« TU labor update | Main | Enabling corruption (updated) »

December 02, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I think they know they're on the wrong side of history and justice and are thus afraid of their words being recorded for posterity, so I guess I can't blame them.


Sad... the bill isn't going to pass. 29 NO votes already with 8 Republicans not yet voting and everyone in the chamber. Civil rights will have to wait a few more years at least.


Looks like they were quiet because they knew they had the votes.


I'm a little surprised no one has tried to frame the debate in terms of easing the State's economic crisis. The influx from new marriage licenses being issued to gay/lesbian couples certainly would have helped.

If not that, maybe the state should take a much harder look at the tax exempt statuses of religious institutions, since they are the ones heavily supporting modern day Jim Crowism.

Or if gays/lesbians aren't being treated w/ equal protection under law, why should they have to pay the same amount as the straight folk in terms of tax payer dollars.

Personally, I think the gov't should completely get out of the marriage racket & give everyone civil unions who apply & meet the criteria. That means if men & women want to marry, go for it. If men & men want to marry, same deal. If 2 women want to marry, same deal. If couples want to take the extra step to be married in the eyes of the church, that should be the churches business. When religious institutions get corrupted by seeking change in the political process, they demean their own moral authority w/ their hypocriacy. You can't fight for social justice on this Earth if you only want it for a certain subsection of your congregation. Its like women as well as gays subsidizes their own oppression by supporting the church.


Matt, it's tricky. Some opponents of gay marriage, their objection or mental block or whatever you want to call it is the name marriage.

But others oppose on principle any state recognition that gay relationships have legal (and by extension social) legitimacy.

In reality, a state marriage IS a civil union. Civil being publicly recognized and union being obvious. It's in contrast to a religious union, which would remain unaffected by legalized gay marriage.

If marriage is "an institution of God" as many religious folks claim, then it by definition should not have any link to the less holy state. I agree with you Matt: the state should give identical civil unions to pretty much any pair of consenting adults who want it and leave marriage to religion.


Matt, as for your economic angle, invoking that would tar the sanctity of marriage, which should be the sole domain of straight people like Britney Spears and Elizabeth Taylor.

The comments to this entry are closed.

This blog is by Bob (Robert C.) Conner, a longtime journalist and author of the 2018 novel "The Last Circle of Ulysses Grant" published by Square Circle Press, and a 2013 biography "General Gordon Granger" published by Casemate. He is currently writing a biography of the Kansas abolitionist Col. James Montgomery. His Civil War blog can be found at robertcconnerauthor.blogspot.com
Bookmark and Share
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan