Tuesday, November 09, 2004

more on "gay marriage"

I didn't realize this, but apparently a lot of the so-called "gay marriage bans" did a lot more than just ban gay marriage. The Boston Globe reports:

In pivotal Ohio, for example, the voters may not have realized it but they voted to strip people of the right to contractually arrange distribution of assets, child custody, pensions, and other employment benefits. They most definitely were not "protecting" marriage; they were attacking gay people. That is why the political and business establishment there, including Republicans, opposed the measure.

It seems that the language of "ban gay marriage" was used to cover up a whole host of other things. This is troubling. Personally, I don't believe the State should be interfering with marriage at all; that should, in theory, be left to the churches. Problem comes because recognition from the Church leads to rights by the State - and it is these rights we want, not just the "right" to walk down the aisle. Although I definitely want that for myself one day.

You know, I never understood one thing. Right-wingers complain all the time about gay people being promiscuous etc. Well, here's a big bunch of gay people wanna get married and, apparently, not be promiscuous. Right-wingers don't want us to do that either (maybe because they would have to face up to the fact of their own bullshit.)

No comments: