Hey, AN, here's a post I wrote yesterday at Good Reason News. Please feel free to visit me there and leave comments, if'n that's what you're into.
I've laid out my argument for gay marriage several times before
, but to succinctly review what I've said, I maintain that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder
, that when it takes place between two human adults, they are both in the position to provide sound consent. And that since nearly all our laws concerning sex involve sound consent (and are designed to protect those who are unable to provide it), a ban on gay marriage can not be logically defended.
It, of course, is religiously defended - to which any reasonable person would reply that religion does not and should not play a role in our government.
Now, it takes a lot of discussion to bring the Christian conservative to understand that they're logically cornered on this, but once they do, they often use the last little projectile in their pathetic arsenal — civil unions.
Today the governor of Rhode Island vetoed a bill that would allow domestic partners the right to organ...
Now look, I understand that domestic partnerships
are not civil unions.
That's exactly my point. Less rights are afforded to those in domestic partnerships than are to those in civil unions just as less rights are afforded to those in civil unions than are to those married.
Conservatives ask me if I'd be happy if 'civil unions' were legally identical to marriage, if I'd be happy.
They can't, and they never will be because with the different title comes a different set of legislation. Would African-Americans in the 1940s and 50s been happy if their children's schools were segregated, but equal?
This case in Rhode Island proves that different classifications result in different treatment and eventually different institutions. Separate is never equal.
Nobody's looking to change your precious churches or force kids to try being gay, it's rights like funeral arrangements that need to be afforded these people.
Since this different classification forever puts upon the 'civilly united' the threat of unequal treatment, I couldn't really back it and so no, I wouldn't be happy with that.
By calling it something else, even if it started out exactly equal, it's leaving open the loophole that one day the country will sway right and the powers that be will bestow some benefit to one and not the other, probably in an attempt to shore up their base (just like this Rhode Island case).
That's what I mean when I say separate is not equal.