Post by Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig Post by Heidi Graw
Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry. Women will continue to have abortions. On the social
front, I don't expect much will change.
I hope you are right. But then, people said the same after a certain A.
Hitler had been elected into office as chancellor of Germany...
Consider the communications technology that was available in the 1930's to
what is available today. Bush cannot in any way control absolutely all
media within the USA as Hitler could do within Germany. Bush can do his
propaganda spiel as much and as often as he wants, but today's infotech will
permit other viewpoints to be told. Squashing opposing voices is virtually
impossible *today.* It's also harder nowadays to engage in secret and
covert operations. Anyone with a micro camera can broadcast worldwide. So,
while the Admin may monitor us, we can also monitor them. It cannot be a
one-way communications stream any more. Those days are long gone.
And when people are in the know, even if they heavily disagree with one
another, implementing extreme programs becomes that much harder. At worst
Bush could nibble away at some edges...ie..make access to abortions slightly
more difficult or costly.
He can't even ban gay marriages outright 'cause civil unions seem to be
acceptable. All it takes is for a liberal church to bless and sanctify that
same sexed couple. A more conservative church might refuse...and since they
have the freedom to express their religious convictions and conscience,
these churches do have the right to refuse to bless gay people. They may
criticise liberal churches, but they can't actually shut them down. So,
American gays can still get married....register their civil union and
receive blessings by a Gay Christian Church....even if there is a
Constitutionally entrenched definition for the word "marriage" that claims
marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That definition means dick
all when people can still engage in civil unions and can have their
relationships blessed. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck it is a
So, this leaves issues regarding social benefits which a gay couple may not
have at this time, ie. widow and widower pensions, or other survivor
benefits that married couples are allowed to have. Power of attorney and
decision-making regarding what to do with a corpse can all be handled by
writing up a legally binding civil contract. As for survivor benefits, this
can be challenged using "equality" clauses. You don't even have to use the
word "spouse" when fighting for such a thing. One can also name *anyone* as
a beneficiary when it comes to insurance policies and private pension plans.
Wills can take care of all sorts of other needs to ensure the gay spouse is
I'm actually quite confused about the American gay advocacy. There are
already all sorts of ways they can be married in a very real and meaningful
way. Heteros have their civil marriages...gays their civil unions....both
are licensed and legally recognized. Whether union or marriage...the
function is identical. Both gays and heteros can find clergy to bless their
unions/marriages. The two words, union and marriage, even mean the same.
Gays can also draw up wills, name beneficiaries, and draw up civil
contracts...just like any hetro couple. Gays and heteros can wear rings on
Where inequality exists is when it relates to government support programs.
And in this I agree that when it comes to government services, sex
discrimination should not exist. All citizens should enjoy equal treatment
under the law. If I can draw a widows pension, so should a survivor of a
civilly united and licensed gay couple. Gay people pay taxes, too. They
should be able to receive equal benefit and equal opportunity just as any
In a way I'm kinda wondering ig the objection to gay marriages isn't so much
a moral issue, but rather a financial one instead. Conservative hetero
couples may fear they will have to share tax-money designated for survivor
benefits and that by allowing gay marriages it may increase the tax burden.
The financial aspects are not much talked about, although I think this plays
a role. Consider approximately 10% of the human population is gay. If they
all got married and had a spouse die, more survivor benefits would have to
be paid out, more spousal exemptions benefits can be claimed. The private
arrangements are not the problem...it's those publically supported programs