(no subject)

[rm]

I know someone has to be working on the compromise angle. I know that something is better than nothing, but wow, do I resent the New York Times telling me what should be "good enough" for me as a queer person.

I hate the gay marriage debate so much I don't even know where to start. It's just non-stop awful, overshaodws other critical issues for queer people and yet has symbolic primacy in terms of how we are perceived by the broader world. It's a fucking mess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html


Meanwhile, I have cold and feel utterly like crap.

Comments

[rm.livejournal.com]

Seriously, also anyone with a brain knows churches can not marry whomever they damn well please. My parents are of different faiths -- lots of churches wouldn't marry them. Who cares?

I totally resent the idea that straight people get "marriage" whether it's in church or not but gay people get "civil marriage" -- hi we have no higher natures! WHUT?

[heron61.livejournal.com]

also anyone with a brain knows churches can not marry whomever they damn well please.

No kidding, the idea of putting in laws to "protect" that right is utterly ludicrious and completely unnecessary given the US Constitution.

As for the rest, I was deeply unimpressed, in addition to not having any patience with the idea of compromising with bigots, when I read crap like that I always wonder if there were people writing similar nonsense back in the late 1950s & early 1960s about compromising on eliminating the miscegenation laws.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

This is the straw man used over and over and over about prop 8. THEY'LL MAKE US MARRY THOSE @#$@#$ OH NOES.

When in point of fact, churches have NEVER been required to marry (or allow to use their space) anybody who doesn't meet their religious tenets. Temples don't have to marry Catholics. And so on.