar 

  13. American Civil Liberties Union, Text of the Proposed Amendment (March 23, 2004), http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/11926res20040323.html.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hadley Arkes, “Gay Rights and Federalism.”

    Google Scholar 

  15. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 112.

    Google Scholar 

  16. U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), DecidedJune 12, 1967, FindLaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo1=388&invol=1.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States, 117–118. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gypt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/koppelman0307.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  18. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Exploring Constitutional Conflicts — State Discrimination Against Non-Residents, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/priv&immart4.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  19. U.S. Supreme Court, Romer v. Evans.

    Google Scholar 

  20. The National Archives — The Federal Register, Executive Order 126I2—Federalism, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executiveorder/12612.htm1.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Human Rights Campaign, Federal Marriage Amendment Vote, H.J. Res. 106, Roll Call Vote 484, Sept. 30, 2004, http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=34218&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagernent/ContentDisplay.cfm.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jonathan Rauch, “The Marrying Kind,” The Atlantic (May 2002), http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/rauch.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Alan Cooperman, “Little Consensus on Marriage Amendment: Even Authors Disagree on the Meaning of Its Text,” Washington Post, February 14, 2004, A01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40866–2004Feb13?language=printer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Carl Hulse, “Amendment’s Words Tweaked: GOP Backers Say New Version Lets States Permit Civil Unions,” SFGate.com (March 23, 2004), http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/23/MNGR15PLR91.DTL.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Scott Heiser, Proposed Constitutional Amendment Fires Up State, Local Leaders, ColoradoDaily.com (February 25, 2004), http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2004/02/25/news/news01.txt.

  27. Bob Barr, “Leave Marriage To the States,” Washington Post, August 21, 2003, A23, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A23357–2003Aug20&notFound=true,

    Google Scholar 

  28. Elvia Diaz, “Gay-Marriage Ban Initiative Wins Support from McCain,” The Arizona Republic (August 26, 2005), http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0826initiatives26.htm1.

    Google Scholar 

  29. CNN.com, “McCain: Same-Sex Marriage Ban is Un-Republican,” CNN. com(July14,2004),http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jonathan Rauch, “Leave Gay Marriage to the States,” Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2001, http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_marriage_2_leave_it_to_the_states/index.html

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Religious Tolerance. Org, “Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution,” Events (July 2004-January 2005), http://www.religioustolerance.org/maramend9.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Edward Ashbee, “Polyamory, Social Conservatism and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the US,” Politics 27, 2 (June 2007): 101–107.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stanley Kurtz, “Beyond Gay Marriage: The Road to Polyamory,” The Weekly Standard 8, 45 (August 4–11, 2003), http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp.

  35. Bridget E. Maher, The Benefits of Marriage, Family Research Council, http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=ISO5B01.

    Google Scholar 

  36. U.S. Supreme Court, Romer v. Evans.

    Google Scholar 

  37. U.S. Supreme Court, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Decided June 7, 1965, FindLaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=3810-invol=479.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 02.102, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, petitioners v. Texas, 539 U. S. (2003) June 26, 2003, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02–102P.ZD.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  40. CNN.com, California court halts same-sex marriages, May 5, 2004, http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/11/gay.marriage.california/index.html.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Michael Foust, “Summary: What Senators Said During Debate Wednesday,” Baptist Press (Jul 14, 2004), http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18686.

    Google Scholar 

  42. The White House — Office of the Press Secretary, President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage: Remarks by the President, February 24, 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224–2.html.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Debra Rosenberg and Karen Breslau, “Culture Wars: Winning the ‘Values’ Vote,” Newsweek — Election 2004/MSNBC.com, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6401635/site/newsweek/. This conclusion has however been widely questioned. See, for example, Gregory B. Lewis, “Same-Sex Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election,” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (2005): 195–199, http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DD45A0001A4993215E597B293BA350E9.tomcatl?fromPage=online&aid=296249.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tim Conlan and John Dinan, “Federalism, the Bush Administration, and the Transformation of American Conservatism,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37, 3 (2007): 280.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid., 299–300.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sidney M. Milkis and Jesse H. Rhodes, “George W. Bush, the Party System, and American Federalism,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37, 3 (2007): 483.

    Google Scholar 

  47. CBS News, “House Rejects Gay Marriage Amendment: 236–187 Vote Ends For Another Year Congressional Debate Over Marriage,” CBS News (July 18, 2006), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1813421.shtml.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jonathan Darman, “Show ‘Em Whatcha Got,” Newsweek, CL 7, August 13, 2007, 29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Edward Ashbee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of the Americas, University of London, UK

    Iwan W. Morgan (Professor of U.S. Studies) (Professor of U.S. Studies)

  2. British Library, Montfort University, UK

    Philip J. Davies (Director of the Eccles Centre for American Studies, Professor of U.S. Studies) (Director of the Eccles Centre for American Studies, Professor of U.S. Studies)

Copyright information

© 2008 Iwan W. Morgan and Philip J. Davies

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ashbee, E. (2008). Gay Rights, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and the States. In: Morgan, I.W., Davies, P.J. (eds) The Federal Nation. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230617254_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation