(Untitled)

Feb 26, 2005 17:08

Leave a comment

Comments 10

quillpen February 26 2005, 22:46:35 UTC
wow...

that's amazing.

Reply


didi_the_blue February 26 2005, 23:58:27 UTC
i'm torn, too
the marriage-or-nothing folks have a serious point
but what if the legislators are "ready" to endorse civil union now and won't be ready to endorse marriage for another fifty, hundred years?
i mean, i hope they'll have an epiphany soon
but holding out for all your rights when you could have many of them right now...people's lives are affected every day
they're dying in the hospital, and their partners aren't allowed to see them because they're "not family"

if you settle for civil unions, The Man probably will say, "well, you have something; and that's better than nothing"
but what if you hold out for marriage and he says, "you rejected our generous offer; since you're so ungrateful, we're withdrawing the civil unions idea, and don't even think about marriage"?

i personally would refrain from canvassing...

Reply

ath8na February 28 2005, 01:36:21 UTC
yeah, I didn't go. "The Man" heh.

Reply


zahavah February 26 2005, 23:59:22 UTC
hmm. i say good for you... LMF's logic may be a nice sentiment, and this woman's personal history certainly has affected her in a tangible and understandable way.... but it's just not appropriate in today's political environment, where the options seem to be a ban or not... there isn't a choice today of civil union vs. marriage: marriage isn't even in the playing cards. under the bush administration, it seems that if groups are not actively opposing a ban, such a ban will fall into place... and then it will become even more difficult to get it "ALL" when the times comes.... the GLBT community of CT will be trying to work itself out of a hole, like it is so many other places in the country.

... and now i shall go away, because i have just woken up and i don't think i'm making so much sense.

Reply


BS anonymous February 27 2005, 02:05:48 UTC
Meredith: Do you know what this means? "Legislators gave my grandmother “half a loaf” to hold her over “until.” My grandmother died at the age of 82… waiting for the other half. I am still trying to claim her half, mine and then some."

What exactly was the "half" her grandmother was waiting for, and that Ms. Almonte is planning to claim on her behalf? My grandmother was an immigrant with 12 children who worked like a dog for most of her (much shorter than 82 year) life. Does that entitle me to something special now?

Ms. Almonte is a spoiled drama queen. Enough with the generations-old grievances.

Your (cranky) Mom

Reply

Re: BS ath8na February 28 2005, 01:38:46 UTC
A) Marriage is not a special entitlement, and if you couldn't get married, I'd be out there yelling about it, immigrant grandma or no.

B)I agree. Marriage has nothing to do with immigrant grandmas, or loaves, or whatever. Sarahi is silly and feels, as Didi would say, oppressed by "the Man."

Reply

Re: BS anonymous February 28 2005, 03:38:25 UTC
If I couldn't get married, dear, you wouldn't be around to yell about anything at all. I take your point, however.

Reply

Re: BS ath8na February 28 2005, 04:15:59 UTC
heh. heh. point taken. heh.

Reply


littlesarybear February 27 2005, 20:47:26 UTC
I personally don't see civil unions as a bad thing. They are a step in the right direction. I have found that people get very caught up in the word "marriage". Marriage is two different things: a legally binding contract AND a social contract of sorts. From a governmental standpoint we can only work on the legal issue of getting rights. To achieve social equality with respect to relationships we have to show people that we're not scary and that we don't somehow "degrade" their marriage (though I really don't understand the supposed basis for that arguement at all). No religious instution is prevented by the government from performing a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex. It is left up to the religious instution to make that judgement call, as it is left up to them to make the decision to persons of different religions (etc) to wed. What is missing is a LEGAL right to binding contract of responsibility between two persons of the same sex such that they can make legal decisions for one another and in some places ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up