subj= mass gov on gay unions
CNN.com - Massachusetts lawmakers recess without gay marriage ban - Feb. 13, 2004: "State Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios, an openly gay lawmaker, pleaded against the proposed amendment.
'I am the first person to speak on this amendment who is directly affected by it, I'll admit it,' Barrios said, adding that his partner of more than 10 years and his two adopted children would be denied health benefits if the amendment were enacted. "
My big question?
So...if the amendment is enacted his children would be denied benefits? How exactly do they have benefits now then? And is it the union that causes their dissolution? I believe it possible that the failed amendment did not provide adequately, but there is no reason the final draft should include such a penalty.
As far as "Civil unions grant couples most of the rights of state civil marriages but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage such as Social Security. "
....dude.... how stupid are these people...Social Security is dead to anyone under 30. So it's not the future they're thinking of on this issue..this is strictly a me, me, me item.
"Thirty-eight states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages. "
This fact alone has to say that this is largely a concensus view in the nation. While the most populous cities shoulder the bulk of homosexual populations, it would be rediculous to increase the state to state dichotomy of social moeures.
"Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the question of same-sex marriage should be one for voters -- not the courts -- to decide."
I'd have to agree on this, and quite possibly it should be held as one of the first truly popular votes to happen in our country in a while. A true voice of the people, held to a super-majority, as the practive of majority rules is not what our country is, or at least used to be, about.