Probably a good thing, on balance

[rsc]

The Boston Globe reports that the Massachusetts Senate will most likely pass a "civil unions" bill and send it to the Supreme Judicial Court for evaluation (i.e., ask if it meets the criteria of the marriage decision). I hope the court says "No, we said 'marriage' and we meant 'marriage'." That would clear the air a bit, anyway.

Comments

[pinkfish.livejournal.com]

Dream on - the court is desparate for something to let them out. They are sure to say, "yes, that will do very nicely, thank you!"

[bitty.livejournal.com]

wankers.

[rsc.livejournal.com]

I dunno about that. The majority opinion seems to go out of its way to say "civil marriage" as often as possible. Why should the court want to be "let out"? They could have let themselves out easily enough (cf. Vermont).

[pinkfish.livejournal.com]

Needless to say, I really want to agree with you. But I continue to be skeptical about this.

By the way, whatever happened to the Cambridge city council's resolution to start granting marriage licenses? Wouldn't that have started this week?

[rsc.livejournal.com]

They decided, on legal advice, to add the words "as soon as legally possible", meaning not until the state has been forced to recognize them. They were probably right -- it could have been a real mess.

[jwg.livejournal.com]

It's the elected representatives that want something to let them out since they are being barraged by nasty people. Although several polls including a recent one show that more people are for it than against it. And I'd sure that those reps/senators who are Catholics are having an even harder time.