Marriage amendment

[David Cruz]

I think Andy's interpretation of the pending Federal Marriage Amendment
("FMA") is one plausible interpretation, but probably not the only
non-frivolous reading.  (Then again, I was one who thought that the
original Goodridge opinion was ambiguous, even though ultimately best
understood to require access to marriage per se for same-sex couples.)  I
have been working on an article about the FMA since before Lawrence, so
this is an issue to which I've given a fair amount of thought.  I think
Andy rightly focuses upon the "construal" clause, though the argument may
need to grapple more with the "require" limitation and the "incidents"
restriction.  Bottom line, though, is that I agree that the FMA is a
potentially devastatingly broad measure and should be opposed for that
reason (as well as others that would also apply to a narrowly drawn
constitutional amendment, which this is not).

David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Law School
Los Angeles, CA 90089
U.S.A.