About The Plaid Adder's Article This Week

Snip from article:

This amendment has one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex unions or bestowing legal rights upon them if they choose to do so.

Don't believe me? Here's the language of the proposed amendment:


Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this onstitution 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.
This isn't just about trademarking the word 'marriage.' The only reason this amendment needs a second sentence is to make damn sure that no state tries to sneak any of those civil rights or legal protections through the back door by attaching them to a 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' or some other kind of consolation prize that they could make available to same-sex couples. (snip)

What occurs to me is the wording "nor any state or federal law shall be construed to REQUIRE that matial status...."
It doesn't say that state's can't ALLOW it...just that they can't be REQUIRED to confer that status. doesn't say they aren't ALLOWED to.

There's our back door!

I'm so good at finding loopholes. Don't let the ReTHUGnicans see this!!

nor state or federal law ...

Implication: even if a state law SAYS that partner benefits are required, a court cannot CONSTRUE it as saying what it says -- and so cannot rule on the basis of such a law. That's stoo pud, but it does stop up your "loophole."

Right now, states are indeed required to recognize civil actions in other states. You get married on vacation in Las Vegas. The marriage is still valid and must be recognized by your home state when you return. The proposed law turns this requirement on its head, and means that while Nevada (for example) would recognize a couple as married, with all the rights and privileges that status grants, the couple's home state could refuse to recognize that status.

I'm not trying to be a pedant, but this is why the push for an amendment is so important:

The Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed a few years ago (under Clinton's watch, alas) is what prevents one state from recognizing a civil union recognized in another state. It's because of DOMA that a couple married in Vermont can't be reocgnized as a married couple in Texas.

DOMA is indeed in conflict with the "full faith and credit" clause, but so far a challenge has not made it to the Supreme Court, so DOMA is still in effect even though it's probably unconstitutional.

This NEW initiative is an attempt to <b>amend the Constitution</b> so that that will no longer be a problem. Amendments supersede everything that came before them, so this new amendment would trump the "full faith and credit" clause.

This is the important point. Right now, we can still make legal arguments for same-sex marriage based on the Constitution. If this amendment passes, we won't be able to.

Be very afraid,

The Plaid Adder

wasn't there a judge in Texas that granted a same-sex divorce? Wouldn't this therefore mean that Texas had to recongnize this marriage to be able to grant a divorce?