As everyone knows, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court has explicitly rejected the concept of "civil unions" as a possible solution to the court's earlier ruling that preventing gays from marrying is against the state constitution; nothing short of full marriage will rectify the situation. Because of the rather arcane way that Massechusetts handles amendments to the state constitution, the earliest date a vote could be held would be 2006, while the court's decision will go into effect as soon as May of this year.
Dean and Rosemary Esmay have a rousing debate on this subject (profanity alert; those with delicate sensibilities will wish to avoid the link). I'm with them; the backlash this latest decision will engender is going to be very ugly. Further, if Bush pushes for a constitutional amendment (such as the odious Federal Marriage Amendment, which would invalidate existing civil unions if passed in its current form), I will not vote for a presidential candidate this year. I cannot support any of the Democratic Party's offerings, and I will not vote Green, Libertarian, or Natural Law, but I also will not vote for anyone who actively supports the FMA.
In the comments at the Dean's World thread, Mrs. Du Toit notes that only one change to the "civil unions" proposal would make it pass muster; eliminate the gender restriction. Sounds kinda familiar, as I have proposed the exact same thing. This is the third post I ever made, and it explains my views pretty thoroughly; this post has even more detail). I still stand by such a proposal. All the people who scream that allowing gays to marry would destroy the concept of marriage would have their rhetorical legs kicked out from under them by such an arrangement, as it puts marriage in houses of worship, and civil unions in a secular environment. It's the best of all possible worlds, since it strengthens and tightens the concept of marriage, while allowing for an alternative for those who do not qualify otherwise.
Bush is not my idea of a dream candidate by any stretch of the imagination, but I currently plan to vote for him because of his views on the WoT. However, my support is rather tenuous, and something like this (coupled with his anti-free trade views, his astonishing expansion of the federal government, his unwillingness to rein in pork-barrel spending, and his lukewarm support of the second amendment) would be enough to push me out of his column, and I doubt that I am the only person who feels this way.
posted on February 05, 2004 08:55 AM
Comments:
I can't say I agree with an FMA, either. But at least Bush is pushing for an amendment to the constitution, rather than having a judge rewrite the document.
posted on February 05, 2004 08:55 AM
posted by 
