Equal rights revisited

The Massachusetts legislature today gave initial approval to an amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow for civil unions. In the words of Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R), "We are providing every right, responsibility and benefit for same-sex couples with the exception of the word marriage." The amendment still has to gain the approval of the next legislative session and be passed in a referendum in November, 2006, so it will be at least two and a half years before the amendment takes effect.

Now, I don't know about you folks, but to me, this is just stupid and vindictive. What's the point of having an amendment at all if all they are going to disallow is use of the word "marriage"? This means that the legislature just wasted a good week of debate over an amendment that will, in effect, do absolutely nothing. I just don't get it. It's just a word. Yes, words do have a powerful meaning, but allowing homosexuals to legally call themselves married will not deny heterosexuals the right to call themselves married. So why this oppugn over a word? Why not, if they are going to allow homosexuals to have marriage rights, allow homosexuals to call themselves married? This makes no sense.

Robert