RAMESH PONNURU ON BUSH ON CIVIL UNIONS (OR SOMETHING)

...The second [comment] is that Bush's underlying position may not even be inconsistent with the Republican platform. Bush took Charles Gibson's word on what the platform is and therefore claimed that he disagreed with the platform. The platform says that "legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage." What Bush appears to be saying is that state legislatures should be able to pass laws that allow people to make certain kinds of contracts with each other. Can you allow such contracts without recognizing same-sex couples? I think so, if other people can enter the legal arrangement, too. So, for example, same-sex couples can go into business together; so can other configurations of people. Allowing such contracts doesn't amount to "legal recognition" of couples, I think, in the sense the platform has in mind. Otherwise the platform would have to be read to prevent all such contracts, which is implausible.

more

posted by Eve at 6:07 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home