Opinion:   "Homosexual couples can still engage in private commitment ceremonies and engage in private adult consensual sexual conduct."


Fact   Again, the restrictions in this amendment don't affect only homosexual couples. Any heterosexual couple wishing for a civil union would be affected. The use of this kind of limited language (“homosexual couples”) implies that much of the intent of the amendment is discriminatory toward a specific group, rather than protective of the institution of marriage. The language of the proposed amendment clearly avoids naming homosexuals as targets, because of the obvious repercussions. But the creators and supporters of the amendment must take responsibility for the full, broad, and real impacts of the amendment as written. In other words, if the intent were to only deny gay couples marriage licenses, the proposed amendment should have been worded that way, as other states have done.

Permission to engage in private commitment ceremonies, just as children might be permitted to engage in mock-weddings, is not the concern of those advocating for these rights nationwide. The very real-world concern is recognition of these unions in the courts, tax system, health care system, etc. Bedroom conduct, same-sex or opposite-sex, is also not the concern, as has been clear since the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that laws governing private adult consensual sex were unconstitutional, and that straight people as well as gay people could continue to enjoy everything they already did, in private. That decision, of course, was a direct reversal of an opposite Court decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 17 years earlier. Unconstitutional decisions can be made when compelling government interest isn’t sufficiently considered.

The language expressed here is also inconsistent with the concern elsewhere in this document that laws not be made “based on sexual behavior” and that children might be taught that “same-sex relationships are normal”. If any sexual behaviors are a concern, and the relationships considered so abnormal that children must be protected from knowing about them, it’s contradictory to imply broad tolerance for these commitment ceremonies and private acts here.