It isn't usually framed that bluntly though. During a campaign to define marriage in CA, about 10 years ago now, the ads would go on and on about how they're not trying to stop anyone from visiting their loved ones in the hospital, they just want to make the word "marriage" all special and exclusive. I didn't exactly believe them at the time, but I thought that maybe they were fooling themselves. "We don't hate gays, we're just freaking out about this one word, and if you'd leave it alone it'll be okay." But no, they really just hate gays, and I'm sorry I even listened to their other arguments in the attempt to reason with them
( ... )
I'm glad that it is likely to be overturned, and certainly if this exposes the governor for the bigot he is, and loses him the office, that is all to the good.
But mostly, I was beginning to give the just going for partner benefits route serious consideration, especially after the recent vote in Washington (the only time people have voted for gay rights, I believe) but now that idea seems even more deeply flawed (though it is better than nothing.) Unfortunately getting full on marriage rights has also been very hit or miss as well. It will be extremely interesting to see what happens with the new "ban divorce" movement in CA, though I also shudder at the idea of going back to some kind of draconian 1950's ideal.
Comments 2
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But mostly, I was beginning to give the just going for partner benefits route serious consideration, especially after the recent vote in Washington (the only time people have voted for gay rights, I believe) but now that idea seems even more deeply flawed (though it is better than nothing.) Unfortunately getting full on marriage rights has also been very hit or miss as well. It will be extremely interesting to see what happens with the new "ban divorce" movement in CA, though I also shudder at the idea of going back to some kind of draconian 1950's ideal.
Reply
Leave a comment