Massachusetts must provide Marriage not Civil Unions

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/04/supreme_judicial_court_rules_civil_unions_arent_enough_same_sex_couples_entitled_to_marriage/

"The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May."

I am not happy about this. Marriage is an institution between man and woman. The court did make a point about seperate almost always does not mean eqaul. However this is a bad decision by the court.

The worst part of all of this is that a constitutional ammendment could not be voted on until 2006 which would allow the Courts decision to rule until then. I am for the civil unions, to let same sex couples have all of the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, however I refuse to allow the definition of the word marriage to be changed to allow for same sex unions.


Also of note form this article is that "Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent".
- posted by Doug @ 2:28:00 PM