Okay, here's MY idea for a REAL marriage amendment...

[Ian David]

For what it's worth, I think it would be good enough if we stopped after paragraph 4.

An Amendment to define and protect the dignity of all marriages performed within The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and maintain the right of conscience and independence of the clergy.

1) Marriage as defined, regulated, performed, licensed and recognized by The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is an institution separate and distinct from religious arrangements of the same name.

2) Marriage as defined, regulated, performed, licensed and recognized by The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, shall consist of a Legal Union between two consenting adult human beings over the age of majority, no more closely related than first-cousins, neither of whom is married to another person, established with the intent of consummating a loving, life-long commitment to one another.

3) All marriages licensed within The Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall be recognized as deserving of equal rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities and dignity.

4) No house of worship or religious institution shall be required to perform or sanctify marriages which they find objectionable.

5) In so far as The Commonwealth may have authority, no house of worship or religious institution shall force clergy people to perform or sanctify marriages which they find objectionable, nor sanction or discipline clergy people for exercising this right.

6) No clergy person, house of worship or religious organization shall be required to recognize marriages which they find objectionable, except for the purpose of disbursing non-religious charitable services for which they receive government subsidies, or for extending employee benefits to non-clergy personnel who administer such programs subsidized by State or Federal Government. This applies to Nursing Homes, Hospitals, Soup Kitchens, Homeless Shelters, and any other non-religious program subsidized by State or Federal Government, including parochial schools that accept vouchers.

7) No state official, Justice of The Peace, or other person may be forced to perform or solemnize marriages which they find objectionable, nor may they be sanctioned or disciplined for exercising this right. Such objections must be stated immediately upon request for a marriage ceremony, and the applicants must simultaneously be directed to an alternative officiant when an objection is voiced.

8) Each county government, and each city of over 50,000 people, must each maintain on payroll, or have access to, at least one licensed officiant willing to perform same-sex civil marriages.

9) All non-religious organizations, corporations, government entities, limited partnerships, and other business interests engaged in commerce within The Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall be required to recognize all marriages licensed in Massachusetts as deserving of equal protection and dignity.

10) No non-religious organizations, corporations, government entities, limited partnerships, or other business interests may engage in commerce within The Commonwealth of Massachusetts if they exercise discriminatory practices regarding marriages licensed by The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Secretary of State and The State Attorney General are granted the authority and charged with the mandate of enforcing this clause, by any legal means necessary.

11) Methods of enforcement may include suspension of corporate charters and business licenses, freezing of assets, property liens, civil suits, shielding citizens, corporations, and government entities from collection of Federal taxes, banning military recruiters from operating within the state, and withholding Massachusetts National Guard units from Federal service, until such time as a corporate or government entity complies with Massachusetts State Law regarding the equal rights and protections of all Citizens of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

[dickthegrouch]

1. Thank you

I have always wondered why we wait until someone from the other side puts something forwaard we don't like.

I would like to see added that any marriage performed under substantially the same conditions in another State or another country will also be recognised as a marriage in the State of Massachusetts.

I would also add that no additional proof of such relationship shall be required than is also regularly required of heterosexuals by any organization, governmental or private.

(Edited to add proof conditions).

[Ian David]

4. Good additions. I'll add them. Also, I thought about adding an E.T. Clause

The Extra-Terrestrial and Mutant Clause

In the event that intelligent, sentient, non-human terrestrial or extra-terrestrial beings are someday discovered, genetically engineered, or otherwise come into existence, The Courts shall have the jurisdiction to decide if legalizing marriages to such beings is in the best interest of The Citizens.

Of course, that would make the whole affair look too "nutty," wouldn't it?

[Ian David]

5. Okay suggestions added:

3.1) Any marriage performed under substantially the same conditions, or consistent with The Commonwealth's definition of marriage, recognized in another state, territory or country will also be recognized as a marriage in The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, deserving of equal rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities and dignity.

3.2) No additional documentation, procedures or other requirements shall be required of any category of marriage applicants other than what is required for all applicants, unless the courts determine there is a compelling and critical medical need for those measures.

[dickthegrouch]

9. Thanks, but don't restrict to applicants

I was actually trying to stave off any requirements for excess documentation by people claiming marriage benefits after the license has been issued.

[Ian David]

10. Ooh! Good point! I get it now!

For example, a hospital can't ask to see two forms of ID, a marriage license, and a wedding picture before allowing you to visit your spouse (unless they do that for EVERYONE, which would just be silly).

[Ian David]

17. Okay, I think I made your change (plus, I made one more)...

3.4) No governmental, business or other entity doing business within The Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall require same-sex couples to produce extra documentation or require of them any procedures or qualifications that are discriminatory and not equal in treatment to those of opposite-sex couples. No same-sex couples shall be required to furnish any proof of their relationship not ordinarily required of opposite-sex couples.


12) Persons interfering with or abridging the rights of married couples to exercise hospital visitation, medical proxy, and other catastrophic or illness-related spousal rights shall be subject to criminal prosecution. In cases where death or substantial harm takes place due to such discrimination, the minimum penalty shall be no less than one year plus one day in prison before being eligible for parole.

[dickthegrouch]

19. Excellent --- n/t

[tocqueville]

2. I have an easier solution

Massachusetts State Law recognize ALL marriages licensed in Massachusetts as deserving of equal protection and dignity.
(then it's up to the people of Massachusetts to define by election or referendum the prerequisites for marriage such as gender and age)

THEN :

NO house of worship or religious person is entitled to perform marriages having LEGAL value.

Only SECULAR authorities (state officials etc...) are entitled to do it. It's the only way of becoming LEGALLY MARRIED.

