Nov4 |
 |
Gay marriage loses in MaineSo much for that live and let live New England ethos, eh? How disappointing. And I confess that I increasingly don’t get it. “Defenders of traditional marriage” treat this debate as zero sum — as though giving gays the right to marry will somehow take away something from heterosexuals. But it won’t. Not that it matters, I suppose. Fear and bigotry get to carry the day, once again. I’m confident that won’t always be the case; today, though, I’m kind of angry. |
|
|
The Trouble with Spikol | Make Major Moves | PW Style | Cup o'Joel
“Fear and bigotry get to carry the day, once again.” That’s the only possible explanation? In Maine? Are you sure about that?
See the part where I’m angry. I’ll be capable of a better analysis in a few hours.
Someone I know proposed the radical solution: separate church and state. That is, civil unions (and all the civil rights and obligations they imply) for everyone, and if you want to get married in addition, that’s up to your own religion, if you subscribe to one. That way, marriage is nice and “protected” in a little religious bubble, but civil rights (including federal tax and Social Security implications, which state laws do not address) go to everyone. And if you belong to a church that marries same-sex couples, you can do that, too.
This probably doesn’t address the objections of the anti-marriage folks, but I’ve been having trouble figuring out a logical core to those objections anyway.