|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 25, 2009 16:02:41 GMT -5
Stephen Cable, president of the group Vermont Renewal, an organization that opposes same-sex marriage, said the civil unions law and the possible passage of gay marriage bill shows the state "no longer seeks to promote that each child have a mother and a father. And I think that's shameful and very sad"Hold on, let me call in my divorced parents from opposite sides of town and my brother's single mom ex girlfriend to laugh at how stupid you are. God this is a dumb argument. When the hell did we get some standard of parenting besides not beating or starving them? Or how about we talk to my parents. Up until my early teens, my mother essentially raised me as a single parent because my father was always gone for work.
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on Mar 25, 2009 16:52:19 GMT -5
And of course, there are people like my mother, who was widowed at 27. I was 7 and my kid brother was only a month old. I wrote on the old board about how the shoddy treatment she got at church because she refused to remarry right away made her stop going, though she still identifies as Assemblies of God. I wonder how many Christian heterosexuals the right-wing bigots are alienating with these talking points.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 25, 2009 17:19:44 GMT -5
Separate but equal is still preferable to separate and unequal. Tell that to the blacks the SBE laws targeted. They weren't equal, not in any sense. CU laws say "you guys can't marry. Ever. But here, we'll give you a portion of those rights, completely non-transferrable, and call that enough. Because these unions are limited, you will probably run into problems that would not happen if we had given you all the rights, and you may have to fight legal battles not to have what limited rights we gave you overturned." Marriage will still mean denied rights, but at least it'll be because the Feds are jackasses, not because the guys who are telling us we have the same rights as hets are jackasses. Don't get me wrong, I do think that civil unions are unequal, but I do think that when the options are a few rights or none, a few is preferable. Over here there are none.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 25, 2009 18:03:31 GMT -5
Tell that to the blacks the SBE laws targeted. They weren't equal, not in any sense. CU laws say "you guys can't marry. Ever. But here, we'll give you a portion of those rights, completely non-transferrable, and call that enough. Because these unions are limited, you will probably run into problems that would not happen if we had given you all the rights, and you may have to fight legal battles not to have what limited rights we gave you overturned." Marriage will still mean denied rights, but at least it'll be because the Feds are jackasses, not because the guys who are telling us we have the same rights as hets are jackasses. Don't get me wrong, I do think that civil unions are unequal, but I do think that when the options are a few rights or none, a few is preferable. Over here there are none. The question of few versus all is complicated. Does evolution or revolution work better? Is it better to obtain a few changes at a time or strive to get everything at once. Unfortunately, while I as a gay person want to be equal right now, revolutions have a really bad record. Social or economic changes never seem to be a result of revolutions but evolutions (and that is true for the French revolution too - it was a consequence of already prevalent economics and social changes, and by itself it failed considering the reactionism that followed). So I will fight for/support the cause but I will not expect a revolution to happen outright. But then again I would not conform to live with anything but full rights.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 25, 2009 23:27:22 GMT -5
My solution? Get rid of marriges all together. The only thing that can be legally reconized is civil unions.
Ironbite-problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 26, 2009 2:00:33 GMT -5
And of course, there are people like my mother, who was widowed at 27. I was 7 and my kid brother was only a month old. I wrote on the old board about how the shoddy treatment she got at church because she refused to remarry right away Seriously?? That's a new one for me.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 26, 2009 8:34:37 GMT -5
Or how about we talk to my parents. Up until my early teens, my mother essentially raised me as a single parent because my father was always gone for work. My Mom raised me mostly, because my Dad was fired after 20 years and spent the majority of his time looking for a job. They don't want to hire 40 somethings who have worked only one job for more than two decades. Of course, they'd probably tell me that's why I ended up a tranny--Lack of a father figure. Don't get me wrong, I do think that civil unions are unequal, but I do think that when the options are a few rights or none, a few is preferable. Over here there are none. Over here, they codified into law that marriage is one man and one woman, and the promise of a few rights made people complacent because gays could now "marry" under a different name. In short, I think it did more harm than good. Also, pardon the rant. It's not aimed at you. I just have a near pavlovian response to GBLT rights issues and women's rights issues.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 26, 2009 10:19:52 GMT -5
I just have a near pavlovian response to GBLT rights issues and women's rights issues. I'm two of those four, and so get pretty reactionary towards it as well.My solution? Get rid of marriges all together. The only thing that can be legally reconized is civil unions.
Ironbite-problem solved. Actually that wouldn't be that great of an idea, as it'd require being replaced with other forms and documents for setting healthcare benefits (which would be irrelevant if we had universal health care, but that's who knows how far away), joint filling of taxes, handling of estate upon death, responsibility over children, hospital visitation, and a slew of other things. Instead what I think would be better is to just remove gender from most non-medical documents, and even those need to become more flexible to actually be able to account for how it's not a binary, even at the basic medical definitions.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 26, 2009 10:44:15 GMT -5
I just have a near pavlovian response to GBLT rights issues and women's rights issues. I'm two of those four, and so get pretty reactionary towards it as well.Likewise.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Mar 26, 2009 11:36:24 GMT -5
Over here, they codified into law that marriage is one man and one woman, and the promise of a few rights made people complacent because gays could now "marry" under a different name. In short, I think it did more harm than good Thats what I hate about them. The constant insistence that I'm already equal and only want marriage to piss them off. Usually they just ignore me when I point out that it has about half the benefits and still only 1/5 the country has them. If I try asking why we can't have civil unions for interracial couples *they're equal after all, and this way we dont spit on the beliefs of christian identity* not a single one responds.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 26, 2009 12:25:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by renaissanceblonde on Mar 27, 2009 0:07:59 GMT -5
Equal rights, snow, equal rights, snow...
Fuck it. Let's banish Prop 8 so I could get married in a place with a decent climate! Or just convince Australia that gay marriage is good!
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 27, 2009 0:33:33 GMT -5
From what I've heard the good people of Vermont are pretty independent-thinking. I'd like to move there. Hey, maybe this will make all the fundies leave! Sweet! ;D I'm all for anyone moving up here to help scare the crazies out.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 27, 2009 0:55:25 GMT -5
Or just convince Australia that gay marriage is good! I'm all for that! Come live in Brisbane. It's nice here. Melbourne and Sydney are too busy/crowded and the bush is boring, lonely and filled with racist scum.
|
|
|
Post by renaissanceblonde on Mar 27, 2009 2:21:43 GMT -5
Got to back up Lt. Fred, though I say the Gold Coast is superior to Brisvegas...
|
|