If then people want to marry in Church TOO, it's their PRIVATE business.

I know it's a French solution, but it's a consequence of the separation of Church and State.

[Ian David]

3. See, I want to destroy the right-wing "slippery slope" argument

There are actually people of good conscience-- but low intelligence-- who are honestly afraid that legalizing gay marriage would lead to polygamy, incest, and marrying boxturtles.

Using the constitution to define marriage as, "A Legal Union between two consenting adult human beings over the age of majority, no more closely related than first-cousins, neither of whom is married to another person, established with the intent of consummating a loving, life-long commitment to one another," addresses those concerns.

"Oh, they're going to allow gay marriage, but also ban polygamy, incest, and animal husbandry. I think I can vote for that now," might say the Little Old Lady who always sits on the first pew in church.

Marriage limited to:
1) Two people only
2) Consenting adults
3) Human beings (no boxturtles)
4) No children or minors
5) No incestuous marriages
6) No polygamy or bigamy or group marriages
7) Loving commitment = not college buddies wanting tax breaks
8) "Consummating" implies encouragement of "intimate" relationships. Again, no "College Buddies."
9) Intent of a lifelong commitment = no arrangements of convenience, but divorce is still legal ("INTENT" of a lifelong commitment).

All the "slippery slope" arguments (I think) are taken out of the equation.

[dickthegrouch]

11. Diminished Capacity for Consent

All of the slippery slope examples represent cases in which there is a diminished capacity for consent. If the law makes clear that any union so created is between legally consenting adults, it doesn't have to resort to enumerating specific examples.

I've often thought that consent should be used as an argument against the 'slippery slope' proponents.

The state has a legitimate interest in consent issues - it has no legitimate interest in religiously based moral arguments.

[Ian David]

15. A boxturtle can not "consent" to being married. Besides...

1) A boxturtle does not usually have a valid legal name.

2) A boxturtle does not (I think) ever have a valid form of identification recognized by the state.

3) A boxturtle can not sign its name.

4) A boxturtle can not swear or affirm a vow or even understand the marriage contract.

I suppose that one might be able to argue in favor of marrying a dolphin or humpback whale.

And maybe one could marry Koko the Sign-Language Speaking Gorilla. It's already been established that she likes women to show her their boobies. Maybe Koko is ready to settle down?

While I dare someone to try, I would still be opposed to such unions. At least, if someone goes to court to press the issue, it will finally be a matter of settled law that no, you can not marry a boxturtle.

[closeupready]

12. But why should gays and lesbians oppose polygamy?

Many societies exist quite successfully with provisions for polygamy, and I'm not sure why I am supposed to oppose it. Furthermore, I have many gay-friendly, hetero muslim friends whose religion allows polygamy. Don't ask gays to sell out the interests of those who they can count on as allies.

Incest and marrying boxturtles, sure, but again, why is that the burden of gays and lesbians to address exclusively? Why should we waste time and resources addressing that and not, for example, Hurricane Katrina or the spotted owl? Those are causes worthy of being addressed, but it's odd to assume this kind of busybody role when all we should be addressing is issues relating to gays.

[Ian David]

16. That part isn't about gays. And there are several arguments about polygamy

I don't have time to get into detail, or get into all of them, but I think this is a key reason:


Have you seen how ugly some of the polygamist men are, and how many wives (some of them good looking) these guys manage to attract?

Can you imagine how many wives Brad Pitt or Donald Trump might be able to have?

How will the rest of the average guys in the world find women for themselves, if every hot stud and rich mogul has a dozen wives?

If someone else wants to pick-up the argument, go ahead.

[closeupready]

18. Maybe if they don't have available women, they'll go gay.

Would that be so bad? :D

[AntiFascist]

13. Another slippery slope...

there are plenty of "marriages of convenience" between members of the opposite sex anyway.

It is good that we can also appeal to Libertarian-minded people who oppose the Federal government interference in our lives. The tendency of the Bush administration is to try to define narrowly exactly which religions are considered valid. It must drive them up the wall to know that there are very spiritual people within the gay community as well as established churches which are well supported and condone as well as conduct services for gay marriage.

[Ian David]

14. established with the intent of consummating a loving, life-long commitment

I used the word "consumating" because it gently implies a potentially sexual relationship.

Of course, one could marry with the idea of sexual relations being one of the "conveniences."

[Ian David]

6. Even with a religious marriage, you still need a civil license

Otherwise, The Unitarian Church or someone could have performed same-sex marriages years ago and forced the state to accept them.

All marriages, religious or otherwise, have always required approval by the state.

But I think I should add specific language about people not needing a religious ceremony to have their marriages recognized by the state.

Thanks!

[Ian David]

7. Okay, here is your clause:

4.1) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall not require any marriage to be officiated, recognized or sanctioned by any religious body, nor shall non-religious unions be treated differently by The State and by the laws of The Commonwealth than those that have been religiously sanctioned.

[Ian David]

8. New clause for marriage licenses, birth certificates, etc.

8.1) Marriage licenses, birth certificates, and other documents administered and used by The Commonwealth shall reflect the genders of married partners with accuracy and dignity. All marital arrangements shall use documentation compatible with all unions, such that no marriage shall require different documentation than others.


Dignity:
In other words, no fun-and-games, like issuing marriage licenses that say, "Gay Marriage License."

No marriage licenses that replace "husband and wife" with "Party of the First Part and Party of The Second Part."

I think all marriage licenses should look something like:

1) Husband, Wife or Spouse A
Gender:

2) Husband, Wife or Spouse B
Gender: