Man Undefined
Most people who know me well would tell you that, when it comes to politics, I'm more of a wordsmith than a policy analyst. Which is why what happened today in Washington made even someone like me take notice. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Or did it? Let's just take a closer look.
As passed by the committee today, the Federal Marriage Amendment read as follows:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
To my reading, the words in this amendment are waaaaay too ambiguous to ever pass Constitutional muster. For example, let's just look at the basic tenet of this new amendment, defining marriage as only the “union of a man and a woman.” You may be saying to yourself, what's the problem, that seems pretty clear. However, you would be wrong. As a trained legal professional, I'm here to tell you, this phrase is so confusing and vague, it is virtually meaningless.
First of all, if marriage is between a "man" and a "woman," we all need to be on the same page with what we mean by a "man" and a "woman." Let's start with this question: "what is a man?" And what's really important is how the Senate Judiciary committee meant to answer that question. To determine how the committee would answer that question, we need to try to get inside the committee members' heads.
The first step in this process is obviously to consult a dictionary. Undoubtedly, the Senate Judiciary committee members would have engaged in a similar exercise, so this will also serve to give us a glimpse into their thinking process. Let's take a look at the definitions for the word “man” in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary and see if that brings any clarity to this new amendment. For purposes of this exercise, I'm going to assume the committee meant their little phrase to apply to ALL of the definitions of the term "man," so as to avoid ambiguity and constitutional challenges from sleazy civil rights lawyers. (By the way, these are the actual, unedited definitions):
1. man - POLICE : often capitalized ("when I heard the siren, I knew it was the Man")
- Okay, we're off to a bad start here. Just what the hell did the committee think it was doing? This doesn't seem fair at all. If all our women are going to get married to The Man, what about the rest of us? Apparently, we're going to be stuck with civil unions.
2. man - the white establishment : often capitalized ("surprise that any black... should take on so about The Man" -- Peter Goldman)
- While the U.S. Senate has not historically been known for its enlightened views on race, this seems like it would have to violate some of the civil rights laws. I don't even get how this kind of marriage ceremony would be conducted.
3. man - the compound idea of infinite Spirit : the spiritual image and likeness of God : the full representation of Mind (Christian Science )
- This is just getting downright weird now. Was the Senate Judiciary committee trying to mess with our heads? Is this just a joke? I mean, I honestly have no idea how a union between a woman and this sort of "man" would work. I'm starting to think these committee members are a bunch of bastards.
4. man - a) a feudal tenant : VASSAL b) an adult male servant c) plural : the working force as distinguished from the employer and usually the management
- Okay, this is better. And just in time, too. Throwing a bone to the working man. Thanks, committee members. Until now, this whole damn amendment smacked of elitism and privilege. Obviously, one of the senators on the committee with working-class constituents snuck this one in.
5. man - one of the players on a team
- Here we go again. Back to the elites. The "players." The athletes. It's always the athletes who get the women, isn't it? That may be a truism, but it really doesn't seem fair that this principle would be memorialized in our Constitution. Shame on you, Senator Specter.
6. man - one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood
- Whoa! Talk about vague! The courts would have a field day with this one. While I'm sure the Marlboro Man's union would hold up, God knows what would happen with the rest of us. I would seriously hate for my "manhood" to be scrutinized by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (C'mon, people, not like that!)
7. man - an alumnus of or student at a college or university ("a Bowdoin man")
- Again with the discrimination! It's bad enough that we are dooming the non-college educated folks to low wage jobs in America, but now this? It's a slap in the face to the working class, that's what it is. And here I thought the Senate was coming around.
8. man - the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one's requirements ("she's your man")
- Stop . . . right . . . there. Whaaaat? Did the online Merriam-Webster dictionary just say "she's your man." I am sooooo confused. If a union is defined as solely between a "woman" and THIS KIND OF MAN, I think this whole stupid amendment has brought us right back to where we started. I see an opening wide enough for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to drive a truck through.
In fact, I'm done with this analysis right here. As I see it, when it comes down to it, this amendment is clearly doomed to failure. Which is why I would urge each and every one of you to contact your senator to vote against it.
As passed by the committee today, the Federal Marriage Amendment read as follows:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
To my reading, the words in this amendment are waaaaay too ambiguous to ever pass Constitutional muster. For example, let's just look at the basic tenet of this new amendment, defining marriage as only the “union of a man and a woman.” You may be saying to yourself, what's the problem, that seems pretty clear. However, you would be wrong. As a trained legal professional, I'm here to tell you, this phrase is so confusing and vague, it is virtually meaningless.
First of all, if marriage is between a "man" and a "woman," we all need to be on the same page with what we mean by a "man" and a "woman." Let's start with this question: "what is a man?" And what's really important is how the Senate Judiciary committee meant to answer that question. To determine how the committee would answer that question, we need to try to get inside the committee members' heads.
The first step in this process is obviously to consult a dictionary. Undoubtedly, the Senate Judiciary committee members would have engaged in a similar exercise, so this will also serve to give us a glimpse into their thinking process. Let's take a look at the definitions for the word “man” in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary and see if that brings any clarity to this new amendment. For purposes of this exercise, I'm going to assume the committee meant their little phrase to apply to ALL of the definitions of the term "man," so as to avoid ambiguity and constitutional challenges from sleazy civil rights lawyers. (By the way, these are the actual, unedited definitions):
1. man - POLICE : often capitalized ("when I heard the siren, I knew it was the Man")
- Okay, we're off to a bad start here. Just what the hell did the committee think it was doing? This doesn't seem fair at all. If all our women are going to get married to The Man, what about the rest of us? Apparently, we're going to be stuck with civil unions.
