Massachusetts was the first, in 2004, to extend marriage equality to same sex couples and guess what? The earth hasn't stop spinning ... divorce rates for heterosexual couples have more or less remained the same ... and I don't think there have been any significant lightening strikes in the state. Looks like Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the rest of their ilk are just dead wrong about the consequences of extending marriage rights to lesbians and gays.
Gov. John Baldacci of Maine on Wednesday signed a same-sex marriage bill passed by the State Legislature, saying he had reversed his position on such marriages after deciding it was a matter of equal protection under the state’s Constitution.So come on Congress, isn't it time to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act? And while you are at it, why not extend marriage rights to lesbians and gays in all 50 states? Hey, it's just a matter of time ...
“I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law,” the governor said in a news release from Augusta, Me., where he announced his decision to sign the bill in a news conference.
Later, in a telephone interview, he said, “It’s not the way I was raised and it’s not the way that I am.” He added: “But at the same time I have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That’s my job, and you can’t allow discrimination to stand when it’s raised to your level.”
With the enactment of the Maine bill, gay-rights activists have moved remarkably close to their goal of making same-sex marriage legal throughout New England just five years after Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to allow it. [...]
Mr. Baldacci announced his decision to sign the bill about an hour after the State Senate gave final passage to the bill, which would codify marriage as a legally recognized union of two people regardless of their sex. Under state law he had 10 days to decide whether to sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.
But Mr. Baldacci, a Democrat who cannot seek reelection due to term limits, said he had already spent considerable time thinking about the issue.
“I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” he said in the release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
No comments:
Post a Comment