Friday, December 12, 2008

Oppose Gay Marriage, but Approve Civil Unions?

This was a question I first asked on at this conservative blog, but got no replies (as of this post, almost 24 hours later, anyway... Hopes still run high.)

Putting the terms "marriage" & "civil union" aside for a second, the question is, what rights & privileges would you grant to homosexual couples who choose to enter a legal "relationship," and what rights/privileges would you withhold from them?

In other words, under federal, state, & local law, how should the legal "relationship" between homosexuals differ from the legal "relationship" between heterosexuals, regardless of what our government or we, the people, call either relationship?

I ask because several people at the blog linked above & elsewhere have said they believe civil unions for gays are alright, but gay marriage is not. (As anyone who's read much of what I've written on the subject knows, I'd agree, were marriage used strictly as the term of religion it was meant to be, rather than as a term of US law.)

In the wake of a Newsweek poll that said 31% of the respondents support full marriage rights for same-sex couples (as opposed to support for civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples, but not full marriage rights (32%) or opposition to any legal recognition for same-sex couples (30%)), the author of the blog linked above has been using the term "full-blown same-sex marriage rights." However, he's also spoken approvingly of "full civil equality for gay Americans," and I'm trying to figure out what the differences are between "full blown marriage rights" (for everyone) & "full civil equality," because I don't believe there are any....

I'm not asking for the religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. If your religion teaches you that homosexuality is a sin, that's your belief, and I'm fine with your believing that--and trying to persuade others to feel the same, even (though I don't think your beliefs should have any weight in US law, unless there is also a secular reason to do so... We are not a theocracy.) But as a matter of US law, how should "marriage" differ from "civil union?" How do we recognize the "full civil equality" of gay people--in fact, of ALL people--without recognizing the same "full blown marriage rights" for them that we do for everyone else?

Anyone care to explain it to me?

Friday, December 5, 2008

Protect Marriage. Prohibit Divorce.

If the reasons for prohibiting gay marriage are sound, why don't they apply to divorce, as well?

See more funny videos at Funny or Die
That petition link is Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce And if you haven't already seen the fabulous Prop-8 musical, you've really been missing something... (Like my new buddy Ben, I'm dedicating the video below to [that guy] & his growing collection of sycophants, theocrats, & especially his sycophantic theocrats.)
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

An Endlessly Angry Enemy of Americans

In a screed called America's Enemies Within, a guy sez:
"This post is inspired by two angry anti-American commenters at this blog, commenters who have called me a 'hater' and 'terrorist' because of their inability to rebut the opinions I have expressed: Ben Sutherland and James Casper."
First off, I don't understand why the guy insists on using unrelated posts and off-topic links in his replies. The post below to which he originally linked (or Ben's, for that matter) have nothing to do with the topic about which he's whining. Does he not realize it, or does he simply not give a shit?

Second (after reading the whole of his piece & Snooper's), I don't know who I feel more sorry for; Snooper (who served his country at least, but returned with such hatred for his fellow citizens), or this guy, who appears to come by it all naturally, and without any similar sacrifice.

Neither Ben or I are anti-American. We both love our country, and speak to it's values and our own, generally without much in the way of belittling others, including those who disagree with us. In fact, Ben & I don't even come from the same political side ourselves--he a Libertarian, and me a Green--but we do see this blogger the same way... A pompous blowhard who'd rather puff up with "righteous indignation" at everyone & everything he deems an enemy (many of whom are his fellow citizens, rather than the "real" terrorists--which is a charge he tosses at others pretty often, but obviously fails to recognize in himself...) One becomes anti-American (or a "nihilist," or a "Stalinist," or a "socialist," "radical" "extremist" or... or...) simply by disagreeing with the guy or showing him up. Folks can decide for themselves whether I've done so (there are many exchanges between this blogger & I, both on my blog and his) but I will say that Ben pegged him down like a howling polecat in his very first comment, and the guy has seemingly never recovered from the slight, as evidenced by his post denouncing us.

The guy all about the propaganda... And as others have pointed out, he's been getting meaner & more spiteful to those among his fellow Americans who don't share his political or social views since his man McCain (as well as many other hopefuls in his party) lost the election. It's fine to be angry and to flail his arms at the sky damning everyone for not believing as he believes if that's what he wants. But he'll have to learn to forgive the rest of us (both left & right, apparently) for seeing such screeds as the unbalanced nonsense that they are and daring to say so.