New Jersey's State Senate votes on gay marriage tomorrow, and, despite the support of Garden State God Bruce Springsteen, the bill seems unlikeley to pass. If that's the case, it will be a dispiriting end to what has been a terrible year for supporters of marriage equality. Ben Smith reports that opponents are suggesting that the string of defeats undermines the idea that gay marriage is inevitable, but it does not: It just pushes everything back a decade or two. Sorry, gays! Come back and see us when all the old people die. At that point you'll be the only ones getting married anyway.
We'll always have the ERA.
If the goal was to make the fight for civic equality under the law a tedious never-ending Kafka-esque process where one begins to doubt the worth of that for which one is fighting, well then the mofos win. Need pep talk from D-Staten Island Sen. Diane Savino.
Become her Facebook friend! She posts a lot.
Your frustration is noted--but this fight is not going away. It's about basic human behavior that isn't going to stop. It's about bringing government into line to insure that people engaging in that behavior share what other people are entitled to when they do the same damn thing.
It's about overcoming ingrained prejudice and it is simply a matter of being insistent and wearing down opponents who have nothing rational to base their dogma on. Sure, it's maddening and disheartening. But it's not going away.
Ultimately, it's about being stronger than a bunch of zealous jerks.
If we want to talk about "taking what's rightfully ours," then this is a good place to start.
Orrr... a lovely, inspiring peptalk from KUO would do as well... :-)
Well, the weird thing about marriage equality in NJ is that there is already a supreme court ruling demanding it. The (kinda mushmouthed) decision that was handed down just before the 2006 midterms (which some folks think added to the mushmoutherie) said that gays and lesbians are entitled to all the rights and benefits conferred by marriage, but whether you (state legislature) call it marriage or not, we don't care. There was however a caveat along the lines of "If calling it something other than "marriage" ends up precluding all these rights being conferred, well, then, we'll need to change that too." So, pretty much since the day of the decision, folks have been documenting the ways in which giving gay marriage a funny different name ("civil union") fucks things up -- like hospital workers simply not believing that a license of civil union proves anything, etc.
That's the thing for me. I don't care if you call it gay-marriage, same-marriage, takes-two-to-tango. I just want the same damned rights and securities as everyone else.
This whole 'you can't call it marriage' thing - FINE, I don't care. But it better be the exact-same-fucking-thing.
Yeah, I think we should go Euro on this, and say that everyone is entitled to a civil union recognized by the state and if you want to go get Special-Jesus/Hashem/FlyingSpaghettiMonster-married, well, that's your business, have a lovely time.
I want to get flying spaghetti-monster married!
@oudemia: I thought the best part of Savino's speech was that she pointed out the difference marriage as a legal contract recognized by the state and as a religious sacrament. Why other folks can't handle that rather simple distinction is beyond me.
I think they can, but it's just fun for a lot of people to hate on fags.
Everybody should read this.