2. man - the white establishment : often capitalized ("surprise that any black... should take on so about The Man" -- Peter Goldman)
- While the U.S. Senate has not historically been known for its enlightened views on race, this seems like it would have to violate some of the civil rights laws. I don't even get how this kind of marriage ceremony would be conducted.
3. man - the compound idea of infinite Spirit : the spiritual image and likeness of God : the full representation of Mind (Christian Science )
- This is just getting downright weird now. Was the Senate Judiciary committee trying to mess with our heads? Is this just a joke? I mean, I honestly have no idea how a union between a woman and this sort of "man" would work. I'm starting to think these committee members are a bunch of bastards.
4. man - a) a feudal tenant : VASSAL b) an adult male servant c) plural : the working force as distinguished from the employer and usually the management
- Okay, this is better. And just in time, too. Throwing a bone to the working man. Thanks, committee members. Until now, this whole damn amendment smacked of elitism and privilege. Obviously, one of the senators on the committee with working-class constituents snuck this one in.
5. man - one of the players on a team
- Here we go again. Back to the elites. The "players." The athletes. It's always the athletes who get the women, isn't it? That may be a truism, but it really doesn't seem fair that this principle would be memorialized in our Constitution. Shame on you, Senator Specter.
6. man - one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood
- Whoa! Talk about vague! The courts would have a field day with this one. While I'm sure the Marlboro Man's union would hold up, God knows what would happen with the rest of us. I would seriously hate for my "manhood" to be scrutinized by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (C'mon, people, not like that!)
7. man - an alumnus of or student at a college or university ("a Bowdoin man")
- Again with the discrimination! It's bad enough that we are dooming the non-college educated folks to low wage jobs in America, but now this? It's a slap in the face to the working class, that's what it is. And here I thought the Senate was coming around.
8. man - the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one's requirements ("she's your man")
- Stop . . . right . . . there. Whaaaat? Did the online Merriam-Webster dictionary just say "she's your man." I am sooooo confused. If a union is defined as solely between a "woman" and THIS KIND OF MAN, I think this whole stupid amendment has brought us right back to where we started. I see an opening wide enough for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to drive a truck through.
In fact, I'm done with this analysis right here. As I see it, when it comes down to it, this amendment is clearly doomed to failure. Which is why I would urge each and every one of you to contact your senator to vote against it.
posted by Eric at 8:16 PM
8 Comments:
Sweetie, after reading that I'm concerned that our own marraige may not be valid and binding. Clearly you're not certain if you meet the definition of "man" and as a management attorney I'm not real keen on entering a union - so where does that leave us?
Down with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't they have anything important to do other than discouraging committed relationships?
I have always been a little confused with the amanedment issue as well. It's merely a politcal tool to remind people where their legislators stand as legislators spend a lot of time trying not to vote on anything controversial.
Even if gay marriage is passed it will take decades of lawsuits and social disruptions by gay couples suing to force members of society to recognize their union as marriage. For example, if a traditional marriage couple gets first choice in adoption over a gay couple, then the gay couple's marriage is not equal and therefore not marriage. They will have to go to court to force the state not to discriminate for adoption.
If you hear that Terri and John got divorced, you feel sad - it sucks to have a marriage break up especially with kids. However, if you hear that Terri is also a man, then you may still be sad, but deep down you don't feel as sad and not as sad for the kids either. In fact you feel a sense of relief. This different reaction is why gay marriage and traditional marriage will never be the same.
Not surprisingly, I have to disagree with you, Sloanasaurus. However, I made the conscious decision to go at this issue a little more light-heartedly, rather than with the outrage that I really feel. There's no sense in me trotting out all the familiar arguments in support of gay marriage - I'm sure you've heard it all before. I am definitely one of those who sees this issue as akin to the civil rights movement. I see an amendment like this, which has the effect of denying people equal rights, as a giant step backwards for our country. But I know you don't. However, I have learned to separate the man from his beliefs. Thanks for your comments.
Maybe this arguement will force one of these straight laced, pole up the a** guys on the Supreme Court, and I am hoping it is our new chief justice, to say the word 'penis'. As for my very own marriage, I think of it not as a union bewteen a man and a woman but rather a car crash of love between a man, a lunatic and her son. So maybe I am not really married. But I still get health insurance so that's cool.
Let's just scrap the whole damn institution. Who needs it anyway?
Let's say that Terri is in fact a woman, an overweight redhead--Now, I don't like fat women, and I don't like redheads, so if my friend John were to divorce Terri, I really wouldn't feel as sad for her and her fat redheaded children as I would if she were an attractive, thin blonde with attractive thin blonde kids.
So therefore, it makes sense that our legislators should stand up for what's right and prohibit fat, redheaded women from getting married.
Eric, don't you know that marriage has become an anachronism, much like Homecoming?
Now go read your Bilsky.
I was trying to leave my Bilsky out of this, Eleanor. But good to hear from you. I thought you were dead.
Post a Comment
<< Home