Governor Romney - a plausible and interested candidate for the GOP nomination in 2008 has again pronounced a personal troubling and opposition to the issue of gay marriage in Massachusetts. As discussed in this blog past --Gov. Romney , again given the benefit of bona fides in the consultation, has thrown the issue to consideration of the people of the state in backing a ballot question which could produce a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage if passed.
Governor Romney should instead lead, as Republican & Democratic Governors of Massachusetts have in the past in shaping the debate and the question.
None are seeking a preference nor endorsement of homsexuality .. but rather the neutral address of a critical civil rights issue:
Whether persons not of the same sex; or persons in a pairing of living with no anticipation nor possibiility of sex; have the equivalent freedom and constitutional protection; where they choose to join their personal estates in a legal union of 'entireties'.
This is the scope and expectation of the proposal previously published here in this blog of 'sex neutral marriage'. It does not damn heterosexual marriage .. nor judge homsexual marriage. It grants legal equivalency to a one at a time pairing of two adult human beings in a legal union of persons.
Nothing but that form is equivalent in rights recognition or protection, to the current state of heterosexual marriage. Not doing so will generate more discriminatory rights diminishment as non-hetersexual couples in a pseudo equivalent seek and litigate for spousal rights in medical-financial exigencies; and child custody issues.
Massachusetts' people will speak if banning 'gay marriage' becomes a constitutional amendment propostion --- but so will the superior rights preserving 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Like it or not -- what other than custom and old pre-civil rights law requires a unique legal union at law to be the exclusive province of human beings in heterosexual coupling? And if 'gays' and others in this matter are not human beings -- what are they?
Were Frederick Douglass alive, one would have heard his satirical derision ...
"..They think that they are like us and would emulate us with a marriage ceremony ... "
It is a civil rights issue ... and to start rationing a basic choice in relationships is a roll-back.
Call it 'gay marriage' ..or 'meld' ... or ... 'samage' .. but the present US state & federal 'equal protection' clauses require an equal opportunity to the heterosexual pairing as a full legal union of persons.
|
