Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Breaking News: Bush in favor of FMA


Hi Kari:

In the comments section to the previous post you said:
I also think the issue may become significant in the presidential election, and I'm curious to see whether any nuances are explored (because there are many). Given the emotional response on either side of the issue, somehow I doubt nuance will play much of a role at all.
There you have it, it is now definitely on the table.

I did a quick read of Ponnuru's article. He is having an ongoing debate with Volokh, Levy and Sullivan over whether a FMA can be drafted that still allows for some state latitude. Ponnuru seems to think it is possible while his debate partners doubt it.

It would appear from the President's statement that Bush believes it is possible.
Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
Kari, you once worked on the Hill. Is it possible to deliever language that Bush seeks?

Rene

P.S. As a general rule, I'm skeptical about amending the Constitution and I'm not sure this is a good idea. However, Bush's statement (marriage should be protected and states should have latitude) is in line with my thinking. I look forward to hearing lawyer and legislative types debate the issue.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home