I believe all remaining candidates support amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, except Ron Paul. The question is framed as one of supporting states rights versus opposition to marriage, as this report does from a debate back in June:
The seven Republican presidential candidates onstage at a debate in New Hampshire Monday night split on whether they support passage of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, while one – Rep. Michele Bachmann – seemed to trip over the question.
Within the context of New Hampshire’s law allowing gay people to marry, Bachmann was asked what influence she would use as president “to try to overturn these state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible.”
“I do believe in the 10th amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states,” Bachmann responded, adding that she also sees marriage as “between a man and woman.” Later, she said that she doesn’t “see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.”
The comment generated applause and was taken by debate moderator John King as Bachmann saying she would not interfere with the New Hampshire gay marriage law. Later, however, the Minnesota Republican clarified her position – saying she did back a federal marriage amendment.
“I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law,” said Bachmann.
Two of the candidates – Herman Cain and Rep. Ron Paul – suggested they opposed a federal marriage amendment. (Cain said it should be up to the states, while Paul stressed the federal government should not be involved in marriage at all.)
Newt Gingrich said that if the Defense of Marriage Act – which the Obama administration is now declining to defend in court – is overturned, “at that point you have no choice but a constitutional amendment.”
Both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty said they backed a constitutional amendment. So did Rick Santorum, who also suggested that the position didn’t constitute overriding states’ rights.
“The constitutional amendment includes the states,” he said. “Three-quarters of the states have to ratify it. So the states will be involved in this process. We should have one law with respect to marriage. There needs to be consistency as something as foundational as what marriage is.”
As you know I contend that an Amendment is unnecessary because the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to prescribe the effect and proof of all legal acts and proceedings that take place in the several states, in order for there to be consistency like what Santorum talks about. It isn’t necessary to make an Amendment to define the proof or effect of a legal act like marriage. But that’s not the point of this diary, this diary is about the FMA itself.
I support an FMA, though of course by itself it doesn’t stop same-sex reproduction, postgenderism or genetic engineering or anything. But, it’d still be good, because it could be used to stop all that stuff, with a federal law that regulates interstate commerce of fertility clinics, by prohibiting labs from creating people except as offspring of married couples using their unmodified gametes. That would even stop egg and sperm donation, which is a terrible injustice and harms equality and dignity.
I am hoping to hear from people here as to whether they support an FMA or not. And also what they think of prohibiting genetic engineering that way, instead of with an egg and sperm law that isn’t tied to marriage like I usually promote. Brock, the FMA doesn’t prohibit states from instituting CU’s if they want to, so in all likelihood Massachusetts will still have CU’s, but are you OK with it or do you think it should also prohibit states from creating CU’s?
PS, why isn’t an FMA in the works right now? What does it take to get it ratified by 38 states right now?[poll id=”