Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
From the lips (okay, the pen) of one of the authors, if this helps:
==================
"Five of my Senate colleagues and I have introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution. Our amendment would define the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This topic that has generated an enormous amount of information, some credible and some not. I want to set the record straight here on my website so citizens know exactly what my amendment will do, and what it will not do.
The language I introduced is simple and direct: the institution of marriage “shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman.” This definition is neither new nor radical. It is a concept embraced by a majority of Americans of all religions, races and political affiliations. A recent national Wirthlin poll revealed that 62 percent of Americans agree with this definition and that 57 percent support an amendment to the Constitution protecting marriage. The Amendment further reads that no law, at any level, “be construed to require that marital status or legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.” Simply put, this means that only a marriage between a man and a woman will be legally recognized as a marriage. This does not prohibit state legislatures from creating other types of legal unions.
Opponents of this amendment argue that it is not that simple. I submit that it is. Opponents argue that a Constitutional definition of marriage threatens to undo existing state authority to allow for the creation of civil unions. This claim is absolutely false.
My Amendment is specific to the traditional union of marriage. Regardless of alarmist interpretations by those with broader political agendas, that definition does not seek to define or negate any power held by state legislatures to create civil union statutes and any benefits that may apply to that status. With a Constitutional definition of marriage, democratically elected state legislators would remain free to define civil unions without having the courts thrust those definitions upon them. Further, the institution of marriage remains sacred and protected from activist courts as well. While I have long advocated keeping the federal government out of the homes of citizens, I prefer the courts stay out of their homes as well.
There are no hidden intentions behind my proposal. The Amendment is a scant 52 words dedicated solely to defining the union of marriage in the way all 50 states already agree upon.
The Amendment reads as follows: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Niether this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
By defining marriage, but going no further, the Amendment does not impose on the authority of the states. A series of courts - not state legislatures, but courts - have sought to redefine the institution of marriage in recent years. This in a country where not one state legislature has sought to change the definition of marriage. "
Wayne Allard
http://allard.senate.gov/features/Marriage/
|
While I of course believe that the words of politicians who say "there are no hidden intentions behind my proposal" should in all situations be accepted at face value, I have a question -- why is the "legal incidents [of marriage]" language included? WhatEVER. Totally.
