| The Defense of Divorce Act? |
[Mar. 23rd, 2004|04:34 am] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  nerdy | ] |
"If you say 'one man and one woman,' that creates issues about divorces and remarrying, so we didn't want to go into that. So that's why we have 'a man and a woman.' " http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03232004/utah/150370.asp
— Senator Wayne Allard, Republican from Colorado, discussing revised language for his Constitutional Amendment to restrict gay marriage
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Yeah, I knew if I fell asleep at 9:00 pm I'd wake up at 4:00 am. After I munch I'll rest my eyelids some more. |
|
|
| Comments: |
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/44086565/790336) | From: ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) krimon
2004-03-23 02:28 pm (UTC)
A more perfect union | (Link)
|
I wonder if there might be some semantics issues if this thing does get slapped into the Constitution.
In six parts of the Constution, we refer to the USA as a whole as a 'Union'. By adding the marriage clause and defining marriage as a union as well, could that imply that married couples are federations? Would that make marriage sovreign, similar to Native American reservations?
Sure, we all know what we mean by "Union" and "union", but fuzzy language like this could cause judicial headaches as John and Jane and their separationist lawyer seek to exploit or create a semantic loophole in a living document. | |
