Adding Fuel to the Fire

[khaosworks]

To those who don't understand why I find the position of people who support the word "civil unions" for same-sex couples almost as intolerable as those who say that marriage for the same should be banned, or for those who require some clarification or understanding to why the naming is important even if the benefits are the same.

Here's three words.

Plessy v. Ferguson.

Doesn't right a bell? Three more words.

Separate but equal.

We like to think we've grown somewhat beyond that since 1955.

Comments

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

P.S. One of the points I've been trying to make clear is that naming is important. It certainly is to the religious right - they claim that calling same sex unions "marriages" is to remove the dignity from opposite sex unions.

Well, then, to call opposite sex unions "marriages" but then call same sex unions "civil unions" would remove the dignity from same sex unions. Ideally, either the government calls all unions "marriages" or it calls all unions "civil unions". That would be non-discriminatory.

Of course, again, if wishes were horses... let's see how it plays out.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, now that your ranting is accompanied by a relevant pundit photo, it's even more entertaining. Your "Gropenfuhrer!" photo caused some consternation in the T. household the other day - spouse was surprised by it when sitting down at computer to do some work. He came running into the bedroom: "Is that *Terence*? What, is he on drugs or something??" Yeah, that's why everyone in Georgia is so happy all the time.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

*laugh* Well, tell Han Li I'm still sane. A friend of mine, mrdankelly, who's a Chicago-based writer, has his pundit photo too, so I was just being a copycat.