The good news and the bad news
The good news is that it looks like we will get some much-needed gridlock, here inside the Beltway. Good. Gridlock slows things down so folks can think. That was supposed to be the whole point of the checks and balances system, in case we've all forgotten. (I was incensed to hear someone talking about how we need to be electing people who won't cause gridlock while trying to recover from my most recent migraine. Aaargh!) Gridlock means that there's more than one viewpoint for folks to struggle with.
Given that we all seem to be divided into two armed camps, I think it's important to hear from both sides. I sincerely hope that whomever wins the currently still contested Virginia Senate seat (less than 3,000 votes apart) will keep in mind the bitter division that has been caused by this campaign and begin to work to hear all their constituency. Hopefully, gridlock will slow things down enough for that process to begin. Hopefully, it will force folks to begin working slowly together.
The bad news, however is that this was approved. Oh, for pity's sake. You've already got a statute enacting prejudice. You don't need to put it into the State Constitution. Or are you afraid those statutes will go the way of the ones you enacted to attempt to prevent people from marrying each other before? I hate to tell y'all this - well, actually, no I don't. I want tell y'all this, but I don't think you're listening. Bigots like you are a much more serious threat to my heterosexual marriage than my brother getting a chance to marry some hypothetical true love will ever be. Because people like you, worried about "protecting sanctity" were the driving force behind laws that would have prohibited my husband and myself from marrying.
I'm really struggling here with my worser self, who wants to write a snide comment about sanctity that needs protection. I've erased 4 thus far. I did, however, find an article that says a great deal of what I want to say without snideness.
Given that we all seem to be divided into two armed camps, I think it's important to hear from both sides. I sincerely hope that whomever wins the currently still contested Virginia Senate seat (less than 3,000 votes apart) will keep in mind the bitter division that has been caused by this campaign and begin to work to hear all their constituency. Hopefully, gridlock will slow things down enough for that process to begin. Hopefully, it will force folks to begin working slowly together.
The bad news, however is that this was approved. Oh, for pity's sake. You've already got a statute enacting prejudice. You don't need to put it into the State Constitution. Or are you afraid those statutes will go the way of the ones you enacted to attempt to prevent people from marrying each other before? I hate to tell y'all this - well, actually, no I don't. I want tell y'all this, but I don't think you're listening. Bigots like you are a much more serious threat to my heterosexual marriage than my brother getting a chance to marry some hypothetical true love will ever be. Because people like you, worried about "protecting sanctity" were the driving force behind laws that would have prohibited my husband and myself from marrying.
I'm really struggling here with my worser self, who wants to write a snide comment about sanctity that needs protection. I've erased 4 thus far. I did, however, find an article that says a great deal of what I want to say without snideness.
posted by Plain Foolish | 4:57 AM
1 Comments:
Oh, man--I'm sorry about that amendment.
I'm for civil unions all around. Beyond *consenting adults*, I don't think it's the government's business who you marry (which sounds like a very Republican mindset, if you think about it).
*****
I know what the answer to this is, but I still don't completely understand WHY some people are so opposed to same-sex marriage. If you're not gay, it doesn't affect you, so butt out.
Post a Comment
<< Home