Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Friends
Usuals
Comments powered by
Site Meter Web Counter
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jun 21, 2006 07:43 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jun 21, 2006 07:43 PM
I don't
or, seriously, it's time to move to
Canada
So, my fair commonwealth, birthplace of the
Constitution, is driving down that by now well-worn path to amending its
Constitution to keep the gays from
marrying.
Here's what our House passed:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal union identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.
Today, the Senate, being slightly less insane, passed this:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.
First, we'll just slide right by the fact that I live in a Commonwealth and not a State (and completely bypass the whole city v. township v. borough issue [I live in a borough by the way]).
Second, it's all become so tiresome at this point. I just feel sometimes like I have a bulls-eye on me sometimes. And I don't understand what I am doing to deserve this. It's just odd. This sounds so naive, but I really want some concrete explanations...of which there are none.
Third, the House was really really worried about the gays and that they were going to get all of the cool stuff that the married breeders get (because that's what we're really worried about...the children). So, they went that next step to cordon off anything like civil unions or partnerships. Now, they did this in Ohio, and look what happened: girl, if your boyfriend happens to smack you around a bit...too bad. Gotta love unintended consequences. Or were they? Because, I do believe it's all actually about a war against sex, which is why I was so entertained by Americablog's calling campaign to ask US Senators about their sexual practices, the best examples of which were these exchanges. Abortion, sex ed, gay marriage. No sex thank you, we're American.
Fourth, if this is really about the children, then how come Italy, home of Catholicism, that big old marriage-lovin' religion, has an abysmal birth rate? Just asking. Red talks about how there are and have always been different definitions of family and what it means to be a loving partnership, but, I go back to point the third: I really think this is about sex and about male power. I'm going to stick with that until I see a majority of women really hating the gays.
Oh, the bonus to all of this is that I was all ready to call my state Senator to say, dude, don't vote for this heinous thing, and then I found out...well, he's one of the authors of the damn thing. UGH.
So, there's still a possibility this will go to the voters in 2007, but that would mean that the Rethugs would get their act together and reconcile the two bills. We'll see.
I just have to move.
Here's what our House passed:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal union identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.
Today, the Senate, being slightly less insane, passed this:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.
First, we'll just slide right by the fact that I live in a Commonwealth and not a State (and completely bypass the whole city v. township v. borough issue [I live in a borough by the way]).
Second, it's all become so tiresome at this point. I just feel sometimes like I have a bulls-eye on me sometimes. And I don't understand what I am doing to deserve this. It's just odd. This sounds so naive, but I really want some concrete explanations...of which there are none.
Third, the House was really really worried about the gays and that they were going to get all of the cool stuff that the married breeders get (because that's what we're really worried about...the children). So, they went that next step to cordon off anything like civil unions or partnerships. Now, they did this in Ohio, and look what happened: girl, if your boyfriend happens to smack you around a bit...too bad. Gotta love unintended consequences. Or were they? Because, I do believe it's all actually about a war against sex, which is why I was so entertained by Americablog's calling campaign to ask US Senators about their sexual practices, the best examples of which were these exchanges. Abortion, sex ed, gay marriage. No sex thank you, we're American.
Fourth, if this is really about the children, then how come Italy, home of Catholicism, that big old marriage-lovin' religion, has an abysmal birth rate? Just asking. Red talks about how there are and have always been different definitions of family and what it means to be a loving partnership, but, I go back to point the third: I really think this is about sex and about male power. I'm going to stick with that until I see a majority of women really hating the gays.
Oh, the bonus to all of this is that I was all ready to call my state Senator to say, dude, don't vote for this heinous thing, and then I found out...well, he's one of the authors of the damn thing. UGH.
So, there's still a possibility this will go to the voters in 2007, but that would mean that the Rethugs would get their act together and reconcile the two bills. We'll see.
I just have to move.
Posted: Wed - June 21, 2006 at 07:43 PM |