The best rush reviews of Canada's House of Commons vote for same-sex marriage is this morning's Washington Post article by Doug Struck. Up top, he quotes gay-rights activist Alex Munter saying, "The big peaceable kingdom on the U.S. border will demonstrate that it is absolutely possible for religious freedom to coexist with the end of discrimination against gay and lesbian people."
Then again, people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Beyond the Post piece, we in the United States will have to see whether anti folk consider this a threat. Many claim Massachusetts' same-sex marriage is.
Federalists and cosmopolitans among us believe in the full-faith and credit practices and principles. We honor another state's driver's licenses, for example. We expect the same from other states and nations.
On the other hand, we do impose hard limits. In marriage, for example, all of our states forbid polygamy. Just because another nation permits a man four wives, we do not bend the rules to let him import them as legal spouses here.
So the Chicken Little states who have waited and waited for Massachusetts to collapse under the weight of sin from homosexuals marrying remain fearful. What happens when a Massachusetts marriage sues in their courts for recognition? Will their oh-my-God-not-here amendments or laws prevent a court-imposed recognition, hence legalization?
And now, there is a huge trading partner, ewww, actually touching Minnesota, Michigan, Maine... Canada doesn't even impose a residency requirement. It is even plainer about equality than Massachusetts. What happens to the gay couples from there who become U.S. citizens and want their status recognized?
It must be tough being timorous.
No comments:
Post a Comment