I feel strongly that it isn't "dancing." Civil unions would be defined as having exactly the same status, legal obligations, and benefits as marriage. Legally, the two "institutions" will have no independent existence - the people will not be able to change one without changing the other. That's profound, and a profoundly bad idea.
The most important thing about domestic partnerships, whatever they may be, is that they won't be that.
DPs would make it easier to name a partner as next-of-kin, things like that. They would provide a framework for some benefits, but not defined to be the same as marriage benefits.
In my opinion, legal partnerships like that would be fine and I don't see why such a thing must encode a sexual relationship at all; it could be two spinster sisters, but unfortunately, that's not what's blowin' in the political wind. President Bush has spoken favorably about same-sex DPs (at variance with the party platform.)
Uttering the phrase "woman's right to choose" was his open sesame to the governorship. -NutCrackerBoy
I don't buy it. Even normal voters who are for abortion don't go around talking like that. That is purely a buzzphrase used by Planned Parenthood and organizations of their ilk.
I agree with you that "a woman's right to choose" is an activist's phrase. Clearly, Romney was genuflecting to a political interest. I assure you, liberal voters in Massachusetts (who sometimes vote for Republican governors, or at least don't try very hard to defeat them) may not talk that way, but they do not hear it as weird coming from a politician. In essence, it was a dodge. It worked. He won't pay a significant price for it, in my opinion, in his standing with liberals OR conservatives.
Then why would Romney be in favor of an amendment that prohibits same-sex "marriage", but mandates same-sex "civil unions", if they're the exact same thing? Without the amendment, there's a chance that the SCJ might someday be induced to overturn its ruling (especially if the head Republican in the state would help things along - hint, hint). But once the amendment is passed, same-sex marriage (under the name of civil unions) would be formally set in the state constitution, unalterable by judges. That's progress?
Legally, the two "institutions" will have no independent existence - the people will not be able to change one without changing the other. That's profound, and a profoundly bad idea. The most important thing about domestic partnerships, whatever they may be, is that they won't be that.
They may not "be that", but they'll pave the way for it nonetheless. It's an inherently unsustainable situation. Once a person accepts the validity of it, then there will be little grounds for him to argue against the full transition to same-sex marriage. Ten years ago, who would have thought we'd even be at this point today?
I agree with you that "a woman's right to choose" is an activist's phrase. Clearly, Romney was genuflecting to a political interest. I assure you, liberal voters in Massachusetts (who sometimes vote for Republican governors, or at least don't try very hard to defeat them) may not talk that way, but they do not hear it as weird coming from a politician.
Whether they would hear it as weird is not the issue. The point is, he didn't have to say it that way in order to get elected. Make no mistake, he needlessly advanced the abortion industry's cause just by saying it.