The Separate And Unequal Amendment

I read the news today, oh boy. The english army had just won the war.

The idea that Massachusetts, my home state, ( born and bred ) is ultraliberal is absurd. The recent vote to create separate and unequal civil unions is nicely conservative...sure, have your union, but you can't have any of the federal rights a man and a women have. Of the 1,049 rights and laws and other benefits that accompany a marriage certificate at the state and federal levels, I wonder which ones are federal, and how many.

Here in MA we use high falutin' language and call something a constitutional amendment when it's really a Jim Crow law...back in a flash from the past. Only it's worse, because religion is involved here, not just plain old ugly prejudice.

Religious edicts have had some seriously nasty consequences for downtrodden folk around the world and throughout history. We attempt to institutionalize it in the year, 2004, and there is no bigger clue as to what to expect more and worse of in the future.

MA is fine with the union, only, uh oh, they want the same RIGHTS as any other marriage? No way Jonsey, you buggin'. Even though the SC said it was constitutional, and therefore legal to expect the same benefits therein...But no. Instead we get great praise and a mopping of the brow for legislation that will come to nothing, because the 14th Amendment cannot be ignored any more now than it was after the Civil War.

The people are just doing it too. That means the revolution is well under way.

But really folks. Talk about your dustbins for leaders in MA, half the crowd is signing on with Jim Crow Revisited, and with a twist. How long before remarkably different classes become permanent again? Not too long, if MA is any indication.

And Romney. Good Lord, help us from this terror.

Who stands to lose the most if any two Americans, ( all of them ) could be married and get all those juicy state and federal benefits? You want to see the loophole in their logic? Do you want to understand why they just don't get it, or rather, what the real mindset at work is?

It's simple, actually. They preclude federal benefits because of their faulty assumption that two people of the same sex won't want children, because they are deviant, sinful, lustful, and downright selfish and greedy.

No one gay guy wants a kid, but two do. Same for lesbians. This is the insight. The people are so ignorant, abhorrent and fearful of homosexuality, that they cling to stereotypes, even though gay couples act exactly like straight couples do. They can't understand that these people entertain the same healthy and helpful tactics that straight couples do to get by in life. There isn't a dungeon in the basement, well, sometimes there is, but that holds true for the straight world too. Some of them swing mighiily. Most of them don't.

So they assume gay families won't be needing the full range of benefits that straight families have to access. It's downright despicable that they could be so utterly and woefully ignorant awhile standing there all proud of their accomplishment today to set up separate and unequal Mary Crow laws in the Baystate...one of the first states to push for equality under the law.

How far we have fallen.

How will the same sex getting married ruin marriage? IF any two adults can raise children, so long as those adults are bonded, why are some allowed federal benefits but not others? How will two men getting married have a negative impact upon you, your wife, or your kids?

Who really stands to lose here?

The federal government, that's who.