Special rights

[judecorp]

Okay, you know what really pisses me off?

The conservative argument that revolves around the fact that GLBT folks aren't excluded from marriage, as they can marry any opposite-sex partner they want, just like everyone else.

It makes me so angry I can't even form coherent sentences. What kind of cold-hearted arrogance leads someone to claim that it is not discriminative (is that a word?) to forbid someone from marrying the partner of his/her/hir choice? I suppose it's easy to smugly make such a statement when the current law is on your side. After all, most of the people making the statements have the state-given go-ahead to marry /their/ chosen partners.

It's the arrogance that kills me - the claim that same-sex marriage rights are "special" rights because queers are already allowed to marry - just maybe not the person they'd choose. That just seems so mean-spirited to me that it breaks my heart. Just hearing the words crushes me. How can you even rationally /discuss/ something like that - that it's perfectly okay to let /some/ people marry partners of their choosing and tell other people they can't... but can choose this other person that isn't in their league?

The whole thing makes me want to throw up.

Comments

GRRRRRRRRR

[eeka13.livejournal.com]

There's a guy on a Boston board where I post who talks about "special" rights. So we've asked him to give an example of a right we want that straight people don't have. One notable example was "you people want the right to enslave children and force them to live in your life of gay bondage."

Re: GRRRRRRRRR

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

That's certainly an... interesting theory.

[telleestmavie.livejournal.com]

Honey, it's all just closed-minded bullshit from people who don't know how to think on their own and feel obligated to control the lives of others simply because they have no control of their own pathetic existences.

I'm with you -- you should have all the rights and privileges afforded to any other loving couple who commit themselves to a monogamous relationship. I just wish for your sake that there weren't so many of those "other" people out there that think otherwise.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, I know it's all bullshit, but it still burns me up. And part of what gets me so mad is that it /does/ burn me up, you know? Like they're winning on some level by being able to upset me.

Le sigh.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I want the right to not have my pants yanked down against my will to check and see if I'm the "correct" gender to marry my fiancée, whose pants were also yanked down.

Is that a special right?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Did that really happen? Dear god, please tell me that didn't really happen.

Yuck.

[kungfoogirl.livejournal.com]

It makes me so angry I can't even form coherent sentences.

Not to be snarky or rude but I think that "discriminatory" is what you're looking for. In all seriousness, it proves your statement, you know?

This makes me insanely mad as well.

To most people, marriage is the legal recognition of a romantic relationship. Not a friendship. Not roommates. But a ROMANTIC relationship.

Romantic Relationship + license = marriage (benefits, protections, recognition, respect)

For straight folks, that equation works, doesn't it?

For us queers, not so much.

To claim that gays can find someone of the opposite sex and get married is a half-truth. We can get the license, but we can't have the marriage. And to claim that marriage is just the legal aspect and that it doesn't involve sex, love and family is contrary to how marriage functions as a social institution.

So yeah. It *is* discriminatory.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

And it also goes against all of the "sanctity of marriage" blahblah, if you're encouraging people to get married for reasons other than commitment and love and self-giving and all of that. But what do I know, I'm just a dirty queer.

People just baffle me. You can sign me:

Ms. Not-At-All-Jazzed-About-Potentially-Living-In-A-Southern-Red-State

[totallysirius.livejournal.com]

Discriminatory (I like "discriminative" though - hey, you created a new word - that's always fun!)

Yeah, that does make me sick to know that is an argument the conservatives are using to justify queers not having the right to marry the partner of their choice. It doesn't surprise me, but it does make me sick.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Ha ha, right, discriminatory. ;)

Whoops!

Stupid New Hamster

[cranapril.livejournal.com]

I've been pretty happy with our new govenor up until today. He's decided that since New Hamster law says that marriage is between a man and woman, that there's no reason to have a Constitutional amendment that says the same thing.

He sucks because he doesn't want gay marriage,
and he sorta not sucks because he's leaving the door open...

No Constitutional amendment means that the law can be futzed with in the future.

I dunno...
If people in Vermont can succeed from their state and join NH... and a religious group can claim their own NH town and move a ton of people there, why can't this state mind its own damn business when it comes to this?

It should be LOVE FREE AND DIE.

Don'tcha think?

Re: Stupid New Hamster

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I thought NH was pretty much the Libertarian state? And don't most Libs think legislating who can get married is overstepping the bounds of government? That's just strange. Whatever happened to all that "Live Free or Die" crap, anyway?

When you say he's "leaving the door open," what do you mean by that?

Re: Leaving the door open

[cranapril.livejournal.com]

Well, from what I understand, if they make a constitutional amendment, it's a lot harder to get that reversed. If they just change a law here or there, towns, cities, etc., can fight the law or make their own statements about how they interpret the law.

As long as they don't amend our state constitution, Gov. Lynch is letting towns make their own decisions about how the law is used on a town-wide basis.

He's not letting them make a more strict change. Thank goodness.

Re: Leaving the door open

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

You know what, I misread your first comment. I've got it now. Thanks!

[oxlahun.livejournal.com]

Holy crap. I hadn't heard that argument since Vermont started civil unions. I thought pretty much everyone agreed it was so ridiculously moronic it wasn't worth saying out loud.

I am an educator. It really pains me to have reached this conclusion, and to have to say it, but I think it's true. Some people are just uncorrectably stupid.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

You know, I thought it was pretty much over, too. Heck, even jost stopped saying it. ;) (xoxo, love you, [Unknown site tag])

But I guess not, because someone whipped it out on Strangeland.net last week. I haven't graced it with a response.

[oxlahun.livejournal.com]

Don't grace it with a response. But the next time you write about the issue, just link to that post (maybe not even that particular comment, just the whole thing) and say it's somewhat heartening to see that even though the opposition arguments are all stupid, at least they're stupid out in the open so it's obvious who the morons are.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

You're much meaner than me. I always try to kill 'em with kindness. :)

[thelastbard.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the unwashed masses are now jumping on the old anti-Affirmitive Action arguements from a decade ago...

I love people. I really do.

(what fun things are you doing for your birthday?)

[cfred.livejournal.com]

Heh. I live in a state where they could have worded the amendment to the state constitution that "marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race" and it would have passed referendum.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

That scares the crap out of me.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I just plain don't understand those people. That's part of the problem - that I can't comprehend how someone can think that way. I wish I could.

As for our birthday, we've got a room booked at a little B&B in Ogunquit, Maine for the weekend - I hope the weather is faboo!

[cfred.livejournal.com]

GLBT folks aren't excluded from marriage, as they can marry any opposite-sex partner they want, just like everyone else.

These are the same people who go on about the "sanctity" of marriage? They're now endorsing people to have a marriage of convenience, to be able to get the benefits without having the commitment. If they really want to put their money where their mouth is, when it comes to sanctity of marriage, they should be supporting any two people who love each other and want to commit fully to each other in a marriage—regardless of whether it's a man and a woman, two women, two men, whatever.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree with you. But it's not my mind that needs changing. ;)

[jeffholton.livejournal.com]

There's something ludicrous in there.

Just because I'm straight is no reason that I should be legally barred from marrying a nice guy.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

A nice, cute guy - you definitely deserve a cute guy! ;)

[odd-dog.livejournal.com]

Yeah...

I'm Christian, and liberal, and the Boston archdiocese is REALLY pissing me off right now.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

With all that Know Thy Neighbor (http://www.knowthyneighbor.org) crap? Yeah, seriously.

Argh.

[carina-s.livejournal.com]

Me too.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Don't throw up! I love you!