new anti-gay-marriage bill

[mckitterick]

Sigh. This one is specifically for Kansans, but every US citizen everywhere is probably facing something like this, and we should all keep writing to our national rep's. To find who you should write, Kansans can go to www.kslegislature.org and scroll down. Under "HOT ITEMS" is the House Roster, Senate Roster, and how to find your legislator.

After you find whom to write, don't forget to sign the petition opposing the Marriage Amendment at www.kansasjustice.com.

Chris

Comments

[saycestsay.livejournal.com]

McKitterick: I almost posted a long comment but then I took it to my blog.

Redeem for valuable prizes...

[saycestsay.livejournal.com]

(Chris asked me to post this here after all. I'm hoping for some valuable discussion; what are the talking points of supporting this amendment? I can't find them on google search.)

California is all ready "safe for marriage." We probably have the highest divorce rate in the country, outside of Nevada, but hey it's only heterosexual couples who are divorcing, so marriage is safe.

Okay, I have to admit I don't follow the whole "save marriage" thing. Though perhaps if I follow the anti-gay-marriage (which isn't the same as 'saving marriage') logic trail: if gays can marry, then we have to acknowledge that gays exist and have rights. Is that the problem?

Does anyone out there not know that gays exist? (Raise your hands... I'm curious.)

Okay, so it comes down to 'have rights.'

Sorry for ranting in your blog, mckitterick, but this issue completely mystifies me. I understand the debate over abortion, over gun control, over the death penalty for ghod's sakes, but marriage?

It must be a rights issue. The powers-that-be want to carefully control rights (easier to disenfranchise someone who lives on the outlier of society if he doesn't have civil rights.) You might think that's a specious argument, but:

In California, we have cops who beat people. It's in the news once a month or so. ('Slow news day? Go find some tape of cops beating someone.') Usually there's a furor in the press and the courts and people suing and cops on leave etc. But when the cops are filmed beating illegal immigrants (Mexicans flee. They just do.) there's no repercussion at all. Because the Mexicans don't have US civil rights.

As a science fiction writer and reader, I have a nose for us vs them, human vs alien, differentiation. If you're human, then you can do what you want to the alien, because they aren't as good as you. (and yes, I can see that leading to 'if you're straight, you can do what you want to the gay, because they aren't as good as you.')

And hey, I don't think we're all alike. There are people I wouldn't want to call 'brother.' But note that these are 'people.' You're all my tribe, even if I don't like you or your politics or your smell. What is the damage to me from having an inclusive tribe?

No, really; is there damage from being in an inclusive tribe that outweighs the damage from being in an exclusive tribe?

I just don't get it.

[c3fyn.livejournal.com]

Ya know, I have been trying really, really hard not to slip back off into the Xtian-scalping mode...

*sigh*