Will splitting them ease passage?

Will splitting them ease passage?

Mass. House Speaker Tom Finneran is proposing to split the debate over a gay marriage constitutional amendment into two bills. One bill would amend the constitution to legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and the other would add an amendment that would set up civil unions.

I’m not sure I’m happy with that, but it may be the best we can hope for. If we split it, we can hope to pass one and defeat the other in the general election, but if we lose on the civil unions bill, they will become a part of the constitution. Sure, because they’re not marriage, then the legislator can provide as many or as few benefits to it as they wish, but still it becomes a permanent part of the law. At this point, though, I’d be willing to take what we can get.

By the way, the constitutional convention circus starts up again on March 11.

1 comment
  • I’m not sure Finneran is a big fan of SSM. He may be just doing his best to get something passed since the Travis Amendment (an outright ban) cannot win.