Why Does Amendment Forbid ‘Domestic Partnerships’
or ‘Civil Unions’?

Why Not Compromise and Give ‘Benefits’ to ‘Partners’?

Marriage Is ‘Hot Issue’ In Massachusetts

September 2001

If anyone asks why not compromise and allow “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions,” Bryan Rudnick retorts that Vermont does not permit gay marriage, but what good has that done that state? Vermont has “gay marriage” with a different name.

He also points out that the voters of California enthusiastically passed a referendum, Proposition 22, in March 2000 that limited marriage to a man and a woman. But California is now in a serious fight over legislation which seeks to create “domestic partners.” The man who has led the fight there, Randy Thomasson, now says, “California’s experience with Proposition 22 shows that protecting the word ‘marriage’ is not enough.”

A recent proposal has been made to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to limit marriage to a man and a woman. That is being opposed by many family groups until it also addresses the issue of “domestic partners” and “gay unions” as the proposed ballot question will do in Massachusetts.

“The citizens should decide this issue once and for all,” says Rudnick. “It makes no sense to keep dragging this out. Let’s see what the voters want.”

Only First Step

In addition, the opponents in Massachusetts know that if they are successful in giving benefits to “partners,” it would be the first step toward the end of traditional marriage. That is not disputed by anyone.

For example, when it editorialized in favor of the partner bill that was passed in Vermont, the New York Times said that partnerships are a “crucial step forward” to “marriage.” The Washington Post went even further, saying that “marriage” must and will be eventually approved because approving only partnerships, although a good first step, makes homosexuals into second-class citizens.

During a debate at Suffolk Law School this summer, the lesbian lawyer, Mary Bonauto, stated that a “civil union [such as is found in Vermont] is not equality.” She, and everyone else, understands it is only a beginning to gay marriage.

It Would be Costly

The homosexual activists are telling the legislators that the cost to the taxpayers to provide benefits would be only a few hundred thousand dollars. “But that is a lie,” says Rudnick. “We have documentation to prove that domestic partner benefits will cost approximately $15 million the first year.” And this does not cover the administrative costs, including whether a “partner” of a state employee really qualifies to receive benefits from the taxpayers. It appears that every state employee would be under financial pressure to name a “partner” and receive benefits.

Future of marriage to be on ballot
Political leaders who could still thwart ballot process
Text of proposed amendment to Constitution
Is this a religious issue?
Is amendment a ‘gay’ issue?
Why does amendment forbid ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’?
What about the lawsuit?
Governor says she’s seeking advice on ‘protection of marriage’
Gay marriage could strike quickly