Some 5am thoughts on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J. Res. 56/ S.J. Res.26

Here's the text of the proposed marriage amendment to the Constitution:

SECTION 1. 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.'.

Now, curious and inquisitive in these matters as I may be, I am not planning on marrying a person of the same sex. But it certainly offends my notion of freedom to not have this option available to me should I choose to exercise it. Moreover, I am worried about the language in the second sentence. While most of the opposition is centered around the "gay marriage" controversy, I am extremely worried that this Amendment seeks to forever preclude unmarried cohabitants the right to legal benefits afforded even the most dysfunctional marriage.

In France, unmarried cohabitants can enter into a "Civil Solidarity Pact," whereby they have joint taxation benefits after three years, inheritance rights after two years, plus access to one another's health benefits. Similar statutes have been enacted into law in Canada, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden, and Denmark.

In my opinion, what the proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are essentially saying is that a man and a woman can enter into a morally depraved, abusive, horrible marriage, and as long as it is on paper, they will be extended all the benefits of marriage, whereas a loving and committed heterosexual couple, or an equally loving and committed gay couple, are denied those benefits. With the divorce rate hovering above 50%, who's to say that marriage is as sacrosanct as the proponents of the amendment seem to be implying?

I am somewhat alright with a state statute prohibiting gay marriage, if that's what floats the legislature's (and constituents') boat, but to go so far as to weave the requirement of heterosexual marriage into the fabric of this country's Constitution is in my opinion a step back towards the days of moral patronism, and ignores the reality of the increasing number of unmarried cohabitants in this country.

What's next, prohibition (again)?