Does Alan Keyes support Civil Unions?

As my regular readers might know, Alan Keyes made an appearence at UNC to give a speech on behalf of the Federalist Society (the irony of which amuses me to no end).

I ended up skipping the event in favor of The Incredibles and a lil' sumpin' sumpin', but I made it a point to check out the DTH for the coverage of the event. Here is a bit that caught the eyes of my friends and I:

In fielding a question about same-sex marriage, Keyes argued that because homosexual relationships cannot produce children, they "have no inherent public consequence," and therefore no basis for what he termed "public regulation."

"Marriage isn't about rights," Keyes thundered, prompting applause. "The institution of marriage is about responsibilities and obligations."He added that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage threatens to destroy the institution of marriage and the rights of parenthood."We are now trying by legislative means to deprive the family of its authority," he said.

A couple things of note here: if the ability to reproduce is the basis for public consequence and regulation, what about couples that are unable to have children? Should they not be married?What about a married woman who goes through menopause? Is the marriage annulled at that point? What an ass...

However, those lines fall along a familiar path (i.e. that homosexuality is "unnatural'). Of greater interest is the second item: Marriage isn't about rights. Huh... does that mean that he supports civil unions? Civil unions aren't marriages, but rather just a way to empower a particular relationship with a set of public rights and regulations... there is a tacit acknowledgement of that possibility here.

Of course, I don't think he would support such... I just kinda wish I had been there to ask it of him and to see what his tortured logic in reponse would be.