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.