Tuesday, February 24, 2004

A Note to the Media

No matter what its supporters claim, to any English speakers with a reading comprehension above about the 2nd grade level, it's obvious that the amendment proposed by Musgrave would indeed prevent states from establishing same-sex civil unions of any kind. The sweeping language could also potentially overturn anti-discrimination statutes with respect to housing and other things, allowing landlords to refuse to rent to same-sex couples, or government provided partner health benefits. Don't believe me? Call up some smart lawyers and ask them.

From the AP/NYT:

Bush's comment that the states should be left free to "define other arrangements" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.

The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.

It is in no way consistent with that. Yale Law professor Jack Balkin explains it to you very slowly.

This is really just ridiculous. Most news stories have at least acknowledged that some people disagree with this assessment, but the AP is telling us that this is a truly moderate position.


...the bastards at the NYT have aparently removed the offending line.