|
|
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
FMA BEING RETOOLED: From the Washington Post
Key backers of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage said yesterday that they are rewording the two-sentence text to clarify that it would allow states to establish civil unions or other partnership arrangements for same-sex couples. ... The amendment's congressional sponsors, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), unveiled the revised text at a news conference in the Capitol. They were accompanied by Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, an ecumenical group of religious leaders that is pushing for the amendment, and were surrounded by adults and children from local African American churches. Allard, Musgrave and Daniels described the changes as purely "technical" and said the amendment's intent remains what it has always been: to prohibit same-sex marriages and prevent "activist judges" from requiring states to create civil unions. Some legal scholars had argued that the original wording could tie the hands of legislatures as well as judges. The changes are designed to make clear that states "truly have the option of dealing with civil unions," as long as they are established legislatively and not by judicial fiat, Allard said. So far, Vermont is the only state to enact civil unions, which provide gay couples with all the state benefits of marriage but confer no federal benefits, such as Social Security payments, federal tax advantages and immigration rights for spouses. Several other states, including California and Oregon, have established same-sex partnership arrangements that are similar to civil unions. White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said Bush, who endorsed the amendment last month, "still supports the amendment because it meets his principles. The president has said he was open to revisions if necessary." The new text says: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." more |
|||||||||||
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
Post a Comment
<< Home