Jump to navigation Skip navigation. Neither this Constitution, nor 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. The first sentence says that every state must deny same sex couples the right to marry. The second sentence goes further; it would override any existing local and state level protections and benefits for gay and lesbian couples, or any other unmarried couple, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, pension benefits, and health insurance among others. Rather than allow states to decide upon their own definitions of marriage or similar social compacts, the Federal Marriage Amendment would impose a single, discriminatory definition of marriage that all states would be required to follow - regardless of existing state laws. What is the difference between civil unions and marriage?
TFP Student Action
Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia
The Federal Marriage Amendment FMA , also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment , was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried homosexual couples. An amendment to the U. Constitution requires the support of two thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states. The last Congressional vote on the proposed amendment occurred in the House of Representatives on July 18, , when the motion failed to , falling short of the votes required for passage in that body.
Civil Liberties: Is Marriage a Right?
On June 26, , the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage would be legal nationwide, overturning same-sex marriage bans in 14 states. Going further back: since when the Constitution was officially accepted, or ratified, by all states there have been only 27 amendments out of the thousands proposed by lawmakers in Congress. In fact, the 27th Amendment, which concerns congressional pay, was originally proposed in but not put into place until — over years later.
While the three new cases deal directly only with the job-bias promise of the Civil Rights Act — that is, Title VII — it will almost certainly settle the same kind of question arising under another similarly-worded provision Title IX that protects against sex discrimination in programs that are partly funded by the federal government. In addition, the outcome also could provide strong hints about how the current Supreme Court would view similar claims of gay and transgender discrimination under the equal-protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment affecting federal laws and programs and the 14th Amendment affecting state and local laws and public programs. The Court has spent weeks examining the new cases that it agreed on Monday to review.