April 27, 2000: Same Sex marriage
Well, it looks like Vermont is going to pass the gay “civil union” bill that their Supreme Court said they had to do. My first question is why didn’t they just call it marriage. My second question is why didn’t they just make it simple “To the state of Vermont a marriage consist of a union between any two people regardless of both of the partners’ genders. All marriages in the state of Vermont will get the same treatment and the same benefits.”
The Vermont “civil union” is a step in the right direction, but gay people are still second class citizens. The Vermont law does not give them all the same rights as heterosexual marriages.
And to you traditionalist that can’t get over the idea of a homosexual couple getting married, get over it! Please, we don’t live in the middle ages any more — this is the year 2000 people! I want to see some progress! Don’t tell me that by allowing homosexual couples to get married marriage is just going to get worse. Worse? Bwahahahahaahaha!!! That makes me laugh! More and more nowadays, heterosexual marriages end in divorce — does that mean we should make it illegal for everyone to get married since more traditional marriages are ending in divorce? And don’t tell me about making a divorce harder to get. Does anybody remember what the old English Kings use to do when they wanted to get rid of their wives? Middle ages indeed — off with her head!
How about some reform? Any consenting adult over the age of 18 can get married in the eyes of the state/country regardless of sexual orientation.
I’m not going to force religions to accept this new view of marriage. There is a separation of church and state for a good reason. However, religion does not hold the reigns to define marriage. Neither does Webster. There are two separate kinds of marriage that are often interchanged: state/country and religious. So to all of you religious people complaining how marriage is not going to be the same: stuff it & get over it! If you want to say that (a religious) marriage is between two consenting heterosexual adults — fine by me. But remember, separation of church and state! SEPERATION! The church (no matter which one or how powerful) can NOT dictate to the government how to define marriage in the eyes of the state/country!
whew. Lets all take a deep breath.
I think the federal government should get some guts and define a (civil) marriage as between two consenting legal adults. In fact, I’d go further and say if more then two consenting adults (say three or 5 or whatever) want to get married let them. They are consenting adults! Hey, if they can handle that kind of difficult relationship — they’re prolly more ‘qualified’ to get married then anyone else. But polyamourous (sp?) relationships are a whole other rant!
So these ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ or whatever label they are giving to it, it is still a second class status. So to the government: give it all the same rights as a heterosexual marriage and then call it marriage. Because until that happens, homosexuals are still be discriminated unfairly against.