Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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
|
I've already agreed that the drafting is technically deficient - what more do you want me to say. I am in favor of gay marriage (yes, not just civil unions), opposed to the amendment on principal, and equally opposed to court mandated extensions of marriage rights. But from what I've read, the intent is not to prohibit civil unions with express consent of the legislature or amendment to state constitution.
Threaded Mode