I think I was wrong; I think it's worse than I thought.

[solarbird]

Hm. I'm reading this again:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Let's take out the constitutional and federal parts, and leave in the part that applies specifically to the possible actions of states:

[No]... state... law... shall be shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

I think I'm wrong. I think it'll be used to ban civil unions, too, because any state law that conferred legal incidents of marriage could fall under this clause. So only a state civil unions law that provided none of the benefits of marriage would be allowable under this reading.

That message will be difficult to communicate.

Comments

Re:

[banner.livejournal.com]

Good point.

Okay, how about this as an attack to use publically:

The purpose of the constitution has always been to limit the rights of the state, not those of the people. In the amendments we have seen normally that rights for the people which were in question were clarified, and granted. Using the constitution and amendments to it to limit the rights of the people not only sets a bad precedent, but always backfires in ways unseen or thought of at the time of the passage. Prohibition gave us organizied crime, and nearly destroyed the judicial system thru the concept of jury nullification which refused to prosecute any related crimes. Lets not pass an amendment that takes away rights from people because we disagree with them today, for tomorrow who knows what it will be used to take away from the rest of us? Who know what greater problems it will cause?

Anyway, just the way I feel about it.