gl.

site feed by atom

Friday, February 06, 2004

 
11:19 AM: [#] [0]

mph mph's friend phil has a clear, defiant post about the proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. in it, he says, "Let's be very clear: Homosexuality is a naturally occurring orientation."

but even if it's not, WHO CARES? why does something have to be biological to be supported? why does ANYONE care who loves who, or in what configurations? there are several things i want out of a "marriage":

1. the ability to be recognized as a stakeholder for major decisions, children, businesses and/or assets

2. the ability to be recognized as a person with a viable medical interest in my beloved

3. the ability to share in medical, inheiritance, insurance, retirement and other benefits

whether that happens as part of a "marriage" or "civil union" or "civil contract" or "entanglement" or whatever, if you're looking for and are at least initially committed to those things, you could get married. period. whether you're a man and a woman, a man & a man, woman & a woman, a man & a woman & a woman, three women and a man.

of course, with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (!) (how the heck did we get to -this- point?) we will again be deliberately setting ourselves outside the curve other more humane countries are creating. but the real question is how do we STOP it? i lived through amendment 2 in colorado; i don't want to be involved in another piece of history which offends me and divides us to such a great extent.

in other odd white house news, this reads like an onion article, but it's an honest-to-goodness transcript of remarks the president made at the nothin' fancy cafe in roswell, new mexico. (thanks for the link, amy!)