Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples...And can anyone tell me what the point of those were? To hear the activists now, civil unions are some sort of insult. Yet back then, that wasn't the talking point – we heard about how vital they would be. But since Vermont has long had civil unions, perhaps we could be told of what positive effects they have had on society? After all, it is those arguing for change who must explain why that change would be better than the status quo.
[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]
House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.Conveniently, future generations of children couldn't be present to jeer. Or vote.
Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992. "It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people."Sorry, but to the state (and the society it represents), there just isn't the same interest in voluntary associations of the same sex as there are in associations that unite the two sexes that comprise all of society. This is true whether or not you are "good" or "bad".
"And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."And you were unable to do this before because...? Are you saying that all unmarried people can't prove themsleves to be good members of their community?
"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."You may be able to get a marriage license from the state of Vermont, but that doesn't make you married in the historical, natural, or religious sense, no more than Vermont deciding to label water as milk would make that water milk. It would just make Vermont look foolish and devalue their dairy products. But like I said – at least it was the legislature and not the courts.
Maybe they'll all vote themselves additional university degrees next.
Very good playful.
ReplyDeleteThis also puts the truth to the lie that the multiple states that added "no-civil" unions language to there marriage protection amendments were being mean or arbitrary. The argument was that these “overreaching” amendments were not necessary.
Obama has made intimations that he wants some federal civil union’s compromise. California, Connecticut and now Vermont are useful illustrations that we are dealing with adversaries that are extremists and unwilling to compromise.
Our allies in congress & in various States can now confidently resist any civil union’s compromises as ultimately futile. They simply won’t submit themselves to the normal democratic process of compromise. Between the courts and the legislatures is like a ugly version of good cop/bad cop.