The good news is civil unions do NOT apply to any federal benefits or entitlements AND civil unions do NOT cross state lines. If a civil union couple adopts a child, do they have to give up the child when they move to a non-civil-union state?
We still need the FMA to stop unions at the borders and keep them out of federal court and legislature.
I'm not against a FMA, I just don't believe it fixes any of the problems. See my other comments for the social ramifications of normalizing homosexual families, regardless of whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union." Also, judges have ways to circumvent what at a glance appears to be clear constitutional language. No sweat keeping the mitts of the word "marriage," we'll just decree that all couples, homosexual included, are entitled to the same benefits as "married" mixed-sex couples.
actually I see a expand the states that allow homosexual adoptions.
As it stands now, a homosexual adopts a child and the sex partner is then granted rights derivative from the first homosexual. They get a guardianship right.
Homosexuals adopt same as single parents. It is part of the move by the ABA to separate children from marriage. This way they can socialist engineer the family unit.
The language of the FMA is pretty clear:
For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.