Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Supporting Some Friends

I have some very close friends who sometimes feel as though they are surrounded by bigoted fanatics, and sometimes they really are. Unfortunately, fascists have allways used fear-mongering and denegration of 'The Other' to rally support for their own power. Hitler used the Jews, Milosevic used Muslims, and right here in the USA the Christian Right is using gays and lesbians as a 'threat' that they can use to rally ignorant people, including the President. Some might protest the comparison to Hitler, but I don't see much difference between the tactics of the Brown Shirts' pogroms and Focus on the Family or the 700 Club.

There is nothing either Christian or right about bigotry.

I also don't see what the fuss is about. Personally I don't feel that my marriage is threatened by the mere existence of a legally recognized gay couple, and I've never felt compelled to join the club simply by proximity. It is so unfortunate that ‘Live and Let Live’ is deemed to be quaint and naïve. This is a non-issue. It is just stupid.

At any rate, my friends have pointed out to me the Senate is about to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is a particularly onerous attempt to actually use the United States Constitution as a discriminatory weapon so jackasses like Jerry Falwell can sleep well at night knowing that gay men and lesbians can't share healthcare benefits, or have any legal rights and obligations towards each other.

The organization Human Rights Campaign ( has put together a little video here of some of the primary suspects in this little drama. Take a moment to watch it and I hope you'll take a minute to raise your voice.

Remember, this kind of stupidity only happens when the common-sense center takes leave of its responsibility to act and allows extremists to fill the vacuum.


Blogger dantelavelli said...

I support civil unions for gays and lesbians and believe they should receive identical health benefits, etc. to those received by married persons. I distinguish between marriage and civil unions in only one respect: the birth of a child by natural methods is possible in the former and not the latter. Because of that difference, there should be a difference in name: marriage as opposed to civil union. I don't believe a marriage amendment to the Constitution is appropriate. Marriage, divorce and family laws in general are subjects historically left to the states to decide and I think it should remain that way.

2:24 PM  
Blogger Unconscionable said...

Different strokes I guess. Again, I don't understand why it should be an issue that other people even get to have an opinion on. By what appointment do people or groups get to make these kinds of judgements about other people's lives?

And as for the marriage capability of having kids, this logic suggests that couples who can't or choose not to have kids should somehow have a different status than those that can or do. I can't imagine anyone actually making that arguement.

7:02 PM  
Anonymous l. smith said...

I distinguish between marriage and civil unions in only one respect: the birth of a child by natural methods is possible in the former and not the latter.

I can't imagine anyone actually making that arguement.

...someone just did.

12:14 AM  
Blogger Unconscionable said...

To clarify, I can't imagine tht anyone would argue that a STRAIGHT marriage would have lesser legal recognition if there were not children involved - I am as legally married without kids as my neighbor across the street with three - and I don't think someone would argue that our rights as a married couple are diminished due to our status as non-parents.

6:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home