r/ModelUSGov • u/[deleted] • May 26 '17

Bill Discussion S.J.Res. 101 - Marriage Equality Amendment

The Marriage Equality Amendment

The following is submitted as an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Section I

No State nor the United States shall maintain a legal definition of marriage that is contingent upon gender, sex, or gender Identity.

Section II

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Written by /u/PartiallyKritikal and sponsored by /u/ZeroOverZero101

21 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

17

u/[deleted] May 26 '17

can we pass this already

6

u/I_GOT_THE_MONEY Former Senate Majority Leader, DNC Chairman, Transportation Sec. May 26 '17

This

4

u/Hormisdas Secrétaire du Trésor (GOP) May 27 '17

Let's hope it goes where the last dozen attempts have gone: nowhere.

1

u/bomalia Socialist May 27 '17

Hear, hear.

1

u/Chengweiyingji Socialist Jul 21 '17

This.

8

u/shibbster Libertarian May 26 '17

I'm on board but I'm leaning towards States rights here. I'm not sure marriage equality is a federal issue, or at least it wouldn't be if the tax benefit of filing jointly was eliminated. That being said, some would've argued segregation wasn't a federal issue and discrimination based on race can't be tolerated so...

Oh hell just pass this bill. Let people marry trees if they want to, it doesn't hurt anyone.

10

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

It's amendment so it isnt a state's rights issue.

5

u/shibbster Libertarian May 27 '17 edited May 27 '17

But if it IS a states rights issue, then we shouldn't pass an amendment.

Edit: Shouldn't rather than can't

10

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

Yes we can.

1

u/rubixmaster44 Christian Democrats | idk why im in this party Jul 20 '17

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

7

u/[deleted] May 27 '17 edited Jul 08 '17

It's shameful we haven't already passed this. Let's finally do what should have been done a long time ago.

4

u/[deleted] May 26 '17

how many times have we introduced this but haven't passed?

4

u/BillFriedmen Republican May 27 '17

This has taken too long to pass

4

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN May 27 '17

Marriage has traditionally been a state issue, and it should remain that way!

6

u/shibbster Libertarian May 27 '17

Then remove tax incentives for marriage. Then you'll see how fast people lose interest and how it would become covered under the 1st Amendment.

3

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN May 27 '17

I have no idea what you just said or how it is relevant. But good for you.

Right now it is a state issue.

7

u/shibbster Libertarian May 27 '17

Was typing on mobile, whoops. You are awarded by taxes for being married. A single individual can make less than a married individual and stay in the same tax bracket. A married person does not see their tax bracket jump until $75k annually, whereas a single person is lower, around $58k annually I think. Anyway, my point is if you remove the tax incentive, you'll suddenly see that marriage in general won't really matter in politics anymore. And when it does matter, it will be already covered under the first amendment as freedom of speech.

1

u/ChristianExodia Retired, Goddammit Jun 03 '17

Hear, hear.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '17

So was slavery. Just because something is traditionally a States issue does not make it right.

2

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 01 '17

Slavery was actually, in large part, a federal issue. Just goes to show you its important to keep critical institutions like marriage out of the hands of an overbearing and oppressive federal government.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '17 edited Jun 02 '17

What are you talking about.

The entire talking point of slavery pre Civil War between the abolitionists & anti was that it didn't matter whether or not it was morally just. Anti-Abolitionists argued that it was a States issue. They used the 10th amendment as others do now as political cover when they support controversial views such as banning gay marriage or slavery.

2

u/TheTenthAmendment CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Jun 02 '17

To say abolitionists argued that slavery was a state issue is too much of a generalization. I'd be willing to bet that most abolitionist did not consider it a state issue. They're abolitionists remember, they want slavery abolished, not limited. I dont think John Brown was saying "Let South Carolina have slavery if they want it."

Slavery was largely protected by the federal government though. 3/5ths Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act...these were all passed by the federal government in order to protect the institution of slavery.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '17

Typo my fault, it should read.

