One reason there's so much confusion over whether the language of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment would ban civil unions, too, is that its drafters wanted to obscure the full extent of their proposal. Thus, the odd wording that would make unenforceable "marital status or the legal incidents thereof" for same-sex couples. The Washington Post has some insights into this scheme in a Sunday op-ed titled The Amendment Speaks for Itself -- which makes clear that the language now before Congress "would render civil unions -- as well as domestic partnerships -- meaningless."
In fact, what may doom this whole dark business is the religious
right's insistence that any amendment either covertly or overtly
nix civil unions as well -- a position that even many Republicans
now find extreme.
More Recent Postings