The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage legally as involving people of different sexes. Before it could become part of the Constitution, it would need to be approved by a 2/3 majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The FMA was introduced in the House of Representatives on May 15, 2002, and again on May 21, 2003, but no vote has taken place on it.
The proposal is a reaction to doubts about the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a Federal Law which purports to give the states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. This conflicts with the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, which requires states to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of all other states. (This clause is the reason marriages performed in one state are recognized in another.)
The proposal is intended to provide a Constitutional obstacle to the movement to approve same-sex marriage, and supporters hope that passage of the amendment will absolve communities and corporations from any obligation to accord legitimacy to same-sex unions. It would make it legal, they believe, for a corporation to refuse to extend benefits to domestic partners regardless of any commitment ceremony expressed or clergy recognition of their union.
Gay rights activists oppose the amendment, calling it discriminatory and an illicit attempt to legislate morality. Lambda Legal, a homosexual rights advocacy group, said that the campaign for FMA was "designed to further anti-gay bigotry."
Some supporters of the amendment deny that they are attempting to legislate morality; instead they claim that supporting only heterosexual marriage is strictly a matter of public interest. They believe that the government has an important role to promote heterosexual marriage because having and caring for children is vital to the public interest in various areas such as the economy. Although the existence of same-sex marriage would not interfere with the continued public support of heterosexual marriage, they assert that extending the principle of human rights to a previously excluded group in this area would constitute a case of legislating morality.
