We are the 99%

May 10, 2011

Blog For Equality Day


It's Blog For Equality Day!

Again.

I've done this a couple of times. I've done:
  • The Snark (and go read this one - it's so funny I must've stolen it from a far far better writer)
  • Follow up on The Snark with some analysis (this one isn't as funny but it's informative)
It seems the mean and ugly that failed in 2008 and 2010 has returned again in 2011. But meaner and uglier this time.

Whereas last year the ugly proposed was this addition to Pennsylvania Constitution:
Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.
This year the ugly goes further. This is what Daryl Metcalf wants to add this time:
Marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
As the Tribune-Review's editorial board (yes, Scaife's Braintrust) recently pointed out:
[State Representative Daryl Metcalfe] wants to codify discrimination by amending the Pennsylvania Constitution to deny legal "marriage" to same-sex couples. And the proposed wording of his amendment goes a step further, appearing to not even recognize any other "legal union." But constitutions are not for denying rights; they're for enumerating them. This is poor form, the antithesis of liberty, and the effort should be rejected. (h/t to Bram on this)
If they get it, then it should be obvious to everyone - left, right, and center. Gay men and gay women, simply by virtue of the fact that they are citizens of a free democracy, are entitled to the same marriage rights as everyone else. To recontext Lincoln, whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

It's only fair.

2 comments:

Sue said...

Thanks for participating. The language of the bill is critical. This could potentially impact any unmarried couple, regardless of orientation. It could impact domestic partner benefits which could in turn impact the business community. I'm glad you focused on that angle.

Cody Dickerson said...

My question is: If marriage is being identified solely by the ability to procreate, and if that's the reason they're denying the right to LGBT individuals, then shouldn't any substantially equivalent institution operate by the same standard? If by their own standards and attempts at discrimination any institution offered to LGBT individuals is short of marriage because it can't produce children, doesn't outlawing arrangements similar to marriage still allow for domestic partnerships, civil unions, etc. etc. etc.?