"Today, thousands of children are being raised by loving same-sex couples from Boston to the Berkshires. The court rightfully notes that these children should not be penalized or deprived benefits and protections because of their parents' sexual orientation. Prochildren conservatives should support security for all Massachusetts children without exception."

Exactly what benefits and protections are these children being deprived of because one of their parents is in a gay relationship? The rhetoric on this issue is getting very slippery.

BTW, why did an ad for a gay dating service popup when I linked to the article?

Thanks for the heads up David.
If only Jefferson, Washington, Adams and other hot heads and whiners had been more sensible we all would have been saved alot trouble.

Although I am concerned that the Massachusetts legislature seems to want to continue this argument by proposing mere civil union solutions.

It does seem states rights are rearing their ugly head. From what I have read, most Massachusettians (?) don't find any problem with same sex civil marriage.

Is there any reason they shouldn't be given the opportunity to discover they are wrong?

Amen Jeff
Apparently there are people at this board who still insist on following the old paradigm of legislature pass law, court adjudicate cases under the terms of the law. That is so last week.

Now we can cut thru all that bickering and have the State Supreme Wizar.. Court issue a fia.. law and adjudicate under terms of that law without having to listen to small minded legislative bigots.

I now await the State Supreme Court resolution of that continuing mistreatment of pedophiles by not giving their relationships similar respect. You know equal protection under the law, sort of thingy. I have to admit I am having some difficulty in communicating with the State Supreme Court , perhaps Gallup could run some more polls, you know something really essential to getting equal protection for pedophiles like do you think Michael Jackson is a human, does he dance good, doesn't he have a mother like everyone else, can't we all just along together and be nice.

h-man-

Letting the courts do it is neater, cleaner as well. No ballots to print or count, no unpleasant discussions, history or hurt feelings among the sensitive classes. As long as the Gallup organization doesn't mind the extra work...BTW, I think the pedophiles will need to wait until the animal lovers have their day in court. Pursuit of happiness and such..

Jeff,

"Is there any reason they shouldn't be given the opportunity to discover they are wrong?"

As long as the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution doesn't require the other 49 states to recognize Massachusetts' folly, they can do what they want.

Carl:
That, by far, sounds the best way out of this mess.

What's needed is to remove marriage from being covered by "Full Faith and Credit". Then allow states to establish their own rules for recognizing other states' marriages. It could be like concealed carry permits, or even drivers licences. In some cases it would be everything goes, in others it might be based on reciprocity or regional compacts, in others no recognition at all. Yep, it'll be a lot messier and definitely more inconvienient than the present, but that's what Federalism is about.

This may all be moot, because the Feds are going to drive the definition because of things like that status checkbox on the Form 1040 we all file every year.