Civil Unions are discriminatory in providing special privileges based on the sexual preference of a small, vocal minority. There are many people with valid needs in the Commonwealth who have dependent relationships that are not based on sexual preference, such as a son taking care of his ailing mother, or two elderly sisters living together. The needs of any two dependents would be best addressed through reciprocal benefits legislation, that does not discriminate against dependent couples that are not homosexual.So supposedly, they and Gov. Romney are so concerned about other dependent relationships that they want to make sure that these "affected groups" receive reciprocal benefits and that granting civil unions (marriage lite) is discriminatory against these groups. My questions:
IF THEY ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIPS WHY AREN'T THEY PROPOSING LEGISLATION NOW? WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008 TO GIVE THEM BENEFITS? IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SAME SEX COUPLES FIRST BEFORE THEY CAN WORK ON GETTING "TWO ELDERLY SISTERS" BENEFITS?
As much as they want to deny it, Mass "Family" is for discrimination against gay people. It's not about giving a son and his dependent mother benefits, its about depriving same sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as opposite sex couples plain and simple.
3 comments:
Boston Bud is right! There's nothing stopping them right now, unless, of course, they don't really mean it. Then again, if read their agenda, providing "reciprocal benefits" is only third on their list. They have marriages to destroy and that has to be job one!
On a cosmetic level, I had to giggle over their using a young, Black couple to represent the petition program. As if!
It's the middle-aged and older, overwhelmingly white, largely Catholic types who are into this. Better they should use such charmers as Brian Camenker, Emile Goguen and maybe Sean O'Malley as their spokesmodels. That would be a test of faith for their minions.
If Mitt had the guts to match his guile, he would lead a meaty domestic-partnership effort here and lobby Bush for the same at a national level. All those struggling with those health, insurance, visitation, benefits, and tax issues could use some leadership to provide meaningful, equitable relief.
It pains me to say this, but Article 8 is right. Article 8 objects to the proposed 2008 amendment on the grounds that, among other things, it grandfathers pre-amendment marriages; and that's a valid objection.
If Gov. Romney, the Catholic Bishops (note, not the people), and the Evangelical Christians oppose same-sex unions on moral grounds, then what is the moral/intellectual argument for allowing some marriages to stand? And if the answer is political expediency, i.e., it's a more palatable amendment to the voters nervous about voiding marriages, then are we to understand that these churches teach that we should always act in accord with the Bible, except when it's politically expedient to do otherwise?
Post a Comment