More on the anti-gay amendment
Feb. 16th, 2004 12:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdThe authors of the amendment that Dubya is supporting - the one I relayed earlier - specifically intend it to ban civil unions as well. From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
THE FMA EXPOSED: It was bound to happen. Finally, a Washington Post reporter did the work that the New York Times' David Kirkpatrick didn't. In an important piece on Saturday, the Post revealed that critical authors of the current federal marriage amendment do indeed intend it to bar civil unions for gay citizens in every state. Money quote:
THE REAL AGENDA: You can see how this might play out. If the FMA were to pass, civil marriage rights would be denied gay couples. But if states then passed civil union laws instead, the religious right would spring into action and sue to gut them of any force. Why do I think that's a plausible scenario? Because they're already doing it on a state level. In California, an anti-marriage initiative was passed keeping gays out of marriage; but a comprehensive civil unions bill was then enacted. What did the far right do? They sued. The judge, mercifully, didn't grant a preliminary injunction against the law. But imagine that such a suit occurs after the FMA. Such a federal amendment would be an extremely powerful tool to use in state courts to shred civil unions of their protections for gay couples. It could also be used by, say, parents of a gay man to deny his spouse inheritance or access to a hospital room. So the authors of the FMA can plausibly say that a state can have civil unions, as they have. But it's meaningless. In practice, those civil unions could contain nothing that marriage contains, because none of these "incidents" could be upheld or enforced by the courts. Yes, we'll allow you to have a car, but you have to remove the engine and the wheels. That appears to be the real agenda. The FMA is one of the most radical attempts to disenfranchise a group of citizens in history. No air-brushing or spin or sloppy journalism should be allowed to disguise that naked and alarming fact.
- 12:20:12 AM
THE FMA EXPOSED: It was bound to happen. Finally, a Washington Post reporter did the work that the New York Times' David Kirkpatrick didn't. In an important piece on Saturday, the Post revealed that critical authors of the current federal marriage amendment do indeed intend it to bar civil unions for gay citizens in every state. Money quote:
Two of the amendment's principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions.
They argue that future courts would have to interpret the amendment to protect not just the word "marriage," but also its essential meaning -- in the same way that, if the Constitution forbade states from creating "navies," they clearly could not establish "flotillas" or "armadas," either.The possibility of civil unions - as the equivalent or simulacrum of civil marriage for gay couples - would be removed everywhere by this amendment. Amendment sponsor Representative Musgrave, who emerged in Colorado in part because of her hostility to gays, is also opposed to civil unions. What's fascinating is that Bradley and George believe that the first sentence alone would do this. The second sentence - barring any courts from enforcing any of the "legal incidents" of marriage to gay couples as such - is therefore perhaps best read as an attempt to ensure that this interpretation is the prevailing one.
THE REAL AGENDA: You can see how this might play out. If the FMA were to pass, civil marriage rights would be denied gay couples. But if states then passed civil union laws instead, the religious right would spring into action and sue to gut them of any force. Why do I think that's a plausible scenario? Because they're already doing it on a state level. In California, an anti-marriage initiative was passed keeping gays out of marriage; but a comprehensive civil unions bill was then enacted. What did the far right do? They sued. The judge, mercifully, didn't grant a preliminary injunction against the law. But imagine that such a suit occurs after the FMA. Such a federal amendment would be an extremely powerful tool to use in state courts to shred civil unions of their protections for gay couples. It could also be used by, say, parents of a gay man to deny his spouse inheritance or access to a hospital room. So the authors of the FMA can plausibly say that a state can have civil unions, as they have. But it's meaningless. In practice, those civil unions could contain nothing that marriage contains, because none of these "incidents" could be upheld or enforced by the courts. Yes, we'll allow you to have a car, but you have to remove the engine and the wheels. That appears to be the real agenda. The FMA is one of the most radical attempts to disenfranchise a group of citizens in history. No air-brushing or spin or sloppy journalism should be allowed to disguise that naked and alarming fact.
- 12:20:12 AM
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 12:28 am (UTC)John Kerry was a mess talking about this in the latest presidential debate earlier on Sunday. He said he favored equal rights, then said he was against same-sex marriages, then said he would support an amendment to ban same-sex marriages if it included civil unions and then said he only meant that at the state level, even though the earlier question was about a federal amendment.
Would it really hurt him politically to just clearly say "I'm against amending the Constitution?" Jeez.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 12:37 am (UTC)Oh wait, you mean if it included support for civil unions or something? Explicitly?
What the fuck does that fucking fucktard mean to do?
Transcript of Kerry's comments
Date: 2004-02-16 09:03 am (UTC)Search for "gay marriage" to get the question to Kerry and his response.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 05:11 am (UTC)I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term 'marriage' as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously, under the Constitution of the United States, you need equal protection under the law, and I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word 'marriage' kind of gets in the way of the whole debate, to be honest with you, because marriage, to many people, is obviously what is sanctified by a church. It's sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. And clearly, there's a separation of church and state here.
BLOCK: And why would you support, say, civil unions or what you call partnership rights and not gay marriage then?
Sen. KERRY: Because I think marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it. That's why.
BLOCK: Even for marriages that aren't conducted in a house of worship?
Sen. KERRY: Correct, even for those that aren't. There's still two meanings. I mean, the state picked up the concept afterwards. It's a latecomer to the state. You know, for those who have separate beliefs, there ought to be a way here to be able to deal with it. But what you call something is not that critical.
BLOCK: You were one of 14 senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996 that was signed by President Clinton.
Sen. KERRY: Correct.
BLOCK: Why did you oppose that bill?
Sen. KERRY: I opposed it 'cause I thought it was gay bashing on the floor of the United States Senate. It was one of those examples of ideological Republicans trying to drive wedges into the electorate of America. And I objected to the Senate being used for that, even as I still said at the time, I don't personally support marriage as we understand it within the context of religion.
******
Sounds to me like he's supporting equal rights while trying not to piss off the religious. (Probably anyone who could actually get elected in this country is gonna have to do that. Despite how annoying I find it.) But he would not support the amendment as stated, based on what he said, because it doesn't allow equal rights.
Cathy
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 12:07 pm (UTC)Love and happiness are what is important here, and I think it's going to take a few shake-up events for this to happen. Like a child of one of these people denied access to a "civil spouse" while they are dying, or the grandparents to not be able to see the kids because they have no rights since the "union" isn't legal and binding and whatnot.
And unfortunately, we have to rely on the fates for that, it's not something we can create.
I sign every petition that comes my way, and speak out to my reps whenever given the opportunity. This is just so much BULLSHIT.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 07:02 pm (UTC)Oh, and three adults to one child is perfect. ;)
Cathy