Marriage Amendment

[richlevy]

I sent this to the folks at www.marriagedebate.com. I don't know if it will be published, but I think it brings up a point I have not seen publicly.

'Gay Marriage Amendment' may not be primarily about gay marriage

The constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a 'man and
a woman' may have less to do with barring homosexuals and more of an impact
on federalizing marriage and establishing a national marriage age. Rules
vary from state to state, but many states permit marriage below the age of
18, usually with parental and/or judicial consent. The youngest age being
12 in Kansas, with some states setting no older limit in cases involving
pregnancy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

While individuals may vary in their level of maturity regardless of age, it
is a common policy to set minimum ages for many rights and privileges at the
state and federal level. There is a minimum age for selective service
registration, driver's license, drinking, voting etc. The theory is that
at certain ages, a sufficient number of individuals are able to exercise
these rights.

If we consider marriage to be a core institution in society, and if we also
consider the responsibility of the state and federal governments to fund
social programs which act as surrogates to children of failed marriages, the
desire of the government to involve itself in marriage is clear. This is
probably the real reason that there has been an initiative to provide
federal funds to promote marriage
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...e-grant_x.htm.

More marriages, however, will not necessarily solve the problem. It is also
an issue of quality over quantity. If we desire more stable marriages, it
would probably be in the governments best interests to gain control and
define a national minimum age for marriage, just as it does for voting
rights. Unfortunately, many religious groups approve of at least having the
option of marriages between individuals younger than 18, for cultural and
religious reasons. Politically, any previous attempt to
federalize marriage would be denounced and be impossible to implement. The
recent battle over same-sex marriage has changed the debate. Now, instead
of finding opposition from religious groups, they are now demanding a
constitutional amendment. The definition of 'man and woman' does not appear
to cause them any concern, as long as it denies same-sex unions.

The Constitution does not precisely define 'man and woman'. In most cases,
age limits in the Constituion are explicit. There are age limits on public
offices and on voting rights. The 26th amendment was added to specifically
address age when applied to voting rights. However, the Constitution is
open to interpretation and it would be up to the judicial branch to
determine if a 14-year-old was a man or woman. In addition, the fact that
there is a marriage amendment would signify that marriage can now be
controlled at a federal level, since the states have will have ceded at
least a portion of their 10th amendment rights by ratifying it.

If a marriage amendment is made to the Constitution defining marriage as
between a 'man and a woman', within a few years of it's ratification there
will be a federal minimum marriage age, which will affect social policy in
the United States.