Debate over a state constitutional amendment to save marriage returns to Massachusetts today with the president of the constitutional convention, Senate President Robert Travaglini, singelhandedly engineering the debate so that his amendment is the only one considered. Travaglini’s amendment would reserve the name “marriage” for one man and one woman, but would simultaneously grant every legal benefit of marriage to civil unions, thereby making the whole thing moot.
The Gobe is providing the usual biased, dumbed down coverage, including this whopper: “On the other hand, if supporters of the Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage can gather enough sympathizers, they stand an excellent chance of blocking any amendment put forth.” And if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their butts when they jumped. Thanks for stating the obvious (and obviously hoped for) conclusion. If they didn’t spell it out for us, how would we know how to think?