Editing Federal Marriage Amendment (section)

==Arguments against==
:''This section contains arguments specific to the Federal Marriage Amendment. For arguments for and against same-sex marriage in general, see [[Same-sex marriage#Controversies]]''

The first sentence of H.J. Res. 56 would provide an official definition of legal marriage in the United States. Proponents{{Who|date=June 2010}} claim that this is a reasonable measure, based on established custom, which defends the family and the institution of marriage.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} To others, it is an unfair means of excluding same-sex couples from receiving benefits from that institution. The Federal Marriage Amendment discriminates against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/other/frequently-asked-questions-about-federal-marriage-amendment-and-gay-marriage|title=Frequently Asked Questions about the Federal Marriage Amendment and Gay Marriage}}</ref>

===Federalism===
Opponents of the FMA argued it would violate the [[states' rights]] to regulate marriage by [[Federal government of the United States|federalizing]] the issue, which they said should be left to the states. Some used the federalism argument, including Senator [[John Kerry]], Senator [[John McCain]], and Representative [[Ron Paul]], who opposed the FMA for several reasons, one of which that regulating marriage is not a proper role of the federal government. The author [[Jonathan Rauch]] wrote that "the proposed amendment strips power not from judges but from states," since the amendment would not allow any state to create same-sex marriage even by the rules of its own state-level democracy. "That conservatives would contemplate so striking a repudiation of federalism," Rauch wrote, "is a sign of the panic that same-sex marriage inspires on the right."<ref>{{Cite news|title=Leave Gay Marriage to the States|last=Rauch|first=Jonathan|date=27 July 2001|work=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> Furthermore, constitutionally defining marriage would have reversed the choices already made in states and territories including Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Iowa, and the District of Columbia.

===Unmarried heterosexual couples===
It is argued that the 2003 version of the FMA would have severely affected the ability of heterosexual unmarried couples to seek some degree of legal protection and/or provisions.<ref>(May 28, 2003) [https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/11820res20030528.html "Marriage Amendment: Oppose Writing Intolerance into the Constitution"], [[American Civil Liberties Union]]. Retrieved June 30, 2006.</ref>

Opponents of the FMA argue that it may complicate efforts to enforce laws against [[domestic abuse]] in [[heterosexual]] relationships involving unmarried couples.<ref>[http://www.legalmomentum.org/congress/FMADV2pager060206.pdf "Passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment will harm victims of domestic violence"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929022731/http://www.legalmomentum.org/congress/FMADV2pager060206.pdf |date=September 29, 2007 }} [[Legal Momentum]]. Retrieved August 13, 2007.</ref> They note that two Ohio courts ruled that Ohio's similar amendment made the state's domestic violence laws unconstitutional as applied to unmarried couples, because they created a "quasi-marital relationship". (The decisions were later reversed.)<ref>Bischoff, Laura A. (October 15, 2006) [http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/10/15/mj101606carswellinside.html "Challenge to gay marriage ban makes some unlikely bedfellows: Top court must decide if unwed couples can be treated as spouses in domestic-violence cases."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080515232711/http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/10/15/mj101606carswellinside.html |date=May 15, 2008 }} ''Middletown Journal''. Retrieved August 18, 2007.</ref>

Supporters of the FMA asserted that this argument was a [[scare tactic]] and that the FMA would not prevent laws against domestic abuse from being applied to unmarried couples.<ref name="McDonnell">McDonnell, Robert F. (September 14, 2006) [http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2006opns/06-003Newmanetal.pdf "Virginia Attorney General Legal Opinion on effect of State Marriage Amendment"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070821190801/http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2006opns/06-003Newmanetal.pdf |date=August 21, 2007 }} Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved August 18, 2007.</ref> In Ohio, 8 of the 10 Ohio Courts that addressed the effect of the State Amendment on Domestic Violence Laws found no conflict. Additionally several Attorneys General of other states issued legal opinions finding that no such conflict would exist.<ref>Wasden, Lawrence G. (February 8, 2006) [http://www2.state.id.us/ag/ops_guide_cert/2006/Opinion06-1.pdf Attorney General Opinion No. 06-1 Regarding Proposed Amendment to the Idaho Constitution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071126212156/http://www2.state.id.us/ag/ops_guide_cert/2006/Opinion06-1.pdf |date=November 26, 2007 }} State of Idaho, Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved August 18, 2007.</ref> With the final ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio, which held that the DV Statute was not in-conflict, no State faces any contention between marriage Statutes and Domestic Violence Laws.<ref>Moyer, C.J. for Majority. (July 25, 2007) [http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-3723.pdf State of Ohio v. Carswell - Decision] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071201045554/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-3723.pdf |date=December 1, 2007 }} Supreme Court of Ohio. Retrieved August 18, 2007.</ref>

===Separation of church and state===
Some religious groups argue that having the government decide whether a same-sex marriage should be legally binding on the grounds of the ideology of other religious groups restricts their religious freedom. They argue that marriage is a religious term that should not be defined by the government. Where same-sex marriage is recognized in the United States, no church or other religious institution is forced to perform same-sex marriages, but the FMA would deny the opportunity for religions which approve of same-sex marriage to perform legally binding same-sex marriages.

===Unnecessary and ineffective===
Opponents of the FMA have claimed that life for those in a heterosexual marriage are not materially affected by a constitutional marriage definition or legalization of same-sex marriage. They stated that the FMA was totally unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the state of the relevant constitutional doctrines at the time, already made court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. It was claimed therefore, that such an amendment was a solution in search of a problem. It was claimed that neither federal nor state courts were likely to order same-sex marriage under the traditional interpretation of the Constitution's [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]]. Nor, for the foreseeable future, it was claimed, were courts likely to mandate same-sex marriage under substantive federal constitutional doctrines, such as the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. This claim ultimately became untrue, as the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause in its landmark 2015 ruling in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''.

===Institution of Marriage Amendment===
The [[Concerned Women for America]] (CWA), an anti-feminist group, were concerned about the wording of the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment. CWA criticized the language in the amendment because the second sentence is open to differing interpretations, and its drafters acknowledged that it was specifically worded so state legislators could create civil unions and domestic partnerships, because the CWA opposes any legal recognition of same-sex couples. CWA preferred the Institution of Marriage Amendment crafted by Home School Legal Defense Association president Michael Farris. That amendment, which has not been introduced by any member of Congress, states:<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=17217 |title=Should a marriage amendment also ban civil unions? |access-date=August 3, 2013 |archive-date=August 8, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140808050023/http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=17217 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

{{blockquote|Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the United States nor any State shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse.}}