Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: george wythe
My initial impression, which now appears to have been faulty, was that the gay-marriage advocates were able to alter the wording of the amendment so as to somehow work in their favor. But apparently they have some other kind of trick up their sleeve which isn't immediately clear. My guess is that they're bluffing.
17 posted on 03/11/2004 3:54:16 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: inquest
From the link you provided, I found the complete text of the amendment:
"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union, if they meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage.

"Civil unions for same sex couples are established hereunder and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.

"This article is self-executing, but the General Court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this article."


18 posted on 03/11/2004 3:58:24 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson