"Graffiti on a sacred document" - Thanks to Ryan for keeping me up to date on the Federal Marriage Amendment. I hadn't heard that the wackjobs behind the FMA have been tinkering with it. Drew noted it on Wednesday.

When Ryan first said that "they changed the amendment," my first thought was they were addressed the common Federalist criticism of the FMA: As written, it nukes gay marriage even when enacted by state legislators, not just when liberal high court justices dictate it. Most backers say they are really only targeting the latter. No, the new and improved amendment goes off in a really weird direction. The added verbiage would permit domestic partnerships or their ilk, as long as they are not "predicated" on "the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct." What the f*ck?

Apparently, the brainstorm behind this change is to let DP arrangements exist, as long as the reason for them, and therefore the test to determine who qualifies, can't be a sexual relationship. As one supporter relates, "The amendment would ... allow state legislators to extend the particular privileges of marriage to gay couples -- just not as gay couples. People not in gay relationships would also have to be eligible." To me, this change makes clear that the effect of the original FMA was indeed to eliminate all DP programs nationwide, despite the boldfaced disclaimer to that effect on the Alliance for Marriage's website. The new language is a proviso to the core abolitionist language, carving out space for certain permitted types of recognition.

It's difficult to track how the revised amendment would work. California's recently expanded domestic partnership registry is probably out, because it requires an "intimate" relationship to qualify. Vermont's civil union is likewise toast, but its reciprocal beneficiaries registry for related persons is permissable. Hawaii -- the site of the original gay marriage debate -- has established reciprocal beneficiaries for both relatives and others, including gay couples. Written broadly, it's qualifying test is probably fine.

While the drafters seem to think the revision focuses the FMA, I would argue that it actually reinforces the amendment's wide-ranging effect. The FMA draws a line against "quasi-marriage" arrangements of all types, not just gay marriage. (It is no coincidence that the introduction of the FMA has coincided with the growing political visibility of unmarried straight America. They have a stake in this too.)

As far as I'm concerned the amendment's backers are just digging themselves a deeper hole with this change. When your first reaction to a Constitutional amendment is to laugh, how worried can you get?