Monday, March 29, 2004 :::
In a discussion of gay marriage a few months ago, I proposed a compromise: each marriage should consist of two people, at least one of them a woman. Lesbians would be allowed to marry each other, but not gay men. I had some defenses for this -- women are traditionally more stable than men, whereas men need the stablizing influence of a woman; lesbian relationships are generally more monogamous and longer-lasting than male homosexual relationships; etc. -- but the real purpose of the proposal was to suggest a "compromise" that would, if enacted, really piss off both sides.
The Massachusetts legislature, though, has really out-done me.
To recap: amendment of the Massachusetts constitution, if initiated by the legislature, requires a majority vote of the legislature-as-unicameral (each senator and each representative getting a vote) in two consecutive sessions, followed by a majority vote of the people.
The current session of the legislature has given final approval to an amendment which would define marriage as a heterosexual institution, but would "establish civil unions to provide same-sex persons with entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations as are afforded to married persons". I can see why that would appeal to some people who wouldn't go for my proposal, but it's hardly any more rational, and I can't see who's going to lobby in its favor if it reaches the ballot in 2006.
UPDATE: "Lesbians would be allowed to marry each other, but not gay men." -- To clarify, lesbians would still be allowed to marry gay men, but gay men would not be allowed to marry each other. I apologize for roughly half of any confusion I may have caused.
::: posted by Steven at 11:09 PM
|
