quasi in rem

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Quasi Mention in the New York Times!

But With These Words, Can I Thee Quasi-Wed?

The New York Times article on the Bush proposal seems more balanced, shockingly, than most of the stories in the past few days. The article notes:

"In calling on Congress to pass an amendment for approval by the states, President Bush made it clear that he wanted an amendment that would block recognition of same-sex marriages but allow individual state legislatures to recognize quasi-marital same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships."

"Matt Daniels, a lawyer who founded the Alliance for Marriage and who is another drafter of the amendment, said the semantic debate was beside the point. "We, the group that drafted the text and introduced it into the House and Senate," Mr. Daniels said, "are fully open to minor changes to the wording to make it clear, explicit and unambiguous."

Which is interesting. I wonder if an amendment which fully recognizes civil unions will pass?
I do not think the current Musgrave amendment does that, even if Judge Bork does.

And this statement, not quoted but attributed to Judge Bork, has to be a joke right?

"If voters approving the amendment believed it meant one thing, courts would be hard pressed to say it meant another."

Excuse me? Is it possible that Bork was saying that with his tongue firmly implanted in his cheeck?


Post a Comment

<< Home