|
Disappointing disconnect
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Didn't the Mass SJC -- not a legislature -- do just that?
On the whole, I think the precise meaning is irrelevant, both politically and legally. Politically because it's pretty clear what Bush, and any other proponent's position on gay marriage is. The possibility of legislatively initiated civil unions is of secondary, or even tertiary, importance. Legally, because it won't pass, and certainly won't be ratified by 38 states.
|
But the first sentence would bar what the Mass SJC did.
Disagree with you on the second point. Barring civil unions means state-required divorce of people now in such arrangements. That will strike reasonable people as wrong, even if they aren't ready for gay marriage.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
