Lynch at Large

This story, reported in the Episcopal News Service, has not gotten much notice around these parts. (Photo by John Johnson, Episcopal News Service) Bishop Maze is opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment opposing same-sex marriage and exercised his God-given right to petition lawmakers with his views.

[Episcopal News Service] Bishop Larry Maze of Arkansas and retired New Jersey Bishop Joe Morris Doss, now living in Louisiana, joined a diverse spectrum of clergy and religious leaders on Capitol Hill May 22 to speak against passage of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" (FMA).

The bishops are part of "Clergy for Fairness," a coalition of religious leaders working to oppose passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage. The Senate is scheduled to debate the measure during the week of June 5.

Here is the amendment.

"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."

Although I disagree with Bishop Maze's general theological approach to the subject, I also believe that this is a bad amendment. In fact, I believe that every person who opposes same-sex marriage must also be against it. Let me explain.

The key word is "require." The amendment defines marriage and prohibits courts from expanding the definition of "marriage." So far, so good. The first problem lies in the expansion of "civil unions," a legal equivalent to "gay marriage."

There is another disturbing question. What exactly is meant by "legal incidents?" Is this a crude attempt to do away with "civil unions?" (Not a bad idea in theory).This language forces courts to define the elements of a fundamental legal contract which contains much complexity effecting property and children.

You can get a headache thinking about this stuff, but let me warn all concerned that, if enacted. this amendment will be interpreted by courts. The language is clear. Courts may not require the "legal incidents" (privileges?) of marriage be accorded to gay folks, but they certainly may allow it. That gives legislatures authority to give full "civil union" status at will and, perhaps, even abolish the (so-called) anachronistic form of "marriage."

The "full faith and credit" clause of the federal constitution requires one state to accept the acts of another. The result should be obvious. The FMA mandates nationwide "civul unions." Judges would be obligated to enforce "civil unions" not on the basis of any legal notion of marriage, but on the "full faith and credit" concept.

My conservative friends, with whom I generally agree on the matter of "gay marriage" do not seem willing to admit that the train has left the station. When your own people can not make a case for why the institution of marriage should be favored in secular law (as it most certainly should), you are in deep trouble. I wish it were not so.

If one is against "gay marriage," why would you be in favor of a legal status that is in every way equal, except in name? In the law, it is called a "distinction without a difference."

The Federal Marriage Amendment is an enormous waste of time.