Nice try, Grampy McSame, but your weaselly wording is just that — weaselly and dishonest (emphasis gleefully added by this girl).
Republican John McCain says same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal agreements for insurance and other purposes, but he opposes gay marriage and believes in "the unique status of marriage between and man and a woman." "And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue," the likely Republican presidential nominee said in an interview to air Thursday on "The Ellen DeGeneres show."
McCain, who also opposes an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex unions, said people should be encouraged to enter into legal agreements, particularly for insurance and other areas where decisions need to be made. DeGeneres needled McCain on the issue, arguing that she and the senator from Arizona aren't different.
Last week, after the California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriage in that state, DeGeneres announced on her program her engagement to longtime girlfriend Portia de Rossi. "We are all the same people, all of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same," she said. "When someone says, 'You can have a contract, and you'll still have insurance, and you'll get all that,' it sounds to me like saying, 'Well, you can sit there, you just can't sit there.'
"It feels like we are not, you know, we aren't owed the same things and the same wording," DeGeneres said. McCain said he's heard her "articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness."
DeGeneres steered the conversation back toward the humour she's known for. "So, you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you're saying?" she asked.
"Touche," McCain said.
Awwwwww. How sweet ... you hypocritical, warmongering, prejudicial, pottymouthed fuckwit.
Well, they all managed to chuckle at the end, and that's all that really counts, right?
I don't envy Ellen DeGeneris for having to take these issues on, but that's par for the course; in the US, only court jesters are allowed to speak truth to power.
I'm sorry, but why is that a "respectful" disagreement? It's not "respectful" at all -- it's mean-spirited and bigoted, and people shouldn't be allowed to get away with trying to pass off that kind of public prejudice as having a "respectful difference of opinion" anymore.
The proper response to that would be something like, "I'm sorry, but what you just said is not respectful; it's you being a homophobic asshole."
See? Doesn't that read better?
So why is it, I wonder, that there is no federal legislation proposed that would permit people to enter into those contracts for insurance, etc., which are expressly forbidden in many states? So why is it that the federal government does NOT offer any benefits whatsoever to same-sex partners? So why is it, I wonder, that the federal government refuses to recognize the thousands of 100% legal state-sanctioned marriages in Masschusetts?
It's like Harper insisting he was all in favour of civil unions despite he and his party voting unanimously against the earlier modernisation of benefits act that was a partial step in that direction while falling far short of civil union, let alone marriage.
There may be someone out there in favour of civil unions who isn't a full-fledged bigot or a liar pretending to oppose marriage for purely pragmatic reasons. I've just never encountered one.
A lot of people who favour civil unions naively believe that just because the State recognizes them as equivalent to marriage, everyone else automatically does as well.
They don't [want to] understand that although the State may say they are equivalent to marriage they still aren't. You would still have to actually change specific laws and corporate policies to include civil unions for them to be equal, and that ideology, bureaucracy (private and public) and simple inertia keep that from happening.
Also, private companies have no obligation to treat civil union partners as equivalent to a marriage in any jurisdiction it exists.
We did the right thing in Canada. I expect that to happen in the US but it is a long way off. Even after the carnage of Howler-Monkey Administration social conservatives have a lot of power there.
Post a Comment