Leave a Comment below!
The part that got me was the quote of the comment by the Director of Public Policy for the Family Institute of CT. How can allowing two people that love each other to form a legally recognized union infer that the a legislature believes children don't need a mom and dad?
Every state in the union allows parents to divorce, allows a non-custodial parent to move wherever and stop contact with his/her children. His logic says that allowing a child to grow up with only one "hetero" parent is much better than having two same sex parents.
I have had the article about this bookmarked all day waiting for time to start a major rant in my own blog. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to steam here.
Agreed, Stephanie ~ but on the Bright side, at least the Democratic legislature and the Republican governor of The Constitution State were not swayed but such specious arguments. I'm very proud of my state. :)
"Hurrah for democracy, and hurrah for steps forward toward equality!" I second that Hurrah, BL. :)
Now I know why I enjoyed living there for a year. The only reason I looked forward to moving was because it meant I was going back to my home state and all my family.
Brendan, you don't know what it's like back in here in Connecticut. You're back safe in Indiana. But civilization has completely collapsed! All morals have been shed. Brother is killing brother, parents are eating their own children, and the streets aren't safe thanks to packs of roaming brigands. Connecticut has become a wilderness, a Hobbesian dystopia. All because we let gay people live in the same house and get a few privileges. The humanity!
(Disclaimer: This rant has been a satirical middle finger to all the controlling minds in our country bent on taking all joy from life.)
I don't know, Sean, it sounds like I should leave Indiana and move back to Connecticut. Definately more fun than watching corn grow.
Finally Coach Leahy can experience wedded bliss with his life partner.
I can't wait until the day that biologists are able to eliminate this whole gender thing all together. Then we will truly be equal; equality will pervade every aspect of our being. On that glorious day we will all look like the beautiful archetype of humanity on the cover of Marilyn Manson's "Mechanical Animals". Hooray for equality!
Max, I banned Coach Leahy (making him the first person I have ever taken such an action against in 3 1/2 years of blogging) because of some specific comments he made (now deleted) that were just WAY beyond the pale. So it isn't really sporting to pick on him now, as he can't defend himself. Not that you would have known that, but just an FYI.
Anonymous... nice straw-man argument. Well done.
P.S. Re: Leahy, I want to make clear that my action was not based on the garden-variety "assholishness" that I've criticized previously. It was much worse than that. I don't want to get into the details, but rest assured that I did not make the decision to ban him lightly.
And anyone who thinks Brendan went overboard should know that he rejected my idea of having him hunted down by a squad of ninjas, cowboys and pirates...kill joy...
Brendan,
I'm really not looking to get flamed, but am seriously curious about something that you might have a good idea on regarding CT. How do you think the voters of CT would vote if an amendment to the state constitution was placed on the ballet stating that marriage is to be between one man and one woman? (Assuming that no such ballet initiative has taken place in the past, and for the moment, just looking at the question of marriage, not civil unions.) I think there were 11 states in 2004 with such measures on their ballets that were overwhelmingly voted in favor of such an amendment. Do you think CT voters would do likewise? Why or why not? Thanks.
I'm not as in touch with Connecticut politics as I was once, since I don't live there anymore (my dad might know better), but given the strong bipartisan support in the legislature for the civil-union law, I would assume that such an amendment would likely fail. (If there was a ground-swell of anti-gay-marriage sentiment, I'd assume the civil-union thing would have been harder to pass.) CT seems to be rather progressive with regard to this issue. But perhaps the voters would feel differently if the word "marriage" was attached. I dunno. I do know that, according to one of the linked articles, opponents of gay marriage and civil unions are planning to push something like this, but they want to ban both gay marriage and civil unions. That, I can only assume, would certainly fail; trying to ban something that has broad bipartisan support is obviously overreaching on their part. If they stick to just gay marriage, I dunno. I doubt it would pass, but perhaps we'll find out. I honestly don't recall what the provisions, if any, for constitutional-amendment initiatives are in CT (generally speaking, the state is far less initiatve-happy than, say, California), and I definitely don't know what the required majority, or supermajority, would be; those procedural questions are obviously necessary to give an intelligent answer to the question. My dad would definitely know that stuff. :)
Brendan, although I don't know the severity of Coach Leahy's comments, does he really need a lifetime ban? A "time-out" wouldn't do? He was such a rip--the comment board is not the same without him!
Brendan - similar question (possibly address to the Auld Sod Himself, too) - if an amendment was proposed that said that "A Marriage is the uniting of a Man and a Woman - and a Civil Union is a uniting of any two adults who can legally form a household - and both Marriage and Civil Union grant appropriately equivalent rights and duties" - what is the chance of *that* passing ?
The idea being that it allows for a differentiation between those who want a hen to be called a duck, and those who want to be called ducks yet realise that they are actually mallards ? (You know, the better dressed version of a duck ?)
Oh, but Alasdair, what could be better dressed than two people in matching tuxedos? (Not that there's anythign wrong with that) Anyway, mallards are a subset of ducks, so it does inherently make sense to refer to them as ducks. Just saying...
Mike - it's a good thing *you*, at least, had too much pride to reference "matching ducksedos" ... (grin) ... or to say that my analogy was a mere canard ...
Oh - and thanks for making my point, albeit with a different phrasing ... (grin) ...
Marriage was and is a religious term, which has spilled over into secular areas in many cultures ... at least one country - France - basically differentiates between the secular "civil" union and the belief-system-based marriage ...
Human speech is rarely precise, fortunately, or *none* of my puns could work ...
real estate bridge loans real estate bridge loans real estate bridge loans // pharmacy intern job pharmacy intern job pharmacy intern job
Commenting by HaloScan.com
