Robert Neeld
Democrat for Congress

The Issues

Family Marriage Amendment

I oppose it.

The amendment would marginalize many people who choose to live in relationships of their choice.

First, the elevation into federal law of the Bush/GOP Right Wing definition of marital status along quasi-religious guidelines would bring us a step closer to a theocracy, a situation specifically addressed in the 1st Amendment.

Second, Congress shouldn't be in business to tell the states what they can or cannot do. This would undermine the Full Faith and Credit Provision articulated in Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution which instructs the states to abide by each other's statutes.

It's interesting to note that the U.S. government has overruled the states only twice on the question of marriage: first, when it required Utah to ban polygamy as a condition for statehood before Utah became a state; second, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriages in 16 states in its 1967 landmark decision, Loving vs. Virginia, by ruling that marriages could not be defined by the states in such a way as to violate core constitutional rights.

Over our history, literally hundreds of amendments have been proposed to our U.S. Constitution. Including the original Ten Bill of Rights, just 27 have been ratified.

Embracing the wisdom of our Founders, any proposed amendment that purports to restrict our freedom such as the Family Marriage Amendment should be rightfully consigned to the Trash Heap.

Click here to read what Stephen Schloesser, S.J., a Jesuit priest and professor of late modern European History at Boston College has to say on this subject in a letter to Senator Marion Walsch.