It's NOT good, not at all, for "same-sex couples" to be "given" unions while an amendment redefines marriage (as opposed to "unions") as between one man and one woman. All that does is legalize the concept of separate water fountains and makes it that much harder in the fight to force the state to recognize that homosexuals are entitled to the SAME civil rights as heteros.
I don't like the amendment one bit. I think it sucks. I've read that it's some sort of compromise so that the proponents of the bill can get the more religious members of the legislature to vote for it. The Catholic Church has been campaigning pretty strongly against the bill.
The bill, however, seems like a good thing--it's the first time that anyone has proposed extending legal protection to civil unions without a court ordering them to do so.
I don't buy it. This is just going to make it harder for gay couples to gain access to MARRIAGE, because hey, they have civil unions, right, why do they need OUR marriage?
As you can see, I reject the notion that it's acceptable to "give" gay couples civil unions but deny them marriage.
Ideally, I'd like marriage to be extended to everyone. But I think it's going to take a few years for people to get used to the idea of civil unions--and to realize that a civil union that has the same legal protections as a marriage is functionally no different than a marriage, so why are we calling it something different again? Why don't we just allow marriage and its protections to everyone?
We will get to that point. I have no doubt of it. A lot of people in America aren't at that point yet, though. They have to get acclimated to the idea. Which is frustrating, because it's such a basic concept: all people should be able to marry those they love.
I don't think you need a cell phone for Twitter; that's just one of many ways to use it. Way to go on screwing with the survey, though! Knowing them, they'll probably ignore it (like the time LJ skewed a poll at a similar oprganisation), but it's the thought that counts.
I KNOW gay marriage is legal in Connecticut. But apparently there's still that bill about civil unions. (That's why I checked the bills in the Connecticut General Assembly.) And there's an organization that wants to "redefine marriage."
*headdesk*
Don't ask me. I gave up expecting logic from politics ages ago. I was posting more about the stupid survey than anything.
I swear that the article I linked to had a dateline of April 13, 2009. Oh well. I'll unlink it.
*laughs* And the automated voice on the phone called it NOM too.
They won't count your vote. Anytime one of those groups starts a polll and the results aren't what they want, they say it was 'tampered with' or 'sabotaged.'
Yeah.. reality sabotages their preconceived notions.
Comments 12
Reply
The bill, however, seems like a good thing--it's the first time that anyone has proposed extending legal protection to civil unions without a court ordering them to do so.
Reply
As you can see, I reject the notion that it's acceptable to "give" gay couples civil unions but deny them marriage.
Reply
Ideally, I'd like marriage to be extended to everyone. But I think it's going to take a few years for people to get used to the idea of civil unions--and to realize that a civil union that has the same legal protections as a marriage is functionally no different than a marriage, so why are we calling it something different again? Why don't we just allow marriage and its protections to everyone?
We will get to that point. I have no doubt of it. A lot of people in America aren't at that point yet, though. They have to get acclimated to the idea. Which is frustrating, because it's such a basic concept: all people should be able to marry those they love.
Reply
Way to go on screwing with the survey, though! Knowing them, they'll probably ignore it (like the time LJ skewed a poll at a similar oprganisation), but it's the thought that counts.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Also, while the bill you linked to is from 2009, the article you linked to is from 2005.
In funnier news, National Organization for Marriage = NOM.
OM NOM NOM.
Reply
*headdesk*
Don't ask me. I gave up expecting logic from politics ages ago. I was posting more about the stupid survey than anything.
I swear that the article I linked to had a dateline of April 13, 2009. Oh well. I'll unlink it.
*laughs* And the automated voice on the phone called it NOM too.
Reply
They won't count your vote. Anytime one of those groups starts a polll and the results aren't what they want, they say it was 'tampered with' or 'sabotaged.'
Yeah.. reality sabotages their preconceived notions.
The earth is, in fact, NOT flat.
Reply
Leave a comment