Marriage amendment

[jnoble at dgsys.com]

At 7:05 AM -0800 2/12/04, Rick Duncan wrote:
>Constitutional attorney Mike Farris believes that the Musgrave 
>amendment would not stop courts or legislatures from creating civil 
>unions. Therefore, he proposes the following language:
>
>"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a 
>man and a woman. Neither the United States nor any State shall 
>recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or 
>status of a spouse."
>
>Although I could support the Musgrave amendment enthusiastically, I 
>like the Farris language better. I think it more clearly protects 
>the traditional institution of marriage, both from direct assaults 
>and from attempts to dilute its significance by legislating 
>quasi-marriages by another name.

The second sentence strikes me as tautalogical. How do you construe 
"the legal rights ... of a spouse" except by reference to a state law 
which confers those rights exclusively upon a spouse, e.g. a right to 
elect a statutory spousal share against a will, to inherit an estate 
tax-free, to file a joint state tax return, or hold property as 
tenants by the entirety. If a state law is changed --  for example, 
to allow any two natural persons to hold property as tenants by the 
entirety -- has the state violated the proposed amendment, or is the 
title option no longer a "legal right of a spouse".

John Noble