I’ve been so busy today that when I posted the bit from Washington Post Express I didn’t notice until I read Trey’s post that the Express also posted this bit from a right wing blogger saying the whole thing is much ado about nothing.
It’s not that gays are unwelcome, duh. It’s the homosexuals who want to marry that are unwelcome.
It really bothers me how the media keeps trying to equate anti-homosexual sentiments with anti-gay-marriage sentiments. The two issues are so distinct that it is categorically improper to link them together.
It’s a complete scare tactic to suggest that the amendment will be used to invalidate individual contracts providing for some of the incidents of marriage.
As I pointed out before, legal experts can’t even agree on this one. Plus, the only similar scenario to the one looming in Virginia doesn’t suggest a positive outcome
A commenter on the previous post pointed out that similar assurances were heard when Michigan voted on Proposal 2, which contained the following wording.
Here’s what it says. Proposal 2 would amend Michigan’s Constitution to provide that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
Similar to Virginia’s proposed amendment, with a head-scratcher in the last six words. Still supporters said it wasn’t intended to no more than “secure the sanctity of marriage.” Next thing ya know, the attorney general interprets it as outlawing domestic partnership.
A Michigan Constitutional amendment was ratified in 2004, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, is representing 21 same-sex couples who filed the lawsuit in March after Attorney General Mike Cox interpreted the amendment as barring the city of Kalamazoo from providing domestic-partnership benefits in future contracts.
So, you’ll pardon me if I take with a grain of salt any assurances from people who support the amendment that it won’t lead to other legal arrangements being challenged. It’s easy, when stuff like this doesn’t affect your day-to-day life, to say that people are over-reacting and that they should at least “wait and see” if the worst really comes to pass. But given the stakes that I pointed out in a previous post, why take the chance on being a test case?
The safest answer seems to be, “When in doubt, get the hell out,” because you don’t want to find out when your partner lands in the emergency room that the rights you thought you had secured are more vulnerable than you thought. Take your talent, tax-dollars, etc., and go somewhere that doesn’t leave your family hanging in limbo and call it justice. Go somewhere that offers your family the greatest degree of equality, dignity, and respect.