. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Chuck Norris doesn't read books; he stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them."
- ChuckNorrisFactsdotcom

Friday, November 21, 2003
So some lawmakers want to
ammend the state constitution. A good rule of thumb there is to say "NO" in a loud firm voice and then immediately smack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. When the time comes that we need to ammend the US or Minnesota constitution you'll know because there will be a huge outcry for it. Here it's just the usual shrill suspects.

The Star Trib online instant poll put it in perspective for me. The options are:
-There are some places the constitution doesn't belong; this is one of those
-Marriage is between a man and woman; call a gay union anything you want -- just not marriage
-The state should not try to ban gay marriages -- either by law or amendment
-Undecided, but we should wait longer before amending the constitution

There needs to be a clear discussion of what each side wants. If you phrase it as "civil unions" and describe all the legal benefits of marriage most people agree that committed same-sex partners should be entitled to those things. If you describe it as marriage for some strange reason people get all weird.

Maybe it's because I'm part of the divorce generation. Marriage was never demonstrated as an unbreakable sacrament to us. Yet our -divorced- parents (and I've heard them say it,) say that the only true marriage is between a man and a woman. I know statistics bear me out that my generation isn't freaked out at the idea of gay marriage.

I don't think that some people are able to seperate out the discomfort that they have with -the act- from the legal and civil issues. A lot of people voice the "whatever you do in your own bedroom is your own business," line but get weirded out at the idea of two committed men being able to visit each other in the hospital or mangage their property and inheritance as they wish.
I. Don't. Get. It.

Someone said that considering long term demographic trends this is probably the last time that there will be enough votes for a ban. I don't think there are enough votes now. I do think that trying to force one will be very unpleasant for everyone involved.

posted by Rachel 11/21/2003
. . .
Ok. Now, who cares aboout Michael Jackson? Why oh why is he 24/7 news?

posted by Rachel 11/21/2003
. . .
Sigh. My headlights turned themselves on at 4:01 today. And we have a whole month yet until the days start getting longer. Bleak. Bleak. Bleak.

posted by Rachel 11/21/2003
. . .

. . .


web site traffic statistics