Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-s8fcc Total loading time: 0.526 Render date: 2022-12-06T21:04:57.888Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

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
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Stephen Macedo
Affiliation:
Princeton University

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
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.
Dworkin Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
George Robert P., and Christopher Wolfe. 1997. “Natural Law and Liberal Public Reason.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 42: 3149.Google Scholar
George Robert P., and Gerard V. Bradley. 1995. “Marriage and the Liberal Imagination.” Georgetown Law Journal 84: 30120.Google Scholar
George Maggie. 2003. “What Marriage Is For,” Weekly Standard, August 4–11, 2225.Google Scholar
Kurtz Stanley. 2004a. “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Weekly Standard, February 2, 2633.Google Scholar
Kurtz Stanley. 2004b. “Going Dutch?” Weekly Standard, May 31, 2629.Google Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas. 2003. 539 U.S. 558.
Liu Frederick. 2005. “Marriage, Moral Values, and the U.S. Senate: The ‘Deliberative Deficit’ in American Democracy.” Senior thesis. Princeton University.
Macedo Stephen. 1995a. “Homosexuality and the Conservative Mind.” Georgetown Law Journal 84: 26199.Google Scholar
McLanahan Sara, and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
New York Times. “Rally Round Intolerance.” Editorial, New York Times, May 4.
Ponnuru Ramesh. 2003. “Coming Out Ahead.” National Review, July 28, 2426.Google Scholar
Rauch Jonathan. 2004. Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York: Times Books.
State of Vermont. “Vermont Guide to Civil Unions.” Office of the Secretary of State, http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html.
Washington Post. 2003. “Adultery, Incest, Whatever.” Editorial, April 24.
9
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

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

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *