NEWS: Live Free Or Gay

POLITICS: Live Free Or Gay

It’s nice to see a state take their motto seriously. On Tuesday, the New Hampshire state House voted to extend the “right” of civil unions to same-sex couples.

Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut and California have some form of civil unions. Massachusetts is the only state that currently permits gays to marry. Of course, when the topic of homosexual unions enters into the public debate, you’d expect controversy. New Hampshire is no exception. What’s interesting about those who are opposing the New Hampshire bill is that they’re not throwing out the now-predictable canards about “marriage being reserved for procreation” or “the degradation of the modern family.” Instead, we’re getting opposition from the political right with a twist: they’re saying it doesn’t go far enough for straight people.

Mooney’s argument is really quite silly, of course. If heterosexual couples, roommates of the opposite sex and others want to share legal benefits as a couple, they can get fucking married. On the other hand, gays have no such luxury. The stronger argument comes from those who point out the inherent inequality in the idea of civil unions.

The bill now heads to the New Hampshire Senate. If it passes it will land on the desk of Governor John Lynch. Lynch opposes gay marriage but somehow has no opinion of civil unions. Which is a polite way of saying that he’s not going to take a stand until he’s forced to.

Lol @ discriminating against heterosexuals. Because, indeed, it is common practice for a group of people to discriminate against themselves.

YAY!! for your first article...and it is good too...go figure.

"If heterosexual couples, roommates of the opposite sex and others want to share legal benefits as a couple, they can get fucking married."

Really? Lets say, for instance, your brother dies and wants to leave you and your sister, both godparents, custody of his child - then you can just get married? I'm not so sure about that.

Many states place an assumed level of sexualy intimacy onto marriage. In many, you can get an annulment very late into marriage if it can be shown that the marriage wasn't consumated.

For whatever it's original intended purpose, it's entirely possible that the civil union laws are effectively creating a new category of legally recognized relationship - one where the conjoined share certain legal rights and responsibilities without an assumed romantic/sexual aspect to that relationship. Basically nothing more than a legal partnership, but with regards to sharing of personal and family responsibility instead of business responsibility. And if such a useful relationship is limited to one group of people, then charges of discrimination aren't unwarented.

It happens. It's rare, and this isn't the case here, but it happens.

lol

uhh, a person dying and leaving their child in custody of two siblings would be a guardianship, not a civil union.

On a side note, I remember my parents' marriage being anything but a "civil" union.

Oh well...at least they've moved on.

Can I just take this little moment to say how much I love the articles you have been putting out, 'brosa?

I wish there was no government involvement in Marriages or Civil Unions. Why should someone get legal benefits for choosing to have a partner. The only thing we need is custody and contract law. If people want something resembling a legal marriage they can draw up a contract.

Why it matters so much to so many straight people who gets married somehow eludes me. I couldn't care less who marries whom. Unless it's someone marrying ME; then I might take an interest.

Conratulations to Subrosa - didn't know you were newsing. Great job!

What about poly relationships where three or more people want to be in some sort of union? Who is standing up for their rights?

I actually think is a great idea - why not create this new category of "legally unioned" people. It would apply great to things like Boston marriages, many of which were probably lesbian couples but not necessarily all. I see no problem with just allowing people to draw up all sorts of little contracts about their preferred family units - including for poly groupings. I mean, I'm sure the Republican twist on this, in this particular case, is obnoxious and short-sighted. But their broader point, regardless of their intention, is still pretty interesting.

That's pretty much what marriage already is - a contract between two individuals, just a specific kind of one.

Exhibit A: the Self-Hating Jew

Exhibit B: the Self-Hating Homosexual
(where do you think fag-bashing comes from?)

And no arguments, please- they're honest examples, but my post is intended for amusement purposes only...

if you don't want any arguments, you shouldn't post stupid things like 'fag-bashing' was started by homosexuals.

Not homosexuals- self-loathing homosexuals (looks like you should get those cataracts checked). If someone wasn't conflicted within themselves, they wouldn't care in the first place.
(ask around- the closeted-gay-as-gay-basher concept is pretty widely accepted)

BTW- only an asshole starts an argument over a joke. Lighten up, dude...

So bigots and homophobes originally got the idea of gay-bashing from people who were really just self-loathing homosexuals? It had nothing to do with their prejudice and intolerance? It was all just peer pressure? Really?

For real. The people who are violent toward gays are the same people who will deny their own homosexual tendencies the loudest. It's overcompensation combined with fear and converted to hatred.

"EW! I HATE FAGS! I'M GONNA BEAT ONE UP!" *thinks about buttsecks*

Yeah, definitely. And the Rodney King beating was done by a bunch of cops who just wanted to be black!

I always thought that that idea was just a sort of gay-bashing-reversed-but-not-effectively-which-means-that-
it's-still-gay-bashing thing. "You hate gays? It must be because you're gay! OMG, you're SO GAY!" Still using gay as an insult.

Yup. The government really needs to get out of the marriage business. No political benefits from church run marriages. No religionus implications from state legitimized contracts. Want to be all hunky dory (spelling?) with everyone then sign your contract before saying your vows.

The problem with what they're doing here is that it's just making the whole situation more convoluted. More different types of things each limited to one group or another is a recipe for inequality. Separate but equal was shot down as a social ideal for very good reason. You can't maintain it in reality.

I'm not disputing that the civil union is an imperfect system, or that it creates unequal situations. But so does marriage. The point that I was getting at is that with the exception of a brother and sister and maybe a few other examples, opposite sex couples have marriage as an avenue to create those legal rights. Same sex couples do not.

I am not at all saying that roommates shouldn't have access to civil unions as well or that civil unions are a panacea. My position is that they're a flawed stepping stone to equal marriage rights. But to oppose civil unions (and continue to disenfranchise a significant percentage of your populace) because two roommates can't get them when they already have other available options? Come on. I'm not buying it.

EDIT: Shit! Gotta type faster! LOL This was a response to Necia's gay-as-insult post.

I think you're making a leap there... If you're assuming gay is an insult, maybe that's all you... (not that I'm implying you're a bigot, just pointing out a relationship between cognition & language...). Personally, I've always thought expression of that theory was more pro-gay (a measure of gay and gay-straight solidarity, maybe). But definitely not derogatory. If somebody felt like that, why not just gay-bash straight up?

And Finkelstein, that comment was so ridiculously inapplicable I'm going to just assume you realize how inane it was... (if you don't, try this on- everybody has the potential to be gay- thus leading to the internal connundrum. only blacks have the potential to be black. and no, my statement about gay potentiality is NOT evidence of an opinion on the nurture/nature issue. it's a sociological statement, not a psycho- or physio- logical one...)