Mr. Bush throws a bone to the social conservatives

I see that Mr. Bush has finally come out of the closet and supports the Marriage Amendment. Here is the poorly (or cleverly?) drafted text of the proposed amendment:

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.

At second glance, it appears that the amendment may ban all new marriages. Nothing in law, etc. "shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

This confused drafting is the product of a committee--a committee that was divided as to the real intent of the amendment. Read this article in the Washington Post for more information about the Amendment So Confused that Even the Authors Do Not Agree on What it Means. (registration required) On the one hand:

Musgrave, Daniels and White House officials all say the intent is to prevent judges from ordering states to grant marriage licenses or civil unions to same-sex couples, as courts in Vermont and Massachusetts have done.

But they say the proposal is not meant to stop state legislatures from creating civil unions that give gay couples some of the tax benefits, inheritance rights and other privileges of marriage.

On the other hand:

Two of the amendment's principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions.

They argue that future courts would have to interpret the amendment to protect not just the word "marriage," but also its essential meaning -- in the same way that, if the Constitution forbade states from creating "navies," they clearly could not establish "flotillas" or "armadas," either.

I am not surprised to find Robert Bork involved; a good thing he was kept of the Supreme Court.

Whenever I think about this issue, I wonder--what is the compelling state interest in forbidding gay marriage? Denying gays all the benefits that flow to married heterosexual couples? As Atrios says,

Obviously, if gay people had these rights civilization would end.

Atrios' posting has a link to the General Accounting Office's report (in PDF format) listing all of the rights and benefits of civil marriage (all 1049 of them.)