I do but you don't

What he said:

It cannot be denied that this feels like a punch in the gut. It is. I'm not going to pretend that the wound isn't deep and personal, like an attack on my own family. It was meant to be. Many Obama supporters voted against our rights, and Obama himself opposes our full civil equality. The religious folk who believe that Jesus stood for the marginalization of minorities, and who believe that my equality somehow threatens their children, will, I pray, see how misguided they have become. And make no mistake: they won this by playing on very deep fears of gay people around kids. They knew the levers to pull.

How do some people deny other people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even when it's no skin off their noses?

There is nothing wrong with this picture:

UPPITY DATE: More here.

How people can vote for the first African American president in American history, with all that implies, while simultaneously voting to discriminate against gays is testament to the incoherence of American politics and the lack of clear cut philosophy guiding people's choices. Everyone says there's too much ideology in our politics but I'd say there isn't enough. There isn't enough common sense either. Discrimination against others just because you don't like how they live their lives is against the very essence of the two pillars of America --- liberty and equality. To fail to see that even as you vote for an historic, important first African American is incoherent.

I keep hearing about how this will right itself in the long run, that it's just a matter of waiting until this new generation gets old enough and then gay rights will magically be "granted." I hope that's true. But to paraphrase a saying that's been overused lately -- in the long run all of today's gay partners and gay parents will be dead. These soothing tones of "patience" and "don't worry" don't mean much when you consider that you only have one life to live.

Comments

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"There isn't enough common sense either."

once again, Monty Python gets it ...

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm

.......

STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.

JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[sooey]

But marriage is just a made up institution. It's not biology. Way to miss the point of Monty Python, too, by the way.

[Ron Good]

I think government oughtta get out of the marriage and relationship brokering business entirely, and that goes for straights, gays and polygamists. No benefits, no special rules. The structure of one's consensual personal relationships is simply not the government's proper business.

But you ask how people can vote for Obama and not for the right of gays to equal status relationships, and you note there are no cohesive principles in play.

Well, that's correct but here's the real problem: it's *impossible* to apply a same cohesive principle to both at the same time.

Gay marriage is essentially an *individualist* proposition: the right to one's own life, the right to make one's own choices free from state interference, free of state censure or preference. The conundrum is that individualism is directly antithetical to much/most of Obama's platform.

[Alex]

I wonder why so few people advocate the European solution to the whole gay marriage issue.

1. Have civil unions for everyone, gay and straight.

2. For those who feel they need a bit of magic, they can go to the church of their choice to have their union blessed by the big sky-daddy, Mother Earth or whatever faith-based ritual(s) they consider necessary or appropriate.

The advantage is that this would take the state completely out of the marriage business. It would also placate the churches because each would be entitled to claim that only its rituals create a traditional "marriage," so that in the eye of their deity, all others are not really married, or sinning, or hell-bound. That way, the churches would be free to continue with their hateful invective against all who disagree with their views but, as long as no legal consequences followed from their rituals, equality would be maintained.

After all, unless the state is trying to push one religion over other, its only interest in marriage is specifying the legal consequences thereof, and those can be defined within the context of civil unions.

Not only that, but the happy couple, gay or straight, could have two celebrations: one civil and one metaphysical. Hey, any excuse for a drink, right?

[Adam]

Alex, you've got it spot on. I've been saying that to some Americans for years, and I keep being told it could never pass because Christians think the USA is founded on Christianity above all else, and that it is a christian nation, so there would be a lot to lose for them if Christianity's foot in the government(marriage) was taken out.

Still, that idea is the best idea. Separation of church and state all the way. :)