> He defied his party by endorsing civil unions in 2004. (But that same year, he backed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. This might loo

> He defied his party by endorsing civil unions in 2004. (But that same year, he backed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. This might look inconsistent bjt I think the logic might have been to separate marriage, the religious thing from the civil union thing that is about tax deductions for couples etc. This strikes me as somewhat pragmatic: The government should have as little to say as possible on who lives with who - beyond not allowing close relatives to marry - while still protecting the religions of people living there. I think the Pope fronted a similar conclusion recently. Luckily I am no politician.