Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If what you and Burger were saying was true, they would have stopped at "state constitutiton," wouldn't they?
|
alright, I'm seeing your point now. And for club's benefit, let me try to articulate it in a way I understand it.
Any civil union law, even one passed voluntarily by a legislature, would necessarily refer to incidents of marriage. Any judicial officer called to "construe" that statute at any point would be obligated to follow this constitional amendment and refuse to allow its enforcement.
Okay, I'll be charitable. I don't take the amendment to include that. State law is included because, I'm somewhat confident, not all states enact basic rights through constitutions, or may provide some rights through statute, and this is designed to cover it.
Even Robert Bork, no friend of legislative intent, explained that
"the text clearly restricted only courts, not legislatures. What is more, Mr. Bork said, the public debate over the amendment would determine how any court interpreted it. If voters approving the amendment believed it meant one thing, courts would be hard pressed to say it meant another."
(link)
So, no need for a "friendly" amendment; just clarification on the floor.
But this reading, and any reasonable reading, continues to amaze me at the degree to which this entirely alters the legal landscape. Even Bork would be blocking majoritarian decisionmaking. Egad!
