In response to Jennifer Roback Morse’s remarks to the Minnesota house I have asked them the following questions. I post a screen shot of them here since NOM and the Ruth Institute are generally not interested in open civil debate. I don’t expect them to provide any answers to them.
Gay and Lesbian people exist. We always have and always will. Regardless of what NOM, the Ruth Institute, or any of the other discriminatory organizations that continue to turn our own government against us hope to achieve. Sometimes I truly wonder what their goal really is. Is it to try and somehow cure us and eliminate us? I don’t think that there really is a clear answer to that question and frankly if that is the goal, it’s a fool’s goal because it can never be achieved. More Gay and Lesbian Americans are born everyday. Trying to rid America of us makes about as much sense as trying to get rid of everyone with red hair.
So if we aren’t going away what sort of protections do we deserve if not marriage? The reality of the mater is that we do fall in love. We do have children. We do build lives and families together. We buy homes together. We go on vacations together. We worry about paying the bills together just like any other family. Is it right that when one of us dies we have no say over burial or that we have to pay gift taxes on the things we bought together as a couple? If one of us becomes sick do we not have a right to visit our partner? Should we not have any rights to the children we may have spent years raising together simply because the state won’t allow us to adopt our partner’s biological child?
These are questions that can’t be answered by a simple contract other than that of civil marriage. Contracts other than marriage can be and often are challenged in court by family members that may not approve of the same sex relationship.
Without marriage are we just supposed to live a life without love, in solitude, and unhappiness? If you deny us marriage, then what will you allow?
Why does it seem like fanaticism distorts a persons perception of reality?
Friday, The Pajama Pundit made a post on his blog that was mainly pointing out a post written by TheAmericanBoy. At some point in the day, members of the Team Sarah site, began inundating PJ?s post with comments, many of them fairly unfriendly.
The first mistake that many of the commenters made was not realizing that PJ had merely quoted a post from another blog. They attacked the post as if the posted words were PJ?s and not TheAmericanBoy. Several of the posts look like they are copied and pasted from a list of talking points.
Ever since the 2000 election there has been a slow building movement towards doing away with or changing the way the Electoral College system works. Maryland was the first state to do this in April 2007, although their law was conditional on other states passing similar laws. This is referred to as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Since then, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey have also joined the compact. It now looks like Iowa may be following in this trend.
I understand the frustrations that came out of the close race of 2000. Had the compact been in place at that time Al Gore would have been our 43rd President. But doing away with the electoral college system in this way bothers me. Allowing the race for president to hinge solely on popular votes means that smaller states will have little to no say in the elections. States like California, New York, and Florida will always decide the outcome. The electoral college creates sense of equality among the states and I don?t like the idea of loosing that.