Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
STP, SAM, STP.
But I wouldn't call it a rush. The amendment's text has been kicking around for a while.
Rather than debate the semantics, let me pose this challenge:
Redraft the amendment so that it accomplishes what it purportedly intended to do (by public statements). To wit: 1) Ban marriage other than between a man and a woman; 2) prohibit any state or federal court from requiring a state to offer a marriage equivalent to gay couples; 3) allow state legislatures to enact civil union laws providing the same (or similar) "incidents" of marriage to gay couples, so long as their doing so is not under compulsion of a court ruling.
|
To avoid conflict between 2) and 3), you need to have 2) include "absent state law specifically addressing the incidents of marriage being conferred on unmarried persons." That can be phrased way better. I need a snack.
I wonder what the hardcore social conservatives would say if Bush said, "I support the rights of any state to pass laws allowing same-sex unions"? The ambiguous language lets them think "never, nowhere" and lets you and club think "maybe in CA or someplace, if legislation passes."
Edited to add, what SAM said about incidents, unless the VT courts said that because of language in the VT constitution, same-sex couples got all the incidents of marriage but couldn't actually be joined in a marriage.
Also edited to ask what's STP? Motor oil? Stone Temple Pilots?
