« Speaking Of Nobel And Literature | Main | ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! »
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Speaking Of Teh Gaiii
"Civil unions aren't good enough," Patti Van Scoy of Milton told members of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection, a panel created by Democratic leaders in the Legislature to evaluate civil unions as compared to marriage. She argued civil unions fail to deliver "true equality" to same-sex couples.
Close to 100 people attended the commission's first public hearing, many wearing "Freedom to Marry" stickers.
Leaders of several organizations that oppose same-sex marriage have urged their members to boycott the panel's hearings. These opponents argue that most commission members have made up their minds and support gay marriage.
Still, a few opponents of allowing same-sex couples to marry attended the hearing.
"I will fight this," promised Brian Pearl of Grand Isle.
Claire LaBounty of St. Albans said the union of a man and a woman in marriage is a sacred tradition. "Keep the definition," she pleaded, but added that she wasn't saying something shouldn't be done to provide gay couples with equal rights.
I always have a hard time with this debate. Not because I don't think all people deserve the right to marry, but because I don't think that 'marriage' is any of the State's fucking business anyway. I'd prefer the model of civil unions for all, from which civil rights are derived, and if you want a 'marriage' you can go to a dogdamned church.
That pipe dream aside, I'm all for gay marriage. I have taken heat in the past for being an incrementalist and advocating for CUs first and then moving on to full marriage, but hey, here we are on the verge of joining MA in doing the right thing. All struggles take time and sometimes you have to choose your battles. Easy for me to say as someone who has always "enjoyed" the right to marry (and divorce!), yeah.
Anyhoo, I remember the threats that Dog would rain terror down upon our fair state if we let the gays unionize, but somehow we avoided that fate. Shit, I can't even blame the queers for ruining my marriage. It's all very confusing:
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
My household is so very queer and unnatural...
ntodd
October 11, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00e54ef61b518833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Speaking Of Teh Gaiii:
Comments
Bill Murray really can make any moment magical, eh?
Posted by: Lex | Oct 12, 2007 12:44:13 AM
Actually, I read a wonderful comment regarding this subject lately. This one dealt specifically with John Edwards comments regarding gay marriage...uhem, civil unions...yes. He had apparently said when asked about it that he still had a lot of thinking to do on the subject, the he "wasn't completely there yet", and that perhaps it was his Southern Baptist upbringing that caused him to have trouble with the notion of making gay marriage legal (I generally blame many ills on a Southern Baptist upbringing, myself). Then when asked about homosexuality in general, Edwards was all for it. Nothing at all against people being gay!
This is most certainly not limited to Edwards, in fact it is (at this point in the election cycle) almost across the board. The commentator writing the little magazine blurb, however, made the fabulous point that candidates will endorse any sound-good/feel-good notion that they will never have to actually vote on, while either opposing or waffling on the controversial ones. No one will ever have to vote (God willing) on whether it's OK to be LGBT in this country. On gay marriage? Yes, so the answer is bound to be no.
It's just more of the stuff that you already know, but feel like you've been gut-punched every time you're reminded of it. I think I'll get that feeling plenty of times before November 08, unfortunately, and possibly (yet again) for several weeks afterwards.
Posted by: Lex | Oct 12, 2007 12:56:06 AM
You don't make gay marriage "legal". That implies that it is something granted by the will of the people, via the legislature.
In fact here in the Commonwealth, we didn't so much make gay marriage legal, we recognized that the right of marriage is not restricted to a specific class of people, rather, all adults are entitled to enter the state of marriage.
Or, as it has been argued (and I agree with the term) it's not about legalizing gay marriage, it's about recognizing marriage equality.
Posted by: Chris Tucker | Oct 13, 2007 1:40:00 PM



