FIFTY-ONE WORDS

“The Federal Marriage Amendment wouldn’t simply ban equality in civil marriage, a right that is now guaranteed to murderers, child abusers, dead-beat dads, multiple divorcees and foreigners – but not to gay citizens. It would also make it unconstitutional for a state or federal law to give any benefits whatsoever to gay couples. Where do I glean that? From the words “or the legal incidents thereof.” Even the weakest forms of domestic partnerships contain benefits, i.e. “legal incidents,” that are also part of marriage, like hospital visitation, shared wills, etc. This amendment would make every such benefit subject to abolition through the courts. Some say that because the amendment says that no law should be “construed” to grant the “legal incidents” of marriage, it’s directed only at courts, not legislatures – so a legislature could enact equal marriage rights and pass the Constitutional test. But anything called marriage or equivalent to marriage would be banned under the first part of the amendment. And any benefits in a lesser version could be challenged by the far right in the courts under the second part – and no court could constitutionally uphold them.” My call to arms to the gay community to come together to fight the direst threat to gay civil rights in history can be found opposite.