The 13th Amendment made the end of slavery official, ending once and for all the “peculiar institution.”

The 18th Amendment took alcohol from the shelves (although the 21st put it back).

The 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments each changed the pool of U.S. citizens who were allowed to vote.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), if accepted, would essentially do nothing. 

And that’s why we need to pass it -- soon.

Making changes to the U.S. Constitution is no small matter -- but changing the definition of marriage is an even bigger deal, with implications reaching future generations.  To equate the traditional, divinely inspired concept of husband and wife with any other relationship is dangerous.  No new system could create the balance necessary for homes and families to thrive.

As currently proposed in House Joint Resolution 56, the would-be 28th Amendment reads 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, 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 simple, direct statement proffers no new rights or privileges -- real or imagined -- to any person or group of persons.  Nor does it take away a single freedom to which Americans are already entitled.  Rather, the FMA would reaffirm the definition of our nation’s single most basic and most important social institution.

On the face of it, this may seem like a war over mere semantics.  Such a drastic step just to save a word.  And indeed, leaving this matter to state legislatures -- most of which have already sided with traditional marriage -- would be preferable, in the name of keeping the federal government small.

Unfortunately, though, to fail to enact an amendment is to put the marriage question into the unsteady hands of the Supreme Court.  Talk about Russian roulette.  Already this summer, the high court has repeatedly shown its willingness to decide cases based on social predilections rather than law.

In his dissent of the June 26 Lawrence v. Texas decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.”

Since Lawrence, the U.S. Episcopal Church elected as bishop a man who left his wife and daughters to live with his homosexual partner.  Canada has taken the steps to make same-sex marriage legal, with many American homosexuals crossing the border to be married.  And a ruling by a Massachusetts court could bring homosexual marriage to the United States sooner than is comfortable.

“I believe in the sanctity of marriage,” President Bush recently stated.  “I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other.”

Without a permanent solution such as an addendum to the Constitution, traditional marriage will remain on the firing block.  The precise wording of such an amendment may still need some work, but action needs to be taken now, while the issue is fresh on the public’s mind.  There may not be another chance.  Once the door to same-sex marriage is open, good luck trying to close it again.

Will an amendment be the end-all to ensure forever the sacredness of marriage?  Hardly.  There are plenty of other factors chipping away at the fiber of holy matrimony: divorce, adultery, promiscuity and co-habitation, to name a few.  All of these trends serve to undermine solid marriages.

Ensuring its place as a one-man, one-woman institution won’t fix all of the threats facing marriage.  But it just might protect it from a federal government that doesn’t always know best.
 

This article originally appeared on OpinionEditorials.com.