The Governor is supporting it, even though it was rumored as of a few days ago he was trying to squash it. I have to think the outrage from progressives in NH had something to do with this - so kudos to all of you brave souls.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Why aren't you condemning this as a back-of-the-bus civil rights violation?
huh? Who ever said that? Society shouldn't be able to strip people of civil rights, I don't have a problem with society expanded badly needed rights to those who have been oppressed.
Good point anonymous. Civil Unions are a "back of the bus" situation.
The bad part of civil unions is that it shows a "compromise" on equal rights, thus not making them equal at all. And LGBT have to be careful by not pointing out that we are NOT happy, shile still understanding that some LGBT with children and in situations where the "rights and privileges" are seriously needed, that we are sensitive to these LGBT.
The best thing about civil unions is that when this country "figures out state by state" how to handle LGBT rights and finally the Supreme Court looks at the entire national picture, then civil unions will be seen as just as you described..."back of the bus."
Then we LGBT who are still alive will get to hear the Supreme Court decision, the media, the pundits and the general populas, in its newly found "enlightenment" about LGBT, now declare "how embarassing it was for the United States to treat LGBT like this."
Human beings learn "of" the mistakes that we make, but we are slow to learn "from" them.
Tom, I think you're missing some sarcasm in Anon's post. I'm pretty sure he's anti-marriage equality in any way, shape or form. Civil Unions aren't a good thing, but I'm confident as more and more states get them, more and more states will go the full marriage route. Certainly, we can keep the pressure for constant progress.
Okay Anon, step right up and let us know which of your civil rights we should be voting on first--free speech, marriage, voting (that would be interesting, huh?), due process, religious freedom (ooh, that one's gotta hurt, too). How about the most basic right of all? You lose the vote, and you're summarily seized and executed by the government, no excuse necessary, democracy over rights, you'd want to make sure you make as many voter turnout calls as you can on that one.
Wow, I'm surprised this question hasn't been answered. Hey, all you "principled" advocates of stripping others of their civil rights, where are you? Why don't you step up and let us know how "principled" you really are, it's a simple question. Of all your civil rights, there must be some lying around unused, still in the box maybe. Which do you want taken away first, maybe we should prohibit marriage altogether? I'm guessing that's what you really intended all along and you got duped by one unscrupulous individual who pulled teh wool over your eyes. And can I give you a ride to pick up the petition forms so we can make this happen ASAP?
Any collection of individuals that form a society has a difficult time defining "civil" rights associated with each of these individuals. If I was a politically astute 17 year old, I would be offended that I can't have my voice heard, but someone in the beginning stages of Alzheimers can still vote. So lines have always been drawn and always will be.
Posts
7 comments:
Why aren't you condemning this as a back-of-the-bus civil rights violation?
After all, we can NEVER vote on civil rights!
huh? Who ever said that? Society shouldn't be able to strip people of civil rights, I don't have a problem with society expanded badly needed rights to those who have been oppressed.
Good point anonymous. Civil Unions are a "back of the bus" situation.
The bad part of civil unions is that it shows a "compromise" on equal rights, thus not making them equal at all. And LGBT have to be careful by not pointing out that we are NOT happy, shile still understanding that some LGBT with children and in situations where the "rights and privileges" are seriously needed, that we are sensitive to these LGBT.
The best thing about civil unions is that when this country "figures out state by state" how to handle LGBT rights and finally the Supreme Court looks at the entire national picture, then civil unions will be seen as just as you described..."back of the bus."
Then we LGBT who are still alive will get to hear the Supreme Court decision, the media, the pundits and the general populas, in its newly found "enlightenment" about LGBT, now declare "how embarassing it was for the United States to treat LGBT like this."
Human beings learn "of" the mistakes that we make, but we are slow to learn "from" them.
Tom, I think you're missing some sarcasm in Anon's post. I'm pretty sure he's anti-marriage equality in any way, shape or form. Civil Unions aren't a good thing, but I'm confident as more and more states get them, more and more states will go the full marriage route. Certainly, we can keep the pressure for constant progress.
"After all, we can NEVER vote on civil rights!"
Okay Anon, step right up and let us know which of your civil rights we should be voting on first--free speech, marriage, voting (that would be interesting, huh?), due process, religious freedom (ooh, that one's gotta hurt, too). How about the most basic right of all? You lose the vote, and you're summarily seized and executed by the government, no excuse necessary, democracy over rights, you'd want to make sure you make as many voter turnout calls as you can on that one.
Wow, I'm surprised this question hasn't been answered. Hey, all you "principled" advocates of stripping others of their civil rights, where are you? Why don't you step up and let us know how
"principled" you really are, it's a simple question. Of all your civil rights, there must be some lying around unused, still in the box maybe. Which do you want taken away first, maybe we should prohibit marriage altogether? I'm guessing that's what you really intended all along and you got duped by one unscrupulous individual who pulled teh wool over your eyes. And can I give you a ride to pick up the petition forms so we can make this happen ASAP?
After all, it's ALL about the PRINCIPLES!
Any collection of individuals that form a society has a difficult time defining "civil" rights associated with each of these individuals. If I was a politically astute 17 year old, I would be offended that I can't have my voice heard, but someone in the beginning stages of Alzheimers can still vote. So lines have always been drawn and always will be.
Post a Comment