The civil union two-step

I have so many, occasionally mixed, feelings about gay marriage and civil unions and the whole bit, for a variety of complicated reasons and ponderings, which I won’t get into now. But as long as we’ve got this SB 1000 measure I will do all I can to support it. Because I know I don’t have the same rights as straight folks and I feel that I am entitled to these rights that priviledged individuals enjoy and feel entitled to without even any thought. So when I took a gander at some of the letters collected by Basic Rights Oregon protesting the measure I took great offense. Let me just share a couple of my personal favorites:

SB 1000 is bad public policy, because is creates special rights for one group of citizens at the expense of others. The charge of discrimination has become a weapon used by special groups to bludgeon those with whom they disagree. SB 1000 codifies this advantage in law. Gays are no more the target of discrimination than obese people, people with abrasive personalities, or ugly people. – Sherry Hill

So true, why should ugly and abrasive people be allowed to marry? Wouldn’t they only make ugly and abrasive babies anyway? The world probably would have been better if Billy Bob and Angelie Jolie were never allowed their tryst, don’t you think?

I am opposed to this bill because the only thing that it really does is provide tax incentives for same sex couples. We do not need any more tax loop holes. -Leonard Peoples

We don’t need anymore tax loopholes, especially for corporations…but struggling little queer couples? We actually pay more than our share. A queer tax. You heard me. I pay a special queer tax. I’m lucky enough to get healthcare through my partner’s place of employment, however, we pay all the taxes on it, not just the portion we pay. Married couples do not. Now you tell me who have special rights eh?

Comments are closed.