RECENT  POSTS:  » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling » Video: With marriage equality, Texas could put in a pool at the Alamo » CWA ably demonstrates ludicrousness of American Christian right's persecution complex » Video: CBS News hosts '50 Years Later, Civil Rights;' includes marriage equality, obviously » Audio: White House? Nah. But in race for most anti-gay House member, Bachmann a strong contender » Brian Brown is the victim, y'all. How many times does he have to tell you? » Congrats, gay activists—Bryan Fischer has found new group for his weekly 'Nazi' branding » Maggie Gallagher: Sexual orientation is 'more akin to religion' than to race » NOM is totally popular (*in Ethiopia) » What constitutes 'absolute pure evil' in the eyes of Liberty University dean?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/25/2011

Head of NH opp. movement admits it: Proposed civil unions bill will create separate classes

by Jeremy Hooper

Today in New Hampshire, the House Judiciary Committee is considering a needless, time-wasting, wantonly regressive bill that would take away marriage equality and return the state to civil unions, while allowing those same-sex couples who've already been married under law to stay that way. A bizarrely clumsy plan that even the head of the opposition movement admits will separate same-sex couples into separate classes:

Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Action, admitted that if the bill eventually becomes law, it will create two classes of same-sex couples in New Hampshire—those with the tax benefits of marriage, and those without. That, however, is better than trying to repeal same-sex marriage all in one shot and having the matter ultimately decided by courts, he said.

“Our opponents didn’t go for everything all in one bite, either,” he said. “While some people may want a complete restoration of marriage, and also having no civil unions or anything like mutual beneficiaries, the political reality is I don’t think that’s possible at this time.

“The bill isn’t perfect — no bill is — but I still think this is a step in the right direction,” he continued. “There will be people on both sides who won’t be happy with it, which perhaps means we’ve struck the right balance.”

New Hampshire to Vote on Marriage Restoration Bill [FotF Citizenlink]

Right, Kevin, pro-equality activists weren't able to get everything in one swoop. But the difference: Whereas the push for greater parity under the law is a reasoned, principled journey towards remedying past slights and therefore meant to persevere through whatever vestigial limitations remain after so many generations of discrimination, this contrived push to snatch away certain citizens' daily obtained, duly deserve rights is a cruel and crude slap in the face that exacerbates rather than remedies a problem. There is no possible way for heightened bias to be a step in the right direction. It's very existence is a backslide!

If the House Judiciary Committee advances today's bill, they will be proving that this anti-equality fight goes well beyond our opposition movement's stated goals. Here we have a marriage system that has harmed absolutely no one and has benefited many. And yet here in a world with actual problems that need actual remedies, these lawmakers are considering (or are being forced to consider, in some instances) a measure that accomplish nothing more than tiering off the state's residents in some sort of cockamamie caste system?! That's just wrong in so many ways!

6A00D8341C503453Ef014E88E5D8A5970D-66

REMINDER: This is the same Cornerstone Policy Research/Cornerstone Action group that pushes so-called "ex-gay" therapy:


Why is New Hampshire's Cornerstone Policy pushing 'ex-gay' myths? [YouTube]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails