"The Gary Bauers and Robert Knights of the world see even the status quo as a threat to heterosexual marriage, and, of course, they're just being hysterical." The Gary Bauers of the world understand that you can't deal with the devil and give him half of what he wants - for two reasons. (1). Even half of what he wants is bad for society, (2). Evil will never be satisfied with any half measure, it will continue to push and drive for its dark agenda.
And what "status quo" are you referring to? State recognition of homosexual pervert "unions" is a new-age innovation, never before seen in any society except, perhaps, for the chimpanzee culture in the mountains of Zimbabwe.
Allowing same-sex "unions" accomplishes the exact same thing as a fully acknowleged marriage, for all intents and purposes. It puts the American seal of approval on blatant, overt sodomy, opens the doors ever wider to allow these scumbags to adopt and corrupt little children, and it forces American taxpayers to support these twisted pigs with health plans and other benefits.
The status quo you refer to is the one being overthrown by these deviants and their ignorant supporters.
The Gary Bauers of the world understand that you can't deal with the devil and give him half of what he wants - for two reasons. (1). Even half of what he wants is bad for society, (2). Evil will never be satisfied with any half measure, it will continue to push and drive for its dark agenda. They already have half of what they want. They've had it for 30 years. It's called no-fault divorce and they have been using it to get us where we are today. I refuse to take anyone seriously who wants to "defend marriage" and not propose as their first goal the elimination of the no-fault divorce laws. Get rid of those and the institution of marriage will be bi enough to take care of itself again.
According to the Alliance for Marriage, which is the primary promoter of the proposed amendment, the amendment would not affect legislatively created civil unions or domestic partnerships, such as those in California.
Following is their chart explaining the amendment:
Some people, however, believe the phrase "legal incidents" includes civil unions. One of the legal incidents of marriage is the ability to leave property through inheritance to a person who is not a blood relative. If registered domestic partners are allowed to inherit from each other without a will, would that violate the proposed Constitutional amendment?
The wording of the amendment is confusing. Nobody, not even the President, seems able or willing to articulate a clear position on this issue.
California has a law forbidding same sex marriage, but it does not forbid the "legal incidents" of marriage to same sex couples. The California legislature recently created same sex domestic partnerships, which provide many of the benefits that would normally come with marriage. In California, there is a lawsuit about whether the domestic partnerships violate the California law against same sex marriage.
So would the phrase "legal incidents" affect civil unions?