Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Why Wyoming! Who Knew?


from the Casper Star Tribune:

In Wyoming, the House Joint Resolution 17, also known as the "Defense of Marriage" resolution--like because gay folks might like a wedding in their future, that a war has been declared on marriage--failed by a vote of 35-25.

Now this doesn't mean the folks in Wyoming are all hot'n'bothered for the gays to come up there and get married. There is a law already in place stipulating that only marriages between a man and woman are valid. But the law also says that Wyoming must recognize valid unions performed in other states, such as forward-thinking Massachusetts and progressively-inclined Connecticut.

Rep. Owen Petersen, a Republican Repugnant of course, says his office has been flooded with letters of support for his legislation. His co-sponsor, Rep. Edward Buchanan, another Republican, go figure, says, and this is rich, that since his "Defense of Marriage" resolution has failed, Wyoming may be forced to recognize other unacceptable unions.

According to this bonehead: '"If two people of the same sex can marry, why can't heterosexual couples have more than one spouse?"'

I love when they trot out that old chestnut, but he forgot the one about people being able to marry their dogs, 'cuz you know, first it's the gays, then the bigamists, then those folks inclined to a little bestiality in their lives.

But here's a kicker. Rep. Pat Childers, a Republican who voted down the measure.....what? a Republican? Huh? What? Huh?

Ah, okay now I see. Childers has a gay daughter, so he understands what it means to be gay, to know a gay person. Childers said his daughter, who lives with her partner in Montana, is a 'smart, productive member of society who deserves the same rights that her straight peers take for granted.'

'"Folks, till my dying breath there isn't anybody in this country who could say that she is a terrible person, or someone that needs to have their rights restricted," Childers said.'

Nicely said, Pat. I like you, you Republican!

But be careful; those nasty Repugnants will use your words against you come election time. You queer-friendly proponent of equal rights for all. How dare you, sir!

Wait though. It's not just Pat Childers. Rep. Sue Wallis, another Republican--is that all they have up there?-- called the resolution "state-sponsored bigotry," saying it is based religious prohibitions found in the Old Testament.

So, there are good Republicans and bad Repugnants? In Wyoming, of all places.

Wallis quoted Leviticus--which includes prohibitions on shaving, haircuts, tattoos, charging interest on loaned money and gathering firewood on Saturday.

Oh dear Jeebus, if all that's true, I am going to Hell. My only hope is that it's a Special Ring in Hell where they have Butt-Less Chaps night, serve Cosmos and the Cher Farewell Tour goes on FORever.

Rep. Patrick Goggles; a Democrat? In Wyoming? He opposes the resolution because he understands that as a representative of The People, he represents All the People--including gay people. '"I look upon this state as the Equality State and I urge you to maintain that status as the Equality State."'

The LGBT community called the defeat of the resolution an important victory. '"We are grateful that the Wyoming House of Representatives stood up for equality and refused to write discrimination into the state Constitution," said Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, a LGBT group based in Washington, D.C. '

Becky Vandeberghe, chairwoman of No Gay No Way, er, I mean, WyWatch--a group that supports legislation that promotes "sanctity of marriage," called Friday's vote a '"grave injustice."'

She went on to say, in that way that only narrow-mined folks can, that '"The elitist legislators decided not to accurately represent the people of Wyoming, and we certainly do hope that their constituents will take a look at their voting record and keep track of it for the election in 2010."'

Oh, they'll be watching Becky.

They'll be watching Pat Childers and Sue Wallis and Patrick Goggles, and realizing that equality is for everyone. They'll be watching those that stand up for all people.

Because it's the right thing to do.

3 comments:

Mark in DE said...

I applaud the work and courage of states like Massachusettes that have legalized marriage equality, but I feel a FEDERAL mandate is necessary to ensure that EVERYONE'S right to marry is guaranteed.

We'll be watching you too, Obama.

Bob said...

I'm with you there, Mark.
Any name other than marriage, with all the same rights and benefits, is "less than."

Joy said...

It is similar to the Plessy vs Ferguson case you wrote about. Separate is not equal. Not then and not in this situation either.