He's blind, but he sees better than most . . .

In California, “we” passed Proposition 8. In Florida, it was Prop. 2. Either way, it was a vote by the majority to curtail the rights of the minority. But Governor Patterson of New York understands the civil rights issue of the new millenium.

He is currently working to introduce legislation that the previous governor wasn’t able to get passed, which will enable gay couples to have over 1,000 rights that straight couples don’t have to worry about. More importantly, as we move together into a new and different world (pirates, depressions, nation-building, Spanish moral authority, etc.) it is even more imperative that the parochial and anachronistic suppression of rights which sounds more like what’s going on in Afghanistan than the United States be eradicated.

On the campaign trail, Sarah Palin liked to regale voters with her “small town values.” I personally think she should have said “small mind values.” The argument over whether two consenting adults should be able to enter into a social contract with each other doesn’t negate or affect my marriage, my union. If Palin’s like-minded folk (like her pick for Attorney General of Alaska) want to attack something, they should worry about the divorce rate among heterosexuals, and the out-of-wedlock births. Stop denying others the right to wedded bliss. Even though it’s not in the first ten amendments, as soon as the state begins running it instead of the church, the synagogue, the mosque, the ashram, whatever religious institution that lets you stand up in a pulpit and rail against gay marriage while condoning the death penalty, it became something that all American citizens are entitled to.

I, for one, am glad Governor Patterson can see that.

NY Governor to push same-sex marriage bill

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


About Bolshy

Blogging in the ether to see if that elusive literary agent or publisher wants some new talent.
This entry was posted in Bias, Blah!, Civil Liberties, Comment, Conservatives, Democracy, Democrats, Liberal, Personal Opinion, Personal philosophy, Political correctness, Politics, United States of America and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to He's blind, but he sees better than most . . .

  1. museditions says:

    I’m am with you, there. Marriage always was and should have stayed the purview of religious or social institutions, and is only in bed with the government (at least in the US) because of the tax and benefit laws. Many religious bodies already have strictures about who can and cannot marry with their sanction, and they may continue to have those restrictions and prohibit whatever sorts of marriages they deem contrary to their beliefs. I have heard more than a few heteros say that equal marriage rights would “cheapen” or “lessen” their own marriage. Others of like mind were opposed to laws allowing people of different races to marry in the past. Hard to imagine today. The sanctity in marriage comes from what the participants bring to it, I believe.

  2. Matt says:

    I once heard an opinion that, though radically different than is currently practiced, would do a fair job of solving this whole thing (I forget the individual who came up with it). The term “marriage” needs to be taken out of our government. Unions must be performed by the government, getting the appropriate documentation from your local city bureau or what-not. This would be available to all citizens, regardless of sexuality, gender, race, etc. Then, celebrations of the union in whatever manner at whatever religious places can be performed in private.

    Basically, religious unions alone would not be “valid” in the eyes of the law, merely supplemental. This way, the sacrament of marriage can remain pure and holy in the eyes of those who wish to protect it (according to each sect’s own belief) while giving equal rights to all Americans.

    If that’s confusing to anyone, let me know and I’ll take some time to re-type it. Right now, it just spewed forth as a hodgepodge of words. Oh well.

  3. ReyMac says:

    I like your thinking. This is the argument that I’ve been having with religious people (friends and foes) alike. They can’t get the difference between civil and religious unions. There is a steadfast refusal to understand the shift. Your verbiage would most certainly rectify what has become a ridiculous cultural battle.

By all means, leave your 2 bobs worth

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s