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?
Is this the family you want in the White House? A family that advocates “praying away the gay”; a practice that is dangerous and harmful.
Republican Duncan Hunter (CA) has introduced H.R. 337, badly named Restore Military Readiness Act.This bill, if passed would require the signoffs of the Joint Chiefs before the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Contrary to its name, there is little in this bill that does anything to improve the readiness of the military. It is nothing more than a back door attempt to delay or even prevent the ending at this discriminatory policy. Hunter is a Main combat Vet, having served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and who is publicly opposed to allowing open service for gay and lesbian troops.
The idea behind the Restore Military Readiness Act is not necessarily to prevent the implementation of the DADT repeal, but rather to ensure that military readiness and combat effectiveness are not adversely impacted.
Is nothing but a cover because he is fully aware that Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. James Amos is opposed to repeal and would not signoff on it.
I don’t believe I will ever understand how some people see this sort of discrimination acceptable. Appently they don’t Understand that not only does DADT interfere with peoples lives, encourages hateful bigotry, but also wastes those precious tax dollars that Republicans are so fond of pretending they are interested in saving.
Iowa House Republicans wasted almost no time at all in submitting a bill to the house that would overturn the Varnum decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and allow a vote on adding discrimination to our state constitution for the first time in our history. Republicans, spurned on by the nastiness of Groups like the Iowa Family Policy Center and outside anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage, are hell bent making sure that Gay and Lesbian Iowans are treated as second class citizens and striping away our right to marriage.
The proposed bill would not only remove our civil right to marriage it would also expand the ban any other form of legal recognition of same sex couples in domestic partnerships or civil unions.
56 of the 60 Republicans in the state house have signed on as co-sponsors of this discrimination. Republicans have enough votes to pass this in the House, but Democrats have vowed to defeat it in the Senate. If this bill passes both the House and the Senate, it will have to do so again in the next state legislature and would be put in the ballot in 2013. If it fails, their next opportunity will not be until 2016. Hopefully by then the US Supreme Court will have ruled all such bans unconstitutional.
ACLU spokesman Ben Stone responded…
The ACLU now recognizes the explicit anti-gay agenda behind the so-called marriage amendment movement by going beyond marriage to civil unions,” Stone said. “This is quite clearly and quite simply an anti-gay measure. The ACLU Of Iowa and its allies will fight it
If this law passes and is approved by voters in 2013, the ACLU needs to immediately challenge it just like Prop 8 has been challenged in California.