Federal Marriage Amendment -- H.J. Res. 56

**108^th^ Original Co-Sponsors:**

**Rep. Marilyn Musgrave** (R-CO), **Rep. Ralph Hall** (D-TX), **Rep.
Collin Peterson** (D-MN),\
**Rep. Mike McIntyre** (D-NC), **Rep. Jo Ann Davis** (R-VA), **Rep.
David Vitter** (R-LA)

**Other 108^th^ Co-Sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives:**

Todd W. Akin

Roscoe G. Bartlett

Michael C. Burgess

Max Burns

Mac Collins

Jim DeMint

Virgil H. Goode, Jr.

Johnny Isakson

Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

Sam Johnson

Walter B. Jones, Jr.

Mark R. Kennedy

Steve King

Ron Lewis

Jeff Miller

Charlie Norwood

Mike Pence

Joseph R. Pitts

Mike Rogers (AL-03)

Jim Ryun

Mark E. Souder

Dave Weldon

Joe Wilson

Zach Wamp

**Amendment Text:**

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man
and a woman. Neither this Constitution or 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.

**Overview of Legal Impact of the Amendment:**

The first sentence states that marriage in the U.S. consists of the
union of a man and a woman. The second sentence ensures that the
democratic process at the state level will decide the allocation of the
benefits and privileges traditionally associated with marriage. [State
legislatures retain their existing authority to legislate in the area of
marital benefits. But state and federal courts are precluded from
distorting constitutional or statutory law into a requirement that
marital status or the legal incidents thereof be reallocated pursuant to
a judicial decree]{.underline}.

+------------+------------+----------------+--------------+------------+
|            | **Rede     | **Quasi        | **Benefits   | **Employee |
|            | finition** | Marital        | T            | Benefits   |
|            |            | Schemes:**     | raditionally | Offered by |
|            | **Of       |                | Associated   | Private    |
|            | Marriage** | **"Civil       | With         | Bu         |
|            |            | Unions"**      | Marriage**   | sinesses** |
|            |            |                |              |            |
|            |            | **"Domestic    |              |            |
|            |            | P              |              |            |
|            |            | artnerships"** |              |            |
+============+============+================+==============+============+
| **Imposed  | *          | ***Sentence    | ***Sentence  | **Un       |
| By         | **Sentence | 2***           | 2***         | affected** |
| Courts**   | 1***       |                |              |            |
|            |            | *              | ***          |            |
| **(State   | ***Pr      | **Prohibits*** | Prohibits*** |            |
| or         | ohibits*** |                |              |            |
| Federal)** |            |                |              |            |
+------------+------------+----------------+--------------+------------+
| **Action   | *          | **Decision of  | **Decision   | **Un       |
| of State   | **Sentence | State          | of State     | affected** |
| Leg        | 1***       | Legislature**  | L            |            |
| islature** |            |                | egislature** |            |
|            | ***Pr      |                |              |            |
|            | ohibits*** |                |              |            |
+------------+------------+----------------+--------------+------------+

**Destruction of the Legal Status of Marriage is Pending in Courts:**

The **Federal Marriage Amendment** is an urgently needed response to the
pending judicial destruction of the legal status of marriage in America.
Most legal experts predict that a case now pending before the
Massachusetts state Supreme Court will destroy marriage as the union of
a man and a woman. At that point, lawsuits will be filed in every state
to force this destructive social revolution upon the entire nation.
Since over 70% of Americans believe marriage is uniquely the union of a
man and woman, the American people have consistently voted to defend
marriage in both Hawaii and Alaska.

**Existing Legal Protections Are Insufficient:**

1\. The federal **Defense of Marriage Act** (**DOMA**) cannot prevent
activist groups from undermining marriage laws through lawsuits brought
in state court in states such as Vermont and Massachusetts. These state
lawsuits will lay the foundation for additional lawsuits around the
country. For example, over 80% of Vermont so-called "civil unions"
involve out-of-state residents \-- from every state in the nation \--
who will file lawsuits to undermine marriage in their respective states.
A similar pattern can be expected to apply in Massachusetts.

2\. State marriage laws and DOMA are not likely to survive if challenged
in court. Although the courts may uphold the federal DOMA as it applies
to federal law, they will almost certainly invalidate the section of
DOMA that attempts to bar interstate transmission of same-sex
"marriages." Under the established doctrine of judicial supremacy in
matters of constitutional interpretation, this section of DOMA will be
viewed as an unconstitutional effort to base an Act of Congress upon a
purportedly authoritative interpretation of a constitutional text (the
Full Faith and Credit Clause).