Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

This is the exact language from H. J. RES. 56, also known as the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Currently, this legislation, authored by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), is sitting in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Within the next several months, House Speaker Dennis Hastert will have to make a decision as to whether or not FMA goes up for a vote in the US House of Representatives.

It is suspiciously ironic that so many social conservatives--who frequently claim to be advocates of "states' rights"--support the FMA. This constitutional amendment would implement a federal policy prohibiting the legalization of all same-sex unions in all 50 states; at least, that's how many reactionary judges would interpret the FMA's broadly-worded language.

The fact is, the Federal Marriage Amendment threatens to outlaw the possible existence of civil unions in every state, despite what George W. Bush and FMA's proponents want us to believe. The text of FMA refers to "marriage and its legal incidents" being limited to those between one man and one woman. By attaching the language "and its legal incidents" in reference to marriage, the amendment's authors are vaguely and implicitly alluding to the spousal benefits contained in Vermont-style same-sex civil unions.

That means that, if FMA is ratified, it threatens to not only preempt any additional states from implementing civil unions within their own borders, but also could effectively rescind the civil unions system already passed by the Vermont state legislature, as well as any systems of civil unions approved by other states in the near future. Gotta love that "compassionate conservatism."

Social conservatives argue that the Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to prevent a "slippery slope." After all, if same-sex marriage is legalized, it will supposedly lead to multiple-spouse marriages, state-approved incest, marriages to animals, and of course, holy unions with one's lawn furniture.

However, the potential passage of FMA could also cause its own "slippery slope." If conservatives succeed in hijacking the amendment process to preclude any form of same-sex spousal recognition from our society, what makes anyone think they'll stop there? How long before we see a constitutional amendment limiting or banning abortion? What happens when John Ashcroft decides that our free speech laws are too lax, and calls upon Congress to amend the Constitution "in the interest of national security"? How about if the NRA wants to alter the US Constitution to specifically state that "every law-abiding citizen of age" has the right to own a personal firearm?

Another popular argument in favor of FMA is that it allegedly "protects" the institution of marriage for the rearing of children. This assumption is preposterous on two levels. First, it ignorantly asserts that gay or lesbian couples are somehow unqualified to be responsible foster parents. Additionally, it ignores the fact that raising children is not a requirement for heterosexual married couples to currently enjoy the benefits of a civil marriage. Otherwise, there would be quite a few childless married couples in our nation being cheated out of basic spousal privileges.

But this issue is really about marital benefits, not who would make the better parent. I do not personally believe in the "states' rights" argument when it comes to same-sex marriage. Ultimately, same-sex couples must be given marital equality at the national level. However, I would never try to accomplish this through a constitutional amendment.

I would like to ask those of you who oppose gay marriage this question: How would you feel if the government prevented you from legally entering into a marital union with your lover? How would you react if your spousal privileges were suddenly stripped away? That is the injustice that many same-sex couples joined by civil unions in Vermont, and potentially in states such as Massachusetts or California, may end up confronting if FMA passes.

In terms of the issue at hand, whether or not one agrees with gay marriage is irrelevant. The US Constitution is meant to be amended in only the rarest of circumstances. But in an effort to appease the Religious Right and distract the media from analysis of Bush's job performance, social conservatives have rationalized raping the US Constitution for their own political gain.

Conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike should be outraged that any interest group would try to abuse the democratic process in such a blatant manner. And any moderate or conservative who believes in "states' rights" should be opposing FMA on the grounds that it's an authoritarian, Big Government solution.

I encourage everyone to contact Congressman Ron Kind, expressing your views about the Federal Marriage Amendment.