It could be interpreted that way. Or it could be interpreted by a bigotted, hatemonger judge – a Scalia, for instance – as meaning that any civil union which stems from a law the impetus behind which was a court case (say, all of them) is now invalid. And all those laws are now struck down.
But even with your rosey interpretation, it would flatly deny the right of any gay person to a government-protected lifetime union. It would forever render gays second class citizens, and it would create a situation where even civil unions have no teeth – a few switched legislature seats and BOOM! the civil unions law could be thrown out. Whereas straight marriages are reliably protected by the government, civil unions would have no such guaranteed political permanency, and no means of acquiring them. And no court would be able to redress this inequity.
And given the way that this putrid FMA is worded it would be IMPOSSIBLE for ANY STATE to constitutionally codify their civil unions system in order to shield it from the vagaries of electoral politics. Instead, civil unions would only exist at the pleasure of whichever party ruled that state, and could be taken away at a moment’s notice – that is not a solid foundation for a longterm relationship.
Which, of course, is exactly what the right wing wants: they want to lull people into thinking that this amendment will only protect the insipid little word “marriage,” and then they’ll work overtime to take over the legislatures of Vermont, and perhaps Massachusetts, depending on how things turn out, and rip away the civil unions laws that are there. The right wing won’t be happy until every gay person in America is thrown out of the town square, bloodied, spit upon and dead, metaphorically or otherwise. That’s what people are voting for when they vote Republican.
Also, Chuck Colson, a disreputable turd of a fanatic, has cajoled the Congress into adding this little gem to one version of the amendment:
“Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights, or immunities on the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct or relationships.”
Which could easily be used as language to strike down every gay rights law in the country. Any judge that decides that the determinative factor of homosexuality is sexual conduct would be Constitutionally required to strike down all municipal, state and federal support for the partners of gay Americans, all anti-discrimination laws, all gay-protecting hate crime laws. It could, in one fell swoop, undo 40 years of societal advancement. Which is, of course, exactly what it is designed to do.
The true scope of the evil of this proposed amendment and those who support it cannot be overstated. It is single most evil law proposed in this country since the Japanese Internment.
61% oppose it according to the only really reputable recent poll on the subject. That’s a disappointing statistic – its hard to believe that so many of my countrymen are backwards, evil, hateful idiots. But there it is, in black and white.
However, the recent polling data says nothing about civil unions. And support for the amendment is pathetically low – only 55%, and transient.
The Balanced Budget Amendment and the exrebale Flag Protection Amendment both had over 80% support, but not enough traction to get passed.
I’m pessimistic. The religious trash hate gay people with a passion not seen in this country since blacks were routinely lynched in the South. I may someday soon be fleeing permanently to Canada, where the weather is cold, but people are equal. I suppose I would be able to warm myself every Fourth of July by burning an American flag.
