Comments | bellatrys: Quietly, and with minimal notice from the national press...

bellatrys

Quietly, and with minimal notice from the national press...

May 02, 2007 09:53

and with minimal fuss and fighting at home - in all ways unlike VT, Massachussetts and NY - the New Hampshire legislature this past week passed HB437, the bill allowing civil unions (Not Marriage! Just Just Like It) for same-sex couples in this state. Which is interesting, because even popular Democrat Elliot Spitzer who pledged to support it in ( Read more... )

sexism, ssm, bigotry, glbt, human rights, nh politics

Comments 21

Don't be confused with facts... anonymous May 2 2007, 14:55:56 UTC

I suppose you're so angry you are willing to ignore facts. For example, in your diatribe against Log Cabin you try to claim there were no GOP votes. You obviously don't want to acknowledge the 27 GOP votes (Nearly 20% of the Republicans) in the NH House... Perhaps if you had a tad less anger and a bit more integrity you'd report ALL the facts and not just those that feed your anger.

Who the fuck are you, anonymous Log Cabin coward? bellatrys May 2 2007, 15:34:20 UTC

I said *nearly* straight-party lines - Senate was totally straight-party, a handful in the House crossed and a few Rs abstained. If you noticed, I *did* link to the vote breakdown pages SO THAT PEOPLE COULD DAMN WELL CHECK HOW/IF THEIR SENATOR OR REP VOTED which I haven't seen Anyone else online doing in discussions of the vote. And, moreover, I havent' seen a SINGLE quote in the media from a state GOP rep or senator speaking out in favor of it. Do you have any from your loyal buddy-boys, or are they all anonymous cowards like you, too?

and obviously it's *you* who are angry... bellatrys May 2 2007, 15:42:39 UTC

since you have to leap in (anonymously) to the defense of your organization, all the way across the country, to comment on a tiny blog in a tiny state.

I'm not angry at you guys, I just think you all are funny and pathetic.

celandineb May 2 2007, 15:49:46 UTC

One of the reactions (on the second page) that grabbed my attention:

"I'm the father of eight kids and I've watched the confusion that's been generated and I'm surprised nobody has stood up and said there is a difference between the 20-year relationship I have with my wife and the 20-year relationship the bishop of the Episcopal Church has with another man. ... As much as they want to claim they have the same rights and responsibilities, they don't have responsibilities for the eight kids I produced that come with marriage and with the love that was designed in the biology of our human system. It's not a fair equation. It's totally inequality to compare friendship to marriage and make friendship an entitlement that government has to protect." -- Pet Mehegan of Pembroke, who came to watch the debate.Good lord. This implies that a married couple without children *waves hello* doesn't have the same rights and responsibilities as Mr. Mehegan does, and thus that my relationship is less valid than his, given that I haven't reproduced ( ... )

I wonder if he's married to the gal who was yipping bellatrys May 2 2007, 15:54:17 UTC

about how civil unions threatened her marriage? ("I could have married another woman, and only had as many/few children as I wanted!")

--Naw, that would be too easy.

This implies that a married couple without children *waves hello* doesn't have the same rights and responsibilities as Mr. Mehegan does, and thus that my relationship is less valid than his, given that I haven't reproduced.

And yes, they really do believe this, although most are sensible enough to avoid saying it outright in public, knowing how much flak it would draw down on them.

Re: I wonder if he's married to the gal who was yipping anna_wing May 2 2007, 16:14:59 UTC

How curious. He appears not to realise that since this litter of his was presumably engendered freely and of his own will, not to mention his wife's, they are a responsibility voluntarily undertaken by him, and therefore there is no especial virtue in his fulfilling said responsibility (to his offspring, if not to his planet). Perhaps there is something to vital fluids doctrine after all.

Oh, I'm sure he doesn't realize it bellatrys May 2 2007, 18:36:11 UTC

"herefore there is no especial virtue in his fulfilling said responsibility (to his offspring"

In fact, he probably thinks his children owe him utter obedience and undying gratitude and endless feet-kissing for his great generosity and self-sacrifice in 1) giving them Life™ and 2) feeding/clothing/housing/educating them until they are old enough to leave...which they will probably do as fast as possible without looking back, depending on how successful he is at guilting and brainwashing them into believing this.

Just based on what I've seen/experienced inside the Natalist movement myself, that is.

Thread 12

nenya_kanadka May 2 2007, 19:57:40 UTC

Wasn't this the first nearly-marriage bill in the US that was passed without being sparked by a court challenge, too? Like, the legislature just up and decided hey, this is something we should consider, and did it like any other law. I really am quite impressed by the low-key lack of hysteria.

Also squeeing ever so decorously at Bishop Robinson getting married again. :D

yeah, it was all very ... hm... bellatrys May 2 2007, 20:18:28 UTC

"See, the system works if you let it!", I guess is the best way to put it - which makes it all the funnier that the UL tries to characterize it as "Tyrant Liberal Gov. Lynch forces his agenda down the throats of the people!" No, the largest elected legislature in the country considered the bill that was brought to it by a group of citizens, listened to testimony on both sides, and voted. Lynch, who stayed in the background throughout (which is & has always been his style, he says he's not here to impose his will on us but to facilitate the people's) signed it but you could tell he really didn't want to get involved or have this upon him at all, he's kind of "I'm against same-sex *marriage*, true, but I'm for fairness, this is what the majority of you want so I have to go along with it and anyway it isn't *marriage*" and kind of opposite of Spitzer that way, it's all very typical of NH politics at its best (which is yes a back-handed compliment *g*)

fledgist May 2 2007, 23:50:01 UTC

On the other hand, here in Georgia, the state legislature has put into place a law withholding recognition from gay marriages and civil unions in other states. Just to demonstrate that while other places may be ready to move out of the Old Stone Age, Georgia is not.

megpie71 May 3 2007, 00:33:25 UTC

Congrats to the state of New Hampshire ( ... )

that's the thing... bellatrys May 3 2007, 16:48:00 UTC

the more this gets argued about, the less coherent (or honest) the arguments against are proven to be. "Bad apologetics is worse than no apologetics at all," I have long said, because getting up there and doing your little rhetorical dance onstage just shows how poorly prepared and flimsy your arguments are - they might have been good enough for your buddies in the coffee shop at your Christian college, but they ain't ready for the big time, nossirree!

How exactly *does* it devalue het marriage? NPR broadcast a hilarious monologue by blogger/host Adam Felber about it set to the Imperial March, showing just how absurd the arguments are by reductio. John Scalzi also had a funny sketch in response to the MA ruling.

In the end, it relies on Escher-esque metaphysics to rationalize bigotry. Like most conservative "moral values", at that.