Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the first sentence just defines "marriage." The second sentence (1) opens the door for the states to pass civil union type legislation or constitutional amendments, so long as they are not called "marriage" and (2) says (or is intended to say) that unless their is specific legislation or amendment, a court cannot be required to say that general marriage statutes apply to couples that are not comprised of 1 man/1 woman.
|
Club, You continue to ignore the plain meaning of the legal term of art "incidents" in the phrase "incidents of marriage". Look it up.
You also seem to ignore that the Amendment would apply prospectively as well as retrospectively -- and thus render "unconstitutional" any future federal or state laws permitting civil unions, much less gay marriages.
"Acourt cannot be required to say that . . "" WTF?? Who _requires_ a court to say anything.
You are also engaged in monumental wishful thinking about the intentions of the hard-core social conservatives among the House Republicans who rushed to introduce this bill.
S_A_M
