aliali

It is my understanding that Bush believes that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, but that the states should be free to allow civil unions. http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102604bushMarr.htm

I think the constitutional amendment doesn't either approve of or outlaw civil unions. Is this it?:
Article --
`SECTION 1. 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 group.

I think this means that a state can still give the benefits of marriage as long as it doesn't call it marriage. A civil union should still be allowed and the legal benefits of marriage can be conferred. The laws conferring the benefits, if they can be considered such, may need to be changed to say: married or civil unionized people. . .

I guess it is better to say that Bush believes any state should have the option to approve of civil unions and he does not oppose means other than marriage that confers the legal benefits of marriage on same sex couples. Better?

Kerry does not support the constitutional amendment, but does support a state by state banning of gay marriage, but does support civil unions. Sound about right?

I don't know about the separate ballot initiatives in the several states. However, a ban on gay marriage by itself does not ban civil unions. The language in each state will obviously answer the question.