We're going to take the Spaceballs (warning: some language naughty) approach to what happened on the same-sex marriage front:
Quote #1 refers to the group of people meeting Yogurt (Mel Brooks), the Yoda knockoff:
Princess Vespa: Yogurt, the wise.
Dot Matrix: Yogurt, the all-powerful.
Barf: Yogurt, the magnificent
Yogurt: Please, please, don't make a fuss. I'm just plain Yogurt.
We've watched what's been going on in this front, and we just shrug our shoulders. We don't care about who gets married, and that the genders in front of the altar don't matter. What we do care about is that marriage isn't an exercise to show how far it can be stretched and bent to fit the wills and whims of certain groups.
Jon Keller's explanation is very true: marriage means social stability, regardless of gender, and none of the horrors predicted by the pundits ever happened. Governor Patrick can take pride in defusing a political hot potato - even if he had to do a little "horse trading" to do so. The legislators, instead of indulging in antics befit for spoiled children, practiced real democracy and voted, rather than delaying it, canceling it, or adjourning it. The pols who promised their voters one thing and did another will get their comeuppance at the ballot box. Liberal newspapers will put the results in the editorial pages; talk radio will get their callers complaining or praising the decision. Life goes on, and it's truly
There was one glaring item: the most obnoxious and unnecessary aspect of this debate was the argument between the two opposing camps: the cacophony of shrill slogans, sound bites, blaringly colorful signs, and colorful versions of what might happen if one side wins and the other loses. More rational voices, such as the ones who might not like the hefty weight of marriage but feel more comfortable with a less binding but similarly official civil union, or men and women who are in common-law marriages, were left out in the debate. Giving ground from "the people have spoken" to "let all the people speak, and if necessary, vote" and "marriage is strictly between a man and a woman" "marriage is usually between a man and a woman, but in the interest of true civil rights, marriage between two men and two women are also acceptable."
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
12/27/2006
Prop 2-1/2 is already in the crosshairs!
The more and more we read into the SJC's decision to allow same-sex couples to marry, the more and more we get confused.
We were going to write a screed last night, but after reading Jon Keller's article, we pulled a Jay Severin - allow us to retract and rephrase. (And we agree with Jon Keller - Prop 2-1/2 is not just in the crosshairs, but ready to be attacked like Fort Wagner. And all couples and families will be facing much larger property tax increases should Prop 2-1/2 be repealed.)
Who, exactly, is on the wrong side of this issue? Not the couples who want to marry and have it legally in the books as Mrs. and Mrs. Smith or Mr. and Mr. Jones. The very act of betrothal is an legal act of commitment, in the books of the county seat, that if married person A dies or gets sick or divorces, married person B is not required to jump ugly with the county probate court - where children or property might be involved.
The SJC, in their wisdom, took an approach that the opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage have bent and twisted way out of proportion. It is neither "the courts have spoken and can never be voted on" nor "the courts have overstepped their boundaries and violated the Constitution." The SJC took pains to say, "This same-sex marriage law looks all right, but make sure all the bases are covered."
The bases, sadly to say, are covered - with ginned up lawyers, crooked pols, and militant activists. The real issue is for one side to convince the public that their position is right, and if they win, would they mind keeping up their winning streak with a donation or two, or perhaps a vote for me in the primaries?
What doesn't help is that the Massachusetts state legislature has become more like the Soviet Politburo, mixed in with Mafia crime family machinations for good measure. The same yahoos who are clamoring for these Legislature to defy the SJC's request to do something, other than dance and babble in front of a camera, either put too much trust in their pols, or don't have enough smarts to know they're being bamboozled.
Remember the Clean Elections Law, in which candidates would only receive public money if they accepted no contributions or private or personal funds? After the hacks got really scared that a "Clean Elections" candidate didn't have to work hard or press the flesh as often as the tried-and-true back-room dealings, where pork and committee chairmanships could be bought and sold with a glass of scotch and a handshake, Tom Finneran & Co. killed it off.
Who's to say that if same-sex marriage did come to a vote and became truly legal as the SJC intended it, the legislature wouldn't hesitate to suffocate that law too - and effectively giving the anti-same-sex crowd an unintentional victory - and immediately making same-sex marriages null and void. Caveat emptor.
We were going to write a screed last night, but after reading Jon Keller's article, we pulled a Jay Severin - allow us to retract and rephrase. (And we agree with Jon Keller - Prop 2-1/2 is not just in the crosshairs, but ready to be attacked like Fort Wagner. And all couples and families will be facing much larger property tax increases should Prop 2-1/2 be repealed.)
Who, exactly, is on the wrong side of this issue? Not the couples who want to marry and have it legally in the books as Mrs. and Mrs. Smith or Mr. and Mr. Jones. The very act of betrothal is an legal act of commitment, in the books of the county seat, that if married person A dies or gets sick or divorces, married person B is not required to jump ugly with the county probate court - where children or property might be involved.
The SJC, in their wisdom, took an approach that the opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage have bent and twisted way out of proportion. It is neither "the courts have spoken and can never be voted on" nor "the courts have overstepped their boundaries and violated the Constitution." The SJC took pains to say, "This same-sex marriage law looks all right, but make sure all the bases are covered."
The bases, sadly to say, are covered - with ginned up lawyers, crooked pols, and militant activists. The real issue is for one side to convince the public that their position is right, and if they win, would they mind keeping up their winning streak with a donation or two, or perhaps a vote for me in the primaries?
What doesn't help is that the Massachusetts state legislature has become more like the Soviet Politburo, mixed in with Mafia crime family machinations for good measure. The same yahoos who are clamoring for these Legislature to defy the SJC's request to do something, other than dance and babble in front of a camera, either put too much trust in their pols, or don't have enough smarts to know they're being bamboozled.
Remember the Clean Elections Law, in which candidates would only receive public money if they accepted no contributions or private or personal funds? After the hacks got really scared that a "Clean Elections" candidate didn't have to work hard or press the flesh as often as the tried-and-true back-room dealings, where pork and committee chairmanships could be bought and sold with a glass of scotch and a handshake, Tom Finneran & Co. killed it off.
Who's to say that if same-sex marriage did come to a vote and became truly legal as the SJC intended it, the legislature wouldn't hesitate to suffocate that law too - and effectively giving the anti-same-sex crowd an unintentional victory - and immediately making same-sex marriages null and void. Caveat emptor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)