Replies

"He said an amendment that "provides" for civil unions is a good amendment. "

This is the key. Some states like Mass and Vermont may be fine with this semantic game. Maybe their citizens only care about preserving the word 'marriage' not the institution and concept of marriage, thus their acceptance of gay marriages-w/o-the-word-marriages substitutes like civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Other states, most I would guess, would reject the legal recognition of both gay marriage and civil unions. Most people would see that its a difference without a distinction, and choose to be consistent and not recognize either. I can't see recognition of civil unions winning a popular or legislative battle in any Southern state, or Rocky Mtn West State, or non-Calif SW state, or most Mid Western states. I'd be surprised if more than 15 states chose to recognize civil unions.

So the question is whether or not Kerry and the Dems would force civil unions on all the unwilling states? If you notice they are always very obtuse when they speak of civil unions. The say they support them, but are never really clear about whether or not they think all states should have them, or more importantly if all states should be forced to recognize them.

That is why for any Amendment to be of value it must ban the judiciary from getting involved (otherwise Dem judges will do the dirty work for the left saving the Dems from any political fall out as they say 'the courts have spoken, its out of our hands now'), and make it clear that one state does not have to recognize the civil unions of other states.

I'm still waiting for someone ask Kerry about this. That the press hasn't does not surprise me, but that the GOP has not picked up this astonishes me.