lagilman: coffee or die (truth to power)
[personal profile] lagilman
Personally, I'm not going to cast stones at California until my own state gets its act together WRT the topic. Hopefully, it will be soon... (you hear that, state legislature? Do the right thing, for once. If you can't handle the moral implications, then think of the wedding business cash infusion!)


This whole thing confuses me: I've never quite understood why someone else's partner-preference is any of my (or your, or the government's) business, so long as it's legally and emotionally consensual [goats can't give consent, so hush]. So how can We The People, in any form, say one aspect of partner-preference gets rights, and the other doesn't? Is there any argument against marital equality that doesn't start, end, or in any way involve "My interpretation of God says so?"

Date: 2009-05-26 07:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bigferret.livejournal.com
I'm with you. What does it matter to you who your neighbor marries?

Date: 2009-05-26 07:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wedschilde.livejournal.com
:::uploads a stone::: go on. i live in california. i'm casting them. pretty hard to. i'll share my cairn with you until we get it done!

and no, goats can't give consent. hell, they barely say excuse me when they pass gas.

Date: 2009-05-26 07:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chibiaingeal.livejournal.com
This whole thing confuses me: I've never quite understood why someone else's partner-preference is any of my (or your, or the government's) business, so long as it's legally and emotionally consensual [goats can't give consent, so hush].

I agree with you 100%.

My state isn't any better, but it still makes me sad.

Date: 2009-05-26 11:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neadods.livejournal.com
But "my God says so" is a valid reason. My God told me so.

Date: 2009-05-26 11:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mmegaera.livejournal.com
I've never understood why marriage was a legal deal in the first place. The civil union part, where you get all the rights, yes, which should be open to any construct of legally consenting adults. But marriage? That belongs to whatever religion one belongs to.

And then they can say "my God says this" to their hearts' content, and it won't affect a darned thing on the rights front. Church A won't marry you because of who you want to marry? Go find a church that will. But you'll still have Every Single One of your legal rights even if you don't.

And then we can all go boycott Church A [eg].

Date: 2009-05-27 02:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] egret17.livejournal.com
I'm just shaking my head and gritting my teeth. People is people is people.

Date: 2009-05-27 04:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] house-draven.livejournal.com
Couldn't agree with you more.

Date: 2009-05-27 06:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fakefrenchie.livejournal.com
I am just LOLing that New England is the happening place. Maybe San Fran will move lock, stock and barrel to Boston? Even Maine has gotten with the picture. RI is still holding out, but they're working on it.

Date: 2009-05-28 07:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] otterdance.livejournal.com
In this country, I believe that marriage is a civil matter, and that the church wedding is just frosting on the wedding cake. Not that the blessing of marriage is to be disparaged; it's its own thing. But marriage, which requires a license, is a civil union. But hey, in California we're all equal; it's just that some are more equal than others. "The tyranny of the majority": john Stuart Mill.

Profile

lagilman: coffee or die (Default)
Laura Anne Gilman

September 2018

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 27th, 2026 05:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios