For a “land of the free” and a place based on the idea of inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” it’s getting to be both embarrassing — and irksome — that the United States is falling so far behind the curve on this sort of thing.
[…] Britain this week brought the Civil Partnerships Act into force. The act grants same-sex couples almost identical rights to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples; the main difference being that a civil partnership cannot be registered on religious premises.
[…] About a dozen countries in Europe allow same-sex unions, as do Canada and New Zealand, and South Africa recently paved the way to introduce them as early as next year. But in the United States, same-sex couples only have increased rights in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is allowed; Vermont, which recognizes civil unions; and in a handful of other states and cities that make some allowances for gay couples.
Our position at the top of the world’s economy is a durable one, but not indestructible. Today I was recycling newspapers, and found a Nov. article saying that nationally, we spend 143 times as much on special-education as on gifted-education. Maybe that’s one little piece of a really big puzzle (that I don’t recycle often enough?)
Whoops – I meant that previous comment for another post – you can delete it. But on a related theme, I notice an ad for newroots.ca, an “immigration counseling” outfit in Canada for Gays who are fed up with the US. That would be gays with education and resources who would consider emigrating, so a brain-drain would be in effect. Not good.
Yuppers.
Alas, the [insert uncharitable word here] who are bound and determined to keep gays as second class citizens (if they cannot have them tarred and feathered any more) are just the sorts would be pleased as punch to see gays leaving the country.
It is sort of interesting to see what Google Ads pop up in various posts.
We had same-sex marriage in Portland, OR for a little while. A Multnomah county court made a ruling that the state constitution did not forbid it, and since it wasn’t forbidden then it must be allowed, and we had a big push for a few days with a pretty decent number of couples getting married.
Then someone down in Salem decided to do something to insure that the ‘rural farmer vote’ would be with them in the next election, and steps were taken to stomp on what the ‘crazy city-bound liberals’ were up to and that got put to a stop.
‘Civil Unions’ came up in the 2004 election, but got voted down. Which is just as well as that would have put the odd legal position in place of their being three different ‘classifications’ of married couples in Oregon. Married, ‘same-sex married’ (which is still up in the courts for determining the validity), and ‘civil union’.
Funny thing is, when the [uncharitable word]s want some restrictive law passed, they yammer on about “States’ Rights” but when a state allows civil unions or even gay marriage, it’s a different story.
I’m more embarrassed by Kansas. It’s right next to Colorado. We could catch cooties or creeping moronism or elfshot or something.
Funny thing is, when the [uncharitable word]s want some restrictive law passed, they yammer on about “States’ Rights” but when a state allows civil unions or even gay marriage, it’s a different story.
Annoyingly enough, the ostensible alignment between libertarianism/conservative and statism/liberals seems to have dissolved, and in the most opportunistic fashion possible, with conservatives more than happy to stomp on states rights when it suits them, and liberals hiding behind states rights on things like gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc.
(No doubt when, in the case of gay marriage, a majority of states adopt some sort of gay marriage/civil union law, then the positions will flip-flop again.)
Or, the other way or looking at it would be that Conservatives trumpet states rights when they are being repressive/opressive of some minority, and Liberals trumpet states rights when they are trying to grant more freedom and liberties.
I’m reluctant to couch it quite that way, since it muddies the issue. While I’m usually more inclined to side with liberals on the ends, I find thevigorous defense of National Imperatives or Local Choice by either side, depending on which is more of advantage to their ends to be annoyingly hypocritical from both sides.