Here’s the original piece. In it, Connor and the FRC oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment for the same reasons the Concerned Women for America do: they believe it’s not restrictive enough. They want an amendment that would more explicitly rob gay couples of any protection whatever under the law – preventing them from hospital visitation, property rights, shared healthcare, and on and on. I think, as I’ve argued elsewhere, that the current FMA would do all of these things – and many legal scholars agree. Others argue that this wouldn’t be the case – but if the language of the amendment can provoke genuine and deep disagreement by serious parties, wouldn’t it be similarly open to a radical spectrum of intrepretation by courts and legislatures? And isn’t such a vague and sweeping amendment precisely what shouldn’t be written into the federal Constitution? You can be sure, for example, that if FMA passed, the far right would work very, very hard to have it interpreted in as broad and restriuctive a way as possible. The FRC is clear in their intent to attack gay couples and gay citizens:
We will oppose the granting of “domestic partner benefits” by both private and public organizations. We will speak out against the creation of “civil unions” in whatever state they are proposed (as we did vigorously in California, helping to kill AB 1338).- And we will struggle with all that we have against civil marriage for same-sex couples anywhere in the United States.
Give them points for honesty. But please don’t call me paranoid. These people would rob gay citizens of very basic rights – for no other reason than they’re gay.
The Dish 