Separate but equal?
Published by Jeff, March 29th, 2004 in Social issuesMass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban
BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.
…
Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions � rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.
By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments � including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.
I’m still kind of torn about this. Having two separate union forms (civil union and marriage) leaves a wide opening for the kind of “separate but equal*winkwink*” policy we’ve seen before, though not on the same scale. But what if we can get to perfect equality of civil unions and marriage? Then is it ok? I don’t like it, but I think it’s tolerable, but I’m also not gay. In any case, I still believe the solution I’ve outlined here a couple times is best.
0 Responses to “Separate but equal?”
Please Wait
Leave a Reply