Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Then what is the point of the second sentence? On your reading, it is entirely superfluous.
eta: Burger, I see your point, but read the first sentence to be referring to the states, too. Particularly because marriage is generally a function of a state law. If that is the reason for the second sentence, it's very poor draftspersonship indeed.
|
I think you still need it to prevent judicially mandated civil unions by renegade state courts. One could revise the first sentence to read: Marriage in the United States
and any of the several States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. But that still wouldn't prevent the Vt. or (first) Mass. decision (the one requiring gays to be allowed to something).
