You know...

The conservatives almost had me believing that the conservative problem with gay marriage was federalism.

Maggie Gallagher writes:
"The problem, both legally and politically, with the Hatch language is that is changes the topic from marriage to federalism."

So, its not federalism thats the problem, it IS that gay marriage should be banned. And that gay marriage should not have any constitutionally-written rights.

The Hatch language is:

Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman.

as opposed to the conservative endorsed:

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.

One has it at a federal level, while the other has it at a state level. Part of the problem is the taxes that occur at the federal level will still be higher for civil unions than married couples. And, we still need to eliminate these bigots.

And she concludes: "Which may be why Sen. Hatch made it clear last week that he endorses the original FMA."

(note: some conservatives have themselves convinced that marriage is only to create corporations. If thats true, then "There are many other problems with the Hatch language...the Hatch language asserts rather forcefully that marriage is a creature of government" would be a completely misguided and false statement. But, it is one that many conservatives whole-heartedly agree.

So, let me just say YAY FOR BIGOTRY!!!