The Oregonian, in today's editorial, "Oregon Should Follow Vermont's Lead - Gay and Lesbian couple would be better off it Massachusetts were launching civil unions" hits a new low in both sense and compassion.
Take a look at some of the things it had to say:
"Most Americans are completely excluded from this happy moment. For them, the concept of gay marriage is utterly foreign."
So what? Most Americans are also completely excluded from the experience of being black or Latino/Latina; from being any sort of minority; half are excluded from being male and the other half from being female. To ANY of these people, the concept of what life is like for that group of people is "utterly foreign." Does that mean that we cannot respect the feelings, needs, and desires of anyone else - in the interest of fairness - simply because it doesn't affect us or we find it "utterly foreign?" Does "utterly foreign" mean "incomprehensible", "unacceptable", or "wrong"?
"Wouldn't it be better if, instead of debating gay marriage, we were debating civil unions right now - an idea that many Americans have learned to embrace?"
So we can only consider change that "most Americans have learned to embrace?" If we use the same yardstick in the past, Asian, Black, and female citizens might still be waiting to vote. Perhaps they would have been accorded "conditional voting rights" to cast ballots only in elections which directly affected their communities . . . without being allowed to hold office or some of the same jobs as a majority of the population.
Perhaps we should not have debated Civil Right in the 1960s . . . when we could have debated gated communities!
The biggest problem encountered at the present time cannot be fixed by proposing civil unions (which in some ways are no better than incorporation - in this country our large corporations seem to be gaining more rights as individuals than gay and lesbian citizens!). A majority of states have passed Constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage or stipulating that marriage must be defined as a union between a man and a woman. So while Massachusetts may recognize same sex marriages, and Vermont may sanction civil unions, the possibility that EITHER of these "in-state" legal conditions might be recognized outside of the states in which they were granted is virtually nil.
"Civil unions may not sound romantic, but they'll last longer than champagne bubbles. Civil unions could offer gay couples a foundation of public acceptance and equality - firm enough to build a life on."
PLEASE! Since when was public acceptance the be-all and end-all of what anyone aspires to in personal commitment? What business is it of anyone elses when what someone else does, does not impact upon them in an tangible, negative way?
If "Civil unions offer . . . equality" then why not do away with the word "marriage" entirely and grand "civil unions" to everyone. THAT would be equality.
As it stands, many seem to equate the accessibility of marriage with the potential to interactively procreate -- something which does not speak to commitment, family, or equality in any meaningful way.
|
This argument falls apart VERY quickly. If non-procreation is the critical aspect in denying a state sanction to a coupling, then many *heterosexual* couplings must be denied sanctioning as well. For example, where one or both partners in a heterosexual coupling are sterile, marriage must be denied using this logic. Similarly, any heterosexaul couple intending to use birth control should be denied marriage. Another example might be a heterosexual couple who do not intend to engage in vaginal intercourse.
Perhaps those advocating this argument against gay mariage would also agree with the other prohibitions I have outlined. Perhaps they would advocate legal documents that would commit all married couples to attempting to produce children. Maybe these documents would spell out how often a couple must have vaginal intercourse in order to maintain their legal married status. Perhaps married couples could be monitored in some some way to ensure they were engaging in vaginal intercourse with sufficient frequency.
Actually, I think those advocating this argument wouldn't agree with it's logical conclusions. Rather, I think they are bigoted fuckers who need to mind their own business.
Don't like gay marriages?
DON'T HAVE ONE!