Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
"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).
|
It's not just court decisions. The bill doesn't say "judicially construed." The inclusion of state law can only possibly mean that no state law can be enacted that confers the legal incidents of marriage on same-sex couples --- i.e., states are powerless to create civil unions that confer legal incidents of marriage. Anyone who calls this "ambiguous" is being charitable toward the GOP's intentions.
