The so-called "compromise" proposal that would have forced Massachusetts voters to choose between full gay marriage or civil unions, with no option to refuse both -- is on the way out. House Speaker Tom Finneran has moved to separate the two issues and give voters a choice. Offering two amendments to the voters -- one to ban gay marriage and one to establish civil unions -- looks like a compromise package that pro-family legislators can legitimately support.
Do you think it's okay for legislators to vote for civil marriages for gays, then? I wasn't clear on that point.
Voting for civil unions (not full gay marriage) could be tolerable in our current circumstance as an instance of "double effect". The proposal Tom Finneran is floating would send the voters two ballot questions which would modify the state constitution: one to ban gay marriage and another to establish civil unions.
If the two measures are treated as a package, it's legitimate to vote for the package in order to get the good part -- the bad part is regarded as an unwanted side-effect. Of course, there are limitations: the rule of "double effect" requires that the good effect must outweigh or at least equal the impact of the bad effect.
If no constitutional amendment is adopted, then the Supreme Judicial Court will stand on its ruling imposing gay marriage, which is worse than having civil unions. The latter would at least be subject to limitations defined by the legislators.
Oh okay, I see what you're saying. I agree.