Or alternatively, a second clause that confirms that states can create legal relationships that are not marriages, such as Vermont’s civil union statute.
I’m afraid that the ambiguity on such a crucial point leaves me very sceptical of the bona fides of the persons proposing it, if they say it only applies to marriage and leaves it up each state to decide about civil unions. If that’s the goal, say so.
What about the quote above from Lawrence, which relies on the Due Process clause, not Equal Protection clause, of the Constitution?
Be honest — you didn’t expect the current Supreme Court to rule as it did in Lawrence, did you?
I think the difference between Lawrence and the gay marriage issue is that Lawrence was about the criminalization of consentual conduct between adults. There is a fundamental difference between failing to give legal significance, but otherwise ignoring, gay relationships, and making such relationships a crime. I think O’Connor’s swing vote will swing the other way on the gay marriage issue, and possibly even one or two more on the left. You don’t see due process invoked that often for noncriminal matters.
And I don’t expect Bush’s replacements for any of the likely-to-retire-soon Justices to be any friendlier. If it weren’t already precedent, Lawrence wouldn’t have a prayer in the Court as Bush intend to constitute it.
No, I didn’t expect O’Connor to swing to the left on that one. She’s the most unpredictable Justice on the bench, however.
Bush and Cheney spoke in FAVOR of civil unions for gays. I might have voted against them, but that is a ballsy position for a conservative to take.
And DOMA was signed by our beloved Clinton.
And evangelicals who might have been swayed to the other side, voted firmly against gay marriage because they hear and read about insults heaped upon them.