Editing Federal Marriage Amendment (section)

==Arguments in favor==
{{More citations needed section|date=September 2019}}

:''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]]''

===Restriction of perceived judicial overreach===
Proponents of FMA argued that same-sex marriage advocates wanted to disregard [[federalism]] and use the judicial system to make same-sex marriage legal nationwide, and that only the Federal Marriage Amendment could forestall that.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}

Proponents of the FMA initially argued that if it were not for judicial overreach, there would be no need for an FMA; states' rights would not be violated since no state legislatures had recognized same-sex marriage. However, by the end of 2012, a number of states had enacted same-sex marriage both through the actions of their state legislatures ([[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont]], [[Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire|New Hampshire]], [[Same-sex marriage in New York|New York]]), and through popular vote ([[Same-sex marriage in Maine|Maine]], [[Same-sex marriage in Maryland|Maryland]], [[Same-sex marriage in Washington (state)|Washington]]).

Prior to these legislative enactments and popular vote outcomes, proponents of the FMA argues that the federalism proposed by the opponents of a constitutional amendment was a contrivance for permitting federal courts to force same-sex marriage upon the whole nation, no matter what the people of the individual states desire. Proponents supported this claim with ''[[Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning]]'', in which a district court struck down Nebraska's marriage amendment, even though it had been passed by a margin of seventy percent (although the amendment was later reinstated). Opponents of the FMA argued that no federal court has ever ordered a state to permit same-sex marriage. However, on February 7, 2012, a federal appeals court in a 2-to-1 decision threw out California's voter-approved restriction on same-sex marriage (Proposition 8) saying that it violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.<ref>{{cite news|last=Nagourney|first=Adam|title=Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html|access-date=July 2, 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|date=July 2, 2012}}</ref>

===Uniform application of Full Faith and Credit===
Under the [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]], with certain exceptions, a state is obligated to honor the judgments and declarations of other states. While some assert that a "license" could be construed as a "judgment", the majority of legal scholars disagree. However, it is pointed out that a judgment for divorce is required to be honored because judgments are required to be enforced by out-of-state jurisdictions, regardless of whether those judgments are against the public policy of the out state forum (see ''Williams v. North Carolina'', 317 U.S. 287 (1942) (the case also stated that there is no "authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state")). Because of the intricacies of family law and the mobility of married couples, the recognition of marriages in other states varies. The need for clarification on state uniformity in this issue requires a constitutional amendment at the federal level, particularly considering there will be a flood of marriages in out-of-state jurisdictions for purposes of obtaining a same-sex marriage license.{{citation needed|date=June 2013}}

===Opposite-sex marriage as necessary for child-rearing===
FMA proponents argued that opposite-sex marriage has been given special legal protections, as the basis for [[child-rearing]], and to [[Legitimacy (family law)|legitimize]] lines of inheritance.<!-- Dead Link<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=114&page=15 {{Bare URL inline|date=May 2022}}</ref> -->