e
Newsweek, which has a large circulation and is found in many a waiting room, has a story (http://www.newsweek.com/id/81305) that does an excellent job of exposing the difficulties experienced by gay couples in states where gay marriage or civil unions are not allowed. Yes, some of these problems can perhaps be minimized through proper legal documentation, but why should gays not be afforded the same rights of other "married" citizens? As some of the comments on the story show, it all comes down to a portion of society made up by religious bigots/fascists who believe only THEIR religious views should govern all citizens. Here are some story highlights:
Newsweek, which has a large circulation and is found in many a waiting room, has a story (http://www.newsweek.com/id/81305) that does an excellent job of exposing the difficulties experienced by gay couples in states where gay marriage or civil unions are not allowed. Yes, some of these problems can perhaps be minimized through proper legal documentation, but why should gays not be afforded the same rights of other "married" citizens? As some of the comments on the story show, it all comes down to a portion of society made up by religious bigots/fascists who believe only THEIR religious views should govern all citizens. Here are some story highlights:Charlene Strong was on her way home in a pounding Seattle winter storm when the call came from her partner, Kate Fleming. Sounding stressed, Fleming told her that a rain was flooding down a hillside and into the couple's basement, where Fleming, an audiobook narrator, was at work in her recording studio. What happened over the next half hour cost Fleming her life and changed Strong's forever.
Frantic efforts produced a pulse. An ambulance raced Fleming to the hospital, with Strong close behind. At the door of the hospital emergency room, a social worker informed her that only family members were allowed inside. When Strong protested that she was Fleming's partner, the social worker said that under Washington state law, same-sex partners did not qualify as family. Only an urgent call to Fleming's sister in Virginia cleared the way to get Strong through the doors. Ninety minutes later, Fleming died, with Strong at her side.
The nightmare didn't end there. The next day the man handling the funeral arrangements insisted on dealing with Fleming's mother, though Strong told him she was Fleming's spouse. "He said, 'You don't have any rights in the state of Washington'." says Strong. "I left the room and started crying." Together for 10 years, the couple had held a commitment ceremony that was not officially binding but a symbol of their relationship. "Kate was my wife, and I was her wife, and that's the way we always thought of each other," said Strong.
A little more than a month after Fleming's death, Strong appeared before a state Senate subcommittee and told in measured tones what happened that December night and in the days that followed. Hearing how Strong was treated the night of Kate Fleming's tragic death was "critical" for lawmakers, says Lisa Stone, the director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which advocated for the bill. "It's always better if you can put a face to an issue." Last April, thanks in part to Strong's powerful testimony, the bill passed. Strong was there when Gov. Christine Gregoire signed the bill into law, making Washington the eighth state to officially recognize same-sex couples.
1 comment:
Conservative Queers and Progressive Activists screwed "inclusive marriage," by their Sullivanesque "responsibility-only" mantra, assuming Gay Liberation in the Seventies could demand marriage equality by the Nineties with AIDS as the trump card. The greater public is not that stupid, not that maleable to victimization claims.
Today, over 3/4ths of the states ban SSM, either by statute or referendum, and federal law, such as DOMA, makes SSM highly improbable for the foreseeable future. No gay man or lesbian should expect SSM in ANY state other than MA for years to come, which may be a blessing in disguise.
While "equality," not "responsibility," should have been the clarion call, the fact that Andrew, Jonathan Rauch, and religious friends wanted to super-impose Judeo-Christian-Islamic values on gays and lesbians "to make THEM responsible" was never likely to succeed (not with Andrew's barebacking irresponsibility).
I'll be the first to insist upon inclusive marriage because of "equality," and then elect not to participate. But the State's interest in marriage is solely for the children, which today it must cajole heterosexuals with 1,300 perks to bite the marriage bullet that Moses, Jesus, and Gingrich prescribed (married failures all), only for all straight marriages to fail by half.
Perhaps we gay liberals and romantics should welcome this social-engineering defeat, by insisting ROMANTIC LOVE, not legal institutions, contracts, or magic pronouncements, are the basis for our Bonds. Of course, we have to take both the freedom with the responsibility, not pawn it off to the State of Maryland. Of course, because of the backlash, we can focus on our Beloveds, rather than wallow in the political process, where 3% inequality at least does not get us lynched, and does not make us targets of politicians to pander in pretense (unless a principled Democrat dare).
EQUALITY is a concept both partisans abandoned, and until it is recaptured in a liberal democracy, gays and lesbians need to rediscover EQUALITY cannot be parceled out by politicians, nor established by K-Street, Rome, or Jerusalem.
The great thing about EQUALITY is that it does NOT admit degrees. One is either EQUAL, or unequal. That GLBT have been willing to entertain "separate and unequal" would have never suited Rosa Parks or MLK, and it will never suit GS.
Post a Comment