WHAT SHOULD A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT SAY? National Review editorial

...We have defended an amendment that would accomplish three things. First, it would reserve the word "marriage" for the union of one man and one woman: No court or legislature would be able to create "gay marriage."

Second, it would ban the federal or state governments--again, whether directed by a court or a legislature--from granting benefits that are conditioned on non-marital sexual relationships. ...

Third, the amendment would block the courts, at both the federal and state levels, from second-guessing a legislature's decision to reserve a benefit for married couples. If the legislature has said that only married couples have joint adoption rights, for example, no court may grant that benefit to unmarried couples.

Some supporters of an amendment have wanted it to do more, and others less. The maximalists have wanted to ban all civil unions and other forms of marriage lite, and to deny certain benefits to homosexual couples. To accomplish these goals, however, would require the amendment to list in detail what benefits must be reserved to marriage. That would be unwise. The precise set of benefits that should attend marriage is not something that can be deduced from first principles. ...

Most of the maximalists have now come around. The greater danger now comes from the minimalists. They want the amendment only to reserve the word "marriage" for the union of a man and a woman. ...

...As important as it is to prevent gay marriage, it is not the most important goal that an amendment should have. That goal is the end of judicial meddling with the institution.

more
posted by Eve at 5:35 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home