Via CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment …”

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman…Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman…”

What does this even mean? It appears supefluous – no state shall be required to grant such priveleges to non-traditional “marriages.” If my understanding of federalism is correct – that’s pretty much how we already have it, without the superfluous proposal. Nothing apparent in the proposed amendment (as reported) would place an outright “ban” on non-traditional marriages, you say? This is just political grand-standing by the right-wing in an election year?

Ahhh, but I beg to differ. The narrow legal reading, if I’m not mistaken, is that no state’s constitution shall be construed in such a manner that would make employers, hospitals, etc., honor the bonds of a non-traditional marriage. In a nutshell, it’s not placing a ban on gay-marriages, it’s placing a ban on enforced recognition thereof.

Can you find this particular power (regulation of marriage, which I might add is a religious construct that now blurs the lines between church and state) anywhere within our Constitution? Take your time, you won’t find it.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”