chonce,
It seems you want to appease the homosexuals only. Civil Unions have most of the same privileges as a straight marriage. The main difference is the name. 2+2 and 3+1 both equal four no matter how you slice it.
I don't think it's a joyous day for the bigoted Christians because they would probably rather have the homosexuals punished instead of giving them more rights. FWIW if this country was run like a theocracy you would be dead along with 200 million others. That's how many people do not follow the Scriptures.
It seems you want to appease the homosexuals only. Civil Unions have most of the same privileges as a straight marriage. The main difference is the name. 2+2 and 3+1 both equal four no matter how you slice it.
I don't think it's a joyous day for the bigoted Christians because they would probably rather have the homosexuals punished instead of giving them more rights. FWIW if this country was run like a theocracy you would be dead along with 200 million others. That's how many people do not follow the Scriptures.
I had a feeling you weren't giving the whole story since this happened so fast.
They did not change the Constitution yet.
IN FACT, what has happened is that the Mass legislators voted 105-92 to amend the state constitution. But it's at least 30 months from becoming actual law.
***In a 105 to 92 vote, legislators ended a third marathon session of often tearful and impassioned debate to accept a compromise amendment, hammered out by senior Senate leaders, that may alter the nation's oldest constitution in 2006.
Responding to last year's state court ruling that will allow same-sex couples to marry after May 17, lawmakers cleared a first hurdle BUT WILL HAVE TO VOTE on Monday's amendment AGAIN IN 2005 AND put it to a public vote in 2006 before it could become law. (emphasis added by barman)
They did not change the Constitution yet.
IN FACT, what has happened is that the Mass legislators voted 105-92 to amend the state constitution. But it's at least 30 months from becoming actual law.
***In a 105 to 92 vote, legislators ended a third marathon session of often tearful and impassioned debate to accept a compromise amendment, hammered out by senior Senate leaders, that may alter the nation's oldest constitution in 2006.
Responding to last year's state court ruling that will allow same-sex couples to marry after May 17, lawmakers cleared a first hurdle BUT WILL HAVE TO VOTE on Monday's amendment AGAIN IN 2005 AND put it to a public vote in 2006 before it could become law. (emphasis added by barman)
Do you actually know anyone making a push for legal incest?
I didn't think so.
So what relevance does it have to this Topic?
Meanwhile, the inequality is that much of our tax system gives breaks to opposite sex couples that are not given to same sex couples.
Thus, what we need is less discussion about who can marry who and more discussion about why we give tax breaks to ANY couples just for marrying.
I didn't think so.
So what relevance does it have to this Topic?
Meanwhile, the inequality is that much of our tax system gives breaks to opposite sex couples that are not given to same sex couples.
Thus, what we need is less discussion about who can marry who and more discussion about why we give tax breaks to ANY couples just for marrying.
