Quote:
Originally posted by idle acts
they actually read the second sentence of the proposed amendment to mean that the amendment is "weak" and doesn't actually "require" any state to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
|
I can see how one could get that reading with "construe," "require" and "state or federal law." At first I thought they were just aiming at penumbra-type interpretations and trying to avoid Canada and Mass. situations. But with state laws included, it could mean that no state law (even one that explicitly provided for same sex marriage or marriage rights given to civil unions) can be construed as requiring same sex marriage/civil unions.
It's obviously crappy drafting; I just don't know whether it is crappy drafting that is supposed to override states' rights to allow it or not. In any case, Lester is right that this might turn a tide against Bush.
In other stupid legislation, some bozo congressman (Rep. Walter Jones) has introduced H.R. 235, “The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act,” to allow political speech at houses of worship. Bad bad idea. So bad a lot of major denominations are
against it.
