With what might be seen as a huge win for the LGBT community getting closer every day, by ending DADT, people are still quite divided over whether or not to allow gay men and lesbians the right to marry. There are those who believe that ending DADT will lead right into marriage equality, which is why they favor keeping the discriminatory practice in place.
But others, some two-thirds of all Americans depending on where you live, now believe gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same rights as heterosexual couples through civil unions.
Nothing infuriates me more. first off, the use of the word allow annoys me. Who are you to allow me equality; it should be a given. And then, the whole notion of civil unions pisses me off, too. It's not the same thing no matter who tells you it is; it doesn't allow the same rights, benefits and privileges as marriage [for proof of that see HERE] it just a little better than we have now.
And I, for one, don't believe that if we are to be allowed civil unions it would lead to marriage equality; we would simply be told that we should be happy with the status quo, the almost-but-not-quite marriage.
Civil unions, while not the back of the bus, are not the front of the bus either. Civil unions are standing in the aisle, getting tired of being denied the same things many straight Americans take for granted every day.
Civil unions are less than.
Civil unions are separate but equal.
Civil unions are a placebo which won't cure what ails us: lack of equality.
I agree. I'll bet if we proposed that "marriage" be only used for religious purposes, and require both hetero and homo couples get a state/federal civil union in order to be legally joined (and file joint taxes), it would be seen as unfair and unacceptable. That would be proof that "separate but equal" isn't really equal at all. it's appeasement at best. Insulting at its worst.
ReplyDeleteUntil the "marriage" rights we have in 5 states are recognized federally, then what marriage we have will always be less than.
ReplyDelete