PONNURU GIVETH

And Ponnuru taketh away. Ramesh Ponnuru, whose task it is to explain the religious right amendment to the constitution, suggests that the wording of the amendment should excise two words – “state or” – from the current wording. He wants to rebut the notion that the amendment would forbid state courts from enforcing state laws that provide for civil unions. But at the same time, he confirms that two critical authors of the amendment, Robbie George and Gerald Bradley, believe that the first sentence of the amendment bans civil unions that are the equivalent of marriage as well. They’re not interested in merely retaining the word “marriage” for heterosexuals. They want to retain the legal incidents of marriage for heterosexuals only as well. That in itself is evidence that the intent of some authors of this amendment is to strip gay couples everywhere of any protections of the kind that marriage now provides straights. And anti-gay state courts could easily use this confusing and ambiguous amendment, if it passes, to keep gay couples from any civil protections at all. But maybe I’m confused. So here’s a simple question for Ramesh. As he understands it, would the amendment as currently written, void Vermont’s civil unions? The unions were passed by the legislature, but only because the court insisted. Ditto in Massachusetts, if civil unions are enacted there. Would they be abolished under the FMA? Perhaps if we get specific, we’ll find out what this amendment would really mean. For further comment on Ponnuru’s apologetics, check out Eugene Volokh and Jacob Levy.