Solving the gay marriage mess

Massachusetts' old-style (= corrupt) House Speaker, Thomas Finneran, no longer backs a compromise amendment to the state constitution that would permit civil unions but ban same-sex marriages. Instead, he wants two amendments. The first would say: "It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts." According to the report in the Boston Globe, the second amendment "would include language saying that the Legislature 'shall establish civil unions,' but would call for the Legislature to define at a later date exactly what rights and benefits those unions would include."

Ah, excellent. Let's limit rights first and then maybe get around to supporting some, maybe, oh look, the cat's coughing, what were we talking about?

But those of us who support the right of loving adults to marry can learn from this strategy: We should break our push into two parts. First, we should make it legal for same-sex couples to marry, but only if they're hot lesbians. That's something this great nation has obviously shown it can get behind. And then we can expand the right to include all those whose love dares not speak "I do."