At 02:47 PM 2/16/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
>The wording of the current FMA does seem ambiguous
>enough to negate potential state-sanctioned 'civil
>unions.'
Of course, any Court that interpreted such a FMA as prohibiting civil
unions enacted at the initiative of a State Legislature would have to issue
said interpretation in direct opposition to the stated intents of those who
are backing and voting for the Amendment.
I think that it is important to recognize that is difficult to write an
Amendment that achieves the desired results, which are:
1) Reserves the term "marriage" solely for heterosexual unions
2) Prohibits Courts within the United States from misinterpreting
constitutional equal protection clauses as *requiring* the institution of
homosexual marriages or civil unions
3) Allows legislatures to establish civil unions by their own initiative
>And frankly it smells to me like the
>Prohibition Amendment: if passed, it will be stupidly
>contentious, and eventually overturned.
That might take a while. As one of my (sadly) favorite political quotes
goes: "Modern computer technology has effectively allowed politicians to
gerrymander the House of Representatives, while the Senate and the
Electoral College were gerrymandered by the Founding Fathers."
It is hard to imagine any near-term solution in which 38 States vote to
amend the Constitution to *permit* homosexual marriages, while oddly right
now it is not even impossilbe to imagine *Massachusette* voting for a FMA.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
