WHAT SHOULD A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT SAY?
National Review editorial …We have defended an amendment that would accomplish three things. First, it would reserve the word “marriage” for the union of one man and one woman: No court or legislature would be able to create “gay marriage.” Second, it would ban the federal or state governments–again, whether directed by a court or a legislature–from granting benefits that are conditioned on non-marital sexual relationships. … Third, the amendment would block the courts, at both the federal and state levels, from second-guessing a legislature’s decision to reserve a benefit for married couples. If the legislature has said that only married couples have joint adoption rights, for example, no court may grant that benefit to unmarried couples. Some supporters of an amendment have wanted it to do more, and others less. The maximalists have wanted to ban all civil unions and other forms of marriage lite, and to deny certain benefits to homosexual couples. To accomplish these goals, how
