Wednesday, March 01, 2006
BANNING GAY CIVIL LIBERTIES AND LOSING OUR SENSE OF DECENCY

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I had never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Joseph N. Welch
Yesterday's debate in the State Assembly brings to mind the famous blast from Welch to McCarthy. Honestly, have you people no sense of decency for exploiting prejudices and bashing gay families with this amendment? The day that I need that blowhard Mark Gundrum to tell me the true meaning of family will be a cold day in an actual hell. The fact that the Gundrums of the world seem to be driving the GOP agenda almost makes me want to apply for a position as an Xoff guest columnist.
Again, here's the language in this innocuous little constitutional amendment:
"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
Not only will gay marriage continue to be illegal, but civil unions of any kind for gay couples will be permanently off the table. No family hospital rights, no domestic partner benefits, no ability to live your life or love your family unencumbered by state restrictions. If the zealots succeed with this one, maybe the next step could require some kind of pink identification badge for gays and lesbians.
Mark Pocan and the Democrats are right on this one, and the Republicans are horribly wrong. Gay couples with the same rights as you or I are no threat to either Mark Gundrum or our civilization. These are real people and real families that we're talking about, and they deserve basic civil rights. This amendment is like holding a referendum on Jim Crow Laws in Alabama during segregation. So give me a break with your "let the people decide" arguments. When I hear Gundrum expoounding on how marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time, it reminds me of those redneck crackers that used to rail against misceganation and the mongrelization of the races.
What makes Mark Gundrum's family more worthy of respect than the potential family of Mark Pocan? And what possible disaster could befall us if gay families had the same rights as traditional families? The bigots in our ranks are making it very difficult for the more enlightened to belong to the same club. And it emboldens our opponents to regain their feeling of unique righteousness. That's bad for both Republicans and Wisconsin.
I understand that many of you are uncomfortable with homosexuality. But you're just going to have to get over it. Because it's none of your business and you're prejudices are doing tremendous harm. It's sad that retiring Gregg Underheim was the only Republican to stand up for what's right in this debate. Short-term political calculations should not take precedence over morality and basic decency. It's sadly ironic to see Republicans abandon the very principles they claim to be defending.
At long last, have you people no sense of decency?
Comments:
<< Home
Umhhn...
one's orientation is none of my business whatsoever--except that you just MADE it my business in your post.
Frankly, Ragnar, I don't give a damn.
However, the privileges accorded legal marriage are underwritten by taxpayers; such privileges are extant as fundamental public policy which "privileges" marriage largely because of fecundity; and as such, other arrangements are simply NOT marriage.
Gunderson certainly did NOT "tell you how to live." I do not believe that Gunderson predicted your eternal destiny, either. He's far too good a man for that sort of stuff.
But Gunderson DID propose an amendment which precisely defines that social arrangement which WILL be privileged based on the natural law.
Cut out your rants. They don't do any good.
Post a Comment
one's orientation is none of my business whatsoever--except that you just MADE it my business in your post.
Frankly, Ragnar, I don't give a damn.
However, the privileges accorded legal marriage are underwritten by taxpayers; such privileges are extant as fundamental public policy which "privileges" marriage largely because of fecundity; and as such, other arrangements are simply NOT marriage.
Gunderson certainly did NOT "tell you how to live." I do not believe that Gunderson predicted your eternal destiny, either. He's far too good a man for that sort of stuff.
But Gunderson DID propose an amendment which precisely defines that social arrangement which WILL be privileged based on the natural law.
Cut out your rants. They don't do any good.
<< Home