My apologies if this was talked about yesterday, but I read in the paper today that Bob Barr, author of DOMA, testified against the Hate Amendment yesterday. While this isn't news, as he came out against it publicly some time ago, he did mention one interesting tidbit: that he thought the amendment as currently worded (with "construed") would ban civil unions nationally. I had previously figured that the amendment only allowed legislatures to enact civil union laws, but Barr's statement made me look at it again. Frankly, I don't see it. It basically says that state constitutions cannot require gay marriage, it doesn't say that states aren't free to enact civil union laws. However, if Barr (and 2 out of 3 other conservatives testifying against) sees it another way, I have to think that there must be an interpretation in there somewhere that
could bar civil unions.
Barr, of course, is no friend of gay people. He is acting out of a higher principle (for him and others) that the amendment screws with the balance of power between the states and the fed. He is perfectly happy to fight gay marriage in Georgia (where he will win for the time being), and says that other states are free to allow gay marriage, if in fact they want to make "bad decisions."
It's been so long since I've heard a rabidly right politician (albeit one not in office currently) espouse the law over "religion" that I actually found his testimony refreshing...despicable as his personal beliefts are (i.e. I'm sure he believes in States' Rights to the point that he thinks that if Strom Thurmond had won in '48, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today). Speaking of which, doesn't Dr. Catkiller make you long for the good old days of Trent Lott?