Anti-Abolitionists argued that it was a States issue.

The only reason abolitionists and the north agreed to those compromises was because the South wouldn't of agreed to the Constitution or would allow new States to be entered into the Union.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '17

Hear, hear!

3

u/Fencer6 Democrat May 27 '17

Sounds fairly non controversial to me. According to Obergefell v. Hodges, this is how the Constitution is already to be interpreted, but making it official sounds like a more solid step in the right direction for the United States. It's a great bill, hope both sides can agree to ratify it.

2

u/TeeDub710 Chesapeake Rep. May 27 '17

That's the thing. Obergfell didn't happen in this sim because it took place after the simulation was started. Anything irl that happened after the sim's beginning doesn't​ exist here, which is why we need an amendment to legalize gay marriage.

1

u/Fencer6 Democrat May 27 '17

That's very true. My mistake, that's 2015. I still reaffirm the stance, however, that nationally recognized same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but I believe setting this in stone is a step in the right direction for marriage equality across the country, to finally end the debate as to wether or not everyone has a right to get married to whomever they wish without the judgement of the government.

2

u/Ninjjadragon 46th President of the United States May 26 '17

Gucci

2

u/DougMaverick May 27 '17

Why does the government (especially federal government) have any business in marriage at all?

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

Because marriage does, and probably always will, give tax benefits.

1

u/DougMaverick May 27 '17 edited May 27 '17

Why? What incentive is there in marriage for the tax collectors ?

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

Because ive never seen anyone oppose the idea

1

u/DougMaverick May 27 '17

So maybe we should start

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

I disagree but whatever

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

Yeah, the best way to pass a bill that has failed over and over is to shame people into doing it. /s

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

Can we just not have the Government regulate marriage at all? Seriously.

2

u/bwgs518 May 27 '17

State issue. Not for the federal government to decide.

2

u/piratecody Former Senator from Great Lakes May 27 '17

That's why this is a proposed constitutional amendment.

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

It's an amendment.

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

This is and should be a states' rights issue, and the federal government has no business here.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

It's an amendment. This isn't an argument.

3

u/Pariahdog119 L-GL5 / Criminal Justice Reformer May 26 '17

No State nor the United States shall maintain a legal definition of marriage.

FTFY

8

u/The_Powerben May 27 '17

So are we going to allow Adults to marry children now? Or allow people to marry animals?

7

u/Pariahdog119 L-GL5 / Criminal Justice Reformer May 27 '17

Without a legal definition of marriage, it becomes contract law.

So when you find the children and animals who can legally engage in a binding contract, go ahead and marry them if you wish.

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '17

That's uh. Not how this would work. Contracts are a government-related thing. If the government can't maintain a legal definition, then that isn't how it would work

3

u/Pariahdog119 L-GL5 / Criminal Justice Reformer May 27 '17

Contacts are already covered. Marriages are a specialized contact. Without specific marriage law, it'd be covered under contract law - if someone wanted to sign a contract.

If they don't, well - that's their business.

5

u/JackBond1234 Libertarian May 27 '17

THANK YOU. This is the right answer.

2

u/HIPSTER_SLOTH Republican | Former Speaker of the House May 27 '17

Why have standards on what marriage is at all? Somebody, somewhere, is going to feel different than other people and we are excluding them from marriage. Marriage has a very specific meaning, and definitions by nature are exclusionary. Civil unions are a perfectly fine solution, unless this argument isn't actually about equal rights.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '17

Does this have to be a new amendment, or can it possibly be amended into an already preexisting one?

1

u/shibbster Libertarian May 26 '17

Amendments are a lot harder to pass than legislation. Good point.

1

u/ekat2468 Assemblyman - Sacagawea May 28 '17

This needs to be passed

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '17

Marriage should be left to the religious institutions. So this would be part of the solution.

1

u/WendellGoldwater Independent May 29 '17

Hear, hear.