diet coke for breakfast
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Posted by Tanstaafl
Bush and Civil Unions:
So if the FMA is enacted (and note that, as I've blogged before, I do not support its enactment), the result will be almost exactly what Bush suggests: A state could still 'choose to' recognize 'a civil union' as 'a legal arrangement.' It would have to do so via a statute -- just as most family law is defined by statute -- not via a court decision or (probably) a constitutional amendment. But it would indeed be free to make such a choice.
Apparently Bush said today (and back in February) that he supports state enactment of Civil Unions. According to Eugene Volokh, who's FAR more knowledgable about the Constitution than I, this could be consistent with the FMA.
This issue has been one on which I disagree with the Administration. I do not support the FMA. I think putting social policy in the Constitution will only reduce it's shelf life.
However, I've never really believed that the Bush administration was fully committed to the idea. They know that they don't have the votes in the Senate, and so this was a way to cop to the religious right, without really impacting anyone.
This position is at least a bit more palatable.
That may be confusing, so I'll try to lay it out more clearly: I don't have any serious qualms with gay marriage, and am glad that the Bush administration has at least found it in themselves to support marrital benefits in fact if not in name.