Skip to main content

View Diary: The Gathering Storm in Massachusetts (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The whole point (none)
    They are on record as claiming civil unions are "discriminatory" because they supposedly exclude couples that are "ineligible for marriage" but who are living together in a "non-sexual" relationship, like two elderly women (I guess there's no such thing as an elderly lesbian couple!) or a handicapped person and his/her caretaker.

    The whole point is that the governmental civil contract and the religious ceremony should be utterly distinct things.  Under that view, "ineligible for marriage" is not relevant to the governmental civil contract in the first place.

    If a handicapped person and his/her caretaker want, for some wacky reason, to sign a governmental civil contract stating that they're going to pay taxes together, adopt each others' kids, pay for each other's sustenance, and so forth, more power to them.

    And if their church wants to deny them from being "married", more power to their church.

    -- E pur si muove.

    by asdfasdf on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:46:48 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  They're trying to pre-empt (none)
      any civil union proposals, while blurring the issue itself with this triangulatory sop to well-meaning voters, by framing their Crusade Against the Evil Homasechtooals (tm) as a positive thing.

      The LAST thing this gang wants is for the legislature to adopt a Vermont-style compromise of separate civil and religious marriage. That would rob them of more power -- or an excuse to cry victim if things don't go their way.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site