This nonsense that panders to the religious right that marriage can ONLY be between a man and a woman is disgraceful. If ONE person can show Johnny how one woman marrying another woman and getting the declared legal rights as such, and the same thing as a man marrying another man, if you you can show his this negatively negatively amortizes YOUR personal marriage Johnny would love to hear it. Just saying a marriage is only between a man and a woman isn't enough, that just doesn't hold water, you have to PROVE this cheapens or somehow adversely affects your own marriage.
Sounds like the only time the New Jersey Senate and certain small minded New Jersians want to have 'rights' is April 15th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
How 'bout a compromise: Call it something else besides "marriage", and I'm all for it. (Civil union, domestic partnership, etc.)
Why does everyone think if we 'call it something else' it's better? Would you want your relationship diminished by being referred to as 'a union' to make it more palatable? Ridiculous. Marriage is a legal contract - having religious blessing doesn't give it added value and is just as likely to succeed or fail as a couple that goes to a justice of the peace.
Gays deserve the same rights as anyone else.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one Jim, I think full legal marriage. One reason I'm so stubborn on this is that the right wing influences always tend to water down civil unions and domestic partnership laws over the legality of inheritance, making end of life decisions wherein parents or other family tries to step in and take control, insurance benefits etc.
I am all for all the same rights, I just don't want it called marriage, that word already has a specific, distinct meaning. Using it for something else FORCES people to view it as being equal, and in the majority of people's minds, it's not and never will be equal.
Politics is the art of compromise. And btw, I am a conservative, and that's farther than you'll see most conservatives go on this issue.
Also, other countries call it domestic partnership, and it seems to work just fine (in specific, I am referring to the UK, but I'm sure other countries do as well).
Jim, I respect your stance, I've heard it many times before, but I have to go with Johnny on this. I think calling it something else would not force others to view it as equal and leaves too much room for those opposed to it to water it down and limit rights ("It's just a civil union, after all"). Pandering to the religious right helps no one.
Actually Jim I see where you are going on this and I think it has Trojan Horse merit. If all legal rights were afforded with NOTHING held back and in 100% the same rights as marriage but for the conservatives and christians who oppose it just CALL It CIvil Union and they looked the other way while thinking they had done something is getting the mail goal passed by thinking outside the box. I don't care about labels, call me Irish American, White American, Honky, Cracker I really could care less as long as I won. That's crazy enough to work IF the gay community would accept winning the chess match for the sake of a term.
I also find your conservative slant on this issue, I view it not an issue government should be involved in other than to just record the info. Like a comedian said one time, "Gays should enjoy the same right to be just as miserable as heterosexual couples can be"
Post a Comment