It’s another display of ignorance on the part of the New York Times, when it comes to marriage equality. They’ve swallowed the religious right lie about their constitutional amendment completely. David Kirkpatrick, the new reporter for “conservatives,” is the latest offender. Here’s the error: Kirkpatrick describes the Musgrave Amendment (which will be the actual text that’s introduced) as one that “would allow state legislatures to recognize gay civil unions, a provision that had alienated many conservatives.” But that simply isn’t true. There were three possible amendments: one that stated in one sentence that civil marriage was between a man and a woman and by its silence let states do what they want on civil unions; the Musgrave one that restricts marriage to heterosexuals but also says that none of the benefits or legal incidents of marriage may be applied to “unmarried,” i.e. gay couples, thereby making civil unions void (all they are is a collection of incidents available to married couples); and a third one that would have barred marriage for gays, but allowed civil unions – if they were extended to all couples, regardless of any implied sexual conduct. The Musgrave Amendment is by far the most extreme. And it is the one that has been selected. Kirkpatrick makes it out to be the moderate compromise. What was he thinking?
THE TEXT: The critical evidence is the actual text of the Alliance For Marriage/Musgrave amendment, which Kirkpatrick omits. That in itself is a bizarre lacuna. Here it is:
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.
My italics. All the legal incidents thereof. That language doesn’t need to be in there if you’re just banning marriage for gays. If you merely wanted to keep the word marriage from gays, you would simply withhold “marital status.” But by barring “all the legal incidents” of marriage – in state or federal law – the amendment would render all civil unions and domestic partnerships legally and constitutionally void everywhere in America. The religious right know what they’re doing. And they use the word “construe” – not “judicially construe” – but simpy “construe” to make this amendment as devastating to gay couples’ rights as they possibly can. This isn’t just about restraining courts from protecting gay couples. It isn’t about protecting the word marriage. It’s about removing every single civil and legal protection gay couples have. That’s why the religious right has signed on. On this critical matter – which has already been threshed out in many places – Kirkpatrick gets it wrong. Echoing the far right’s lie will reverberate and make it harder for the truth to get out there. After the last marriage article debacle, you’d think the NYT would have put this kind of piece through a very careful fact-check. But on the most important aspect of this amendment, they got it wrong. Again.
The Dish 