Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not my understanding of the bill re civil unions - quite the opposite, but I haven't actually read it.
|
"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."
I assume Atticus's point is that any court decision by a state requiring civil unions in lieu of marriage (e.g., Vermont) would be barred by this amendment, as it would be a decision construing a state constition or law to require the "legal incidents" of marriage to be conferred on gays (who can't, through its definition, be married).
I have to say its a stunning encroachment, regardless of subject matter, into the methods by which states may self-govern.
