FMA: Andrew Sullivan replies to Ramesh Ponnuru
...If the FMA merely bars the name "marriage" from substantively identical cvil unions, why wouldn't the first simple sentence restricting the word 'marriage' to heterosexuals, be enough? The FMA, to recap, stipulates that courts may not construe either a state constitution or any state law to confer marital "incidents". Notice the state "law." So take California's civil unions -- passed as a law. As soon as this FMA is passed, say there's a fight somewhere over whether a spouse has a right to visit his husband in hospital. Anti-gay or simply hostile parents sue to bar access for the spouse. A court adjudicates. Under the FMA, the court is bound not to construe the civil union law as giving any "incidents of marriage" to the civil union spouse, as it would to a married spouse. Game over. Civil union gutted. Ramesh, who seems like a decent fellow, may simply be unable to credit the motives of his anti-gay allies. But they are very clear. They want to ban gay marriage and any civil recognition of gay couples under any name. These "Christian" activists are lying about their amendment. And the press, so far, is swallowing their lie.
more
posted by Eve at
4:14 AM | link
Post a Comment
<< Home