And now the scramble begins

With the Massachusetts high court affirming their earlier decision re: homosexual partnerships and stating that civil unions (a la Vermont) do not meet the equality test that marriage would, debate begins in earnest tomorrow over a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between men and women only.

I have to admit it's very difficult to put myself in the mindset of those who are so terribly opposed to recognition of homosexual unions (be they marriage or less). To me, it's like being religiously opposed to redheads or people with upturned noses. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice; as a heterosexual, I know I made no specific choice. It just was.

The only choice, so far as I can tell from the debate on the other side, is the one some zealots would like homosexuals to make: to not act on their feelings toward a person of the same sex. That seems unnatural.

I live in a state that accepts civil unions and I have to say that living here is really no different than living in a state that does not recognize them. I've yet to see anyone - hetero or homosexual - hump somebody else in the supermarket or library.

Children don't become homosexuals because their teachers or parents are homosexual and the sanctity of marriage - and that I believe is more imparted by the care which each partner exercises within it than from some sanction from the government or church - will not be affected if marriage is extended to two men or two women rather than the usual pairing.