ANDREW SULLIVAN ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From AndrewSullivan.com

[I don't know how to create a permanent link to a post on Sullivan's blog, so you'll have to go here and scroll down to "More Thoughts on the FMA."]

"To re-cap: The new amendment would therefore allow any kind of non-sexual relationship in the same household to be a civil union or domestic partnership. Two brothers; aunt and niece; co-workers; law partners; college room-mates; etc etc. The privileges of marriage would thereby be extended to almost anyone in French-style fashion. (This model, by the way, was considered and soundly rejected in Vermont and California and seems far more fitting as a piece of elaborate, social-engineering legislation than as an amendment to the Constitution.) The only exception to this would be any gay couples who presented themselves as gay couples, i.e. loving, intimate and occasionally sexual partners, like straight married couples. And the rationale for this is to "protect" the institution of marriage. But the more you think about it, the clearer it is that it does the opposite. It wrecks the special status of marriage in ways only the far left alone would support--by extending its benefits to almost anyone in even the most formal or casual relationship. Straight couples would be able to shack up easily and get benefits without any of the full responsibilities of marriage--exactly what the social right purports to oppose."
posted by Eve at 10:57 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home