Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:34:41.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Federal Marriage Amendment and the Strange Evolution of the Conservative Case against Gay Marriage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2005

Frederick Liu  and
Stephen Macedo
Frederick Liu
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Stephen Macedo
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The idea for a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not suddenly dawn upon Senate Republicans in the summer of 2004, when debate on the amendment began in earnest on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Despite the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, conservatives have long worried about what they believe are the threats to traditional heterosexual marriage posed by the courts. Their fears peaked in 2003, when the courts struck twice: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that state homosexual sodomy laws are unconstitutional, while the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ordered state officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 211 - 215
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

CR[Congressional Record]. July 9–14, 2004. Washington, D.C.: GPO.Google Scholar
Dworkin Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eskridge William N., Darren R. Spedale, and Hans Ytterberg. 2004. “Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.” Issues in Legal Scholarship, Single-Sex Marriage 4: 3. http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss5/art4.Google Scholar
Goodride v. Department of Public Health. 2003. 440 Mass. 309. 798 N.E.2d 941.Google Scholar
George Robert P., and Christopher Wolfe. 1997. “Natural Law and Liberal Public Reason.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 42: 31–49.Google Scholar
George Robert P., and Gerard V. Bradley. 1995. “Marriage and the Liberal Imagination.” Georgetown Law Journal 84: 301–20.Google Scholar
George Maggie. 2003. “What Marriage Is For,” Weekly Standard, August 4–11, 22–25.Google Scholar
Kurtz Stanley. 2004a. “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Weekly Standard, February 2, 26–33.Google Scholar
Kurtz Stanley. 2004b. “Going Dutch?” Weekly Standard, May 31, 26–29.Google Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas. 2003. 539 U.S. 558.Google Scholar
Liu Frederick. 2005. “Marriage, Moral Values, and the U.S. Senate: The ‘Deliberative Deficit’ in American Democracy.” Senior thesis. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Macedo Stephen. 1995a. “Homosexuality and the Conservative Mind.” Georgetown Law Journal 84: 261–99.Google Scholar
McLanahan Sara, and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
New York Times. “Rally Round Intolerance.” Editorial, New York Times, May 4.Google Scholar
Ponnuru Ramesh. 2003. “Coming Out Ahead.” National Review, July 28, 24–26.Google Scholar
Rauch Jonathan. 2004. Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
State of Vermont. “Vermont Guide to Civil Unions.” Office of the Secretary of State, http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html.Google Scholar
Washington Post. 2003. “Adultery, Incest, Whatever.” Editorial, April 24.Google Scholar