Google
 

Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Advertisements
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Apr 08, 2007 - 04:51 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

In the town I live in, you may not purchase a license for a pet goldfish. Dogs are licensed, to be sure (there are even fines for not having one); cats are licensed to a lesser degree (and there are still fines for not having one). Goldfish, however, are not licensed. You may not buy one.

"But I want one," You might say. You may want all you wish -- there are no licenses for pet goldfish... not even if you are willing to buy a dog license, scratch the word "dog" out with a purple crayon, and scrawl the word "fish" in it's place. There's a rather entertaining skit by Monty Python's Flying Circus along exactly these lines.

"Hello. I should like to purchase a license for my pet fish, Eric."

That is what this "domestic partner registry" is -- dog licenses with the word "fish" scribbled on them. They are meaningless wastes of paper.

If there is anyone who is this interested in the wrappings, they are fools.

As for the morons in the legislature that would ban cities creating such registries... they really are the (ever so slightly) less foolish ones. They are, after all, saving paper.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
vanrozenheim
Post subject:   PostPosted: Apr 08, 2007 - 02:59 AM
Site Admin


Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 440

There is for sure no particular use for a legal status which doesn't entail any legal consequences. If at all, there is solely a symbolic value in such a legal bond -- for this, one does not need to fight heated battles in House committee. Any "gay community leader" in Kansas could as well issue a self-designed certificate of a relationship based on "gay common law", and this certificate would change the pair's legal status to the same degree.

So what's with this particular battle? It solely shows that people are by times more worried about wrappings than about contents. Instead of fighting with wind mills, they should decide what's important for them. If "conservatives" think Gay couples should enjoy live in misery and discrimination, they should frankly admit it. If Gay people wish to have equal legal rights with straight people, they should loudly demand them -- in green or red wrappings, whatever.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Apr 07, 2007 - 07:52 PM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

From 365

Quote:
Couples would be able to fill out a form a city hall and then use the document as proof of their relationship. It could aid them seeking benefits from local companies that offer health insurance to the same-sex partners of workers.


Oooooh, I just love the qualifiers here. "Could," they say. "Aid," they say. "Seeking," they say. Of course the AG says it doesn't violate the state's Hate Amendment -- it most certainly would not confer anything at all. It would be names on pieces of paper, and a waste of perfectly good paper at that.

No worries though... even meaningless wastes of paper aren't good enough for the Kansas legislature...

Quote:
After Lawrence began exploring the possibility of a partner registry a bill was introduced in the legislature that would bar any municipality from approving registries.

The measure received House committee approval but a floor vote has not been scheduled and House leaders say the issue is likely dead for at least this year.


I almost can't decide which is the more stupid -- the lobbying for such meaningless tokens by GLB activists or the histrionic attempts to legislate even meaningless tokens out of existence. Almost, but not quite -- obviously the latter is the more stupid (and evil), but only just barely.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Kyleovision
Post subject: Editorial: To Kansas Civil Unions and The Horse They Rode In  PostPosted: Apr 07, 2007 - 03:34 PM



Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 290
Location: USA
From the Gay Republic Daily Editorial desk:

Quote:
Kansas' state Attorney General has issued a non-binding legal opinion that clears the way for civil unions in the city of Lawrence. And without knowing it, he confirms that those sorts of 'recognized' unions are worthless. Waaay back in the days of yore, back in the dark days of 2005 when that damn Black Eyed Pea 'Humps' song came out... you know back then, the voters in Kansas passed one of those ultra-nasty, anti-gay constitutional amendments that restricts marriage to 'one man and one woman'.

It's an ugly law; almost as ugly as Virginia's version, or Ohio's. It's a poxy law because it goes on to bar granting any of "the rights or incidents of marriage" to same-sex couples. In other states, that kind of legal lingo has been used to outlaw domestic-partner benefits, or even attempts to slap an outright ban on unmarried couples living together.

Fast-forward to late last year, to about when Alanis Morissette was just considering covering that damn 'Humps' song: The city fathers of Lawrence, Kansas decide that they want to register same-sex civil unions. Good for them (and shame on Alanis). Now, the city's effort was not all that shocking. Lawrence is about as liberal a place as there is... in Kansas. The huge University of Kansas campus is there. Lots of young people. The place was famously nuked in an old 80s TV movie called 'The Day After.' My understanding is that they've recently gotten something known as 'cellphone service' there. We're talking hip... for Kansas.

So, hep cats that they are, the city fathers decided to wait on passing their little civil-union measure until the state Attorney General weighed in. They're city fathers; they hang out at the Elks club and the Knights of Columbus. They think the Chamber of Commerce is important. Point is, they're not the kind of guys who wanted to run afoul of the state, constitutional mandate for hate.

This week the state AG told them to go ahead. Everything's more or less legally peachy, he says, because registering same-sex CUs doesn't actually provide any real marriage rights to those who sign up. "The ordinance does not permit something forbidden by the marriage amendment," the AG's legal opinion says.

Great... right? No. Wait. Let me read that again.

Seems to me that he just confirmed what a whole lot of gay people have been saying all along: civil unions are no substitute for actual Equal Marriage. In fact, they don't do anything at all. Just ask the Kansas state Attorney General.

Golly, turns out that fella-- that AG fella-- he's purty smart... for a guy from Kansas.

_________________
"That buzzing-noise means something. You don't get a buzzing-noise like that, just buzzing and buzzing, without its meaning something."
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2006 The PNphpBB Group
Credits