Just the latest example come from our neighboring New Hampshire. Remember those folk who said if we lose in the legislature, we'll accept it. Bovine feces!
They acted the same in Massachusetts, California, New Jersey and now New Hampshire.
Both duly elected houses of the representative democratic legislature passed a civil unions bill last week. The duly elected governor says he'll sign it as soon as he gets it. That is the way democracy is supposed to work at the state level.
So, what do you suppose the anti folk's reaction is? Consider:
- Their lobbying group wants to try to stop this before the January implementation -- by court action.
- A Republican state rep wants to turn right-wing argument on its head by claiming the unions are discriminatory, because they apply only to homosexuals.
The circular reasoning is absurd and a virtual loser in court. On the other hand, if they overplay that, the courts may have to follow the Goodridge path that our high court did. Yes, discrimination against homosexuals is illegal, so they must have the right to marry.
Anyway, the lesson here is that their argument is never going to be about fairness, rather about hindering and discriminating against gays. They lost, big time, in Concord. The time for marriage equality has come to New Hampshire.
When they say, "Let the people speak," what they mean is, "Let the people speak the only words we'll accept."
Tags: massmarrier, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, civil unions
3 comments:
I think the Catch-22 actually is:
"Marriage is special and therefore reserved for opposite-sex couples alone, therefore denying them to same-sex coupes isn't discrmination.
Civil unions would be reserved for same-sex couples alone, so you can't have that, since that would discriminate against opposite-sex couples."
What they really want to say, but know they can't get away with is, "we want to deny all rights to gay people."
The Repub rep is correct: civil unions are certainly discriminatory if heteros can't also get them - just as hetero-only marriage is discriminatory. But of course he's not really wanting to open all institutions to equality, just squash equality wherever it pops up. Personally, I think it's kinda giggly that he chooses to use a pro-equality argument in order to oppose it. I hope he presses the issue in the legislature with all his pretzel-brained might. Waiter?! Popcorn!!
Indeed, you are very right. Of course, the relief is to offer non-discriminatory marriage. How long do you suppose we'd have to wait for that proposal from the elephants?
The Vermont governor wants to fight full marriage equality an Connecticut looks like a struggle. The only heartening aspect seems to be that they are discussing where they need to get.
Post a Comment