From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Dec 09 2000 - 23:40:34 MST
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> >
> > BULLSHIT. That statement reeks of unsupported claim. And I know my
> > people better than that.
>
> I can mail you the newspaper clippings of the confessions. You have
> blinders on, as there is nothing that some people will not stoop to to
> prove a point, and their sexual preference has nothing to do with it.
>
I don't have blinders on. I know some people will go too far. Like
claiming that all hate crimes in an entire state are the work of gays
trying to whip up enthusiasm for what they want.
> I'm not generalizing about all supporters of civil unions (since I am
> one). What I am saying is that there are individuals who are doing the
> cause in general more harm than good by their misguided actions. Now, I
> can understand someone who has been living under a cloud of real or
> perceived persecution for a large chunk of their lives internalizing a
> lot of the hate they perceive in others, and are consequently
> emotionally hair triggered to assume anyone who is not overtly like them
> to be thus against them.
>
I agree that some do the cause harm by wrong-headed methods. But I
have a big problem with over-generalizing on the basis of that. I don't
think it is being hair-triggered to have one of the few state intiatives
to give us some measure of equality before the law be something one is
sensitive to others putting down. I am glad to hear you are actually a
supporter. But I don't think you are in a position to label others as
suffering from internalized homophobia just because they distrust
statements of faint support after long experience of such support
melting away at critical moments.
> > I could really give a shit what someone thinks of me. But when they
> > deny me the same rights as others have because of their bigoted opinion
> > or attack me and mine then that is a different matter entirely. Don't
> > trivialize this. Having people you know killed just for being different
> > (one publicly beat to death with baseball bats) tends to make you pissed
> > off as hell when someone claims that you're just upset because people
> > don't think you and "your kind" are super.
>
> Nobody is denying you the right to join in union with someone of the
> opposite sex for purposes of raising children under beneficial taxation
> and legal protections. Now, the civil unions law, which I support
> (versus some of its other supporters, who hurt themselves more than they
> help), does try to redefine this under a separate but equal sortof
> definition, while at the same time extending this right to anyone,
> regardless of sexual preference (which is mandatory under the equal
> protection clause which you claim you are denied your rights under).
> Where the law still fails, in my opinion, and which exposes its
> hypocrisy, is that it does not also legalize bigamy or polygamy, which
> it constitutionally has to to comply with first amendment rights of
> freedom of association.
It is not joining with someone of the opposite sex that is the problem
and even that was never only about procreation. I am fundamentally
lesbian in my predilections so I don't understand why it helps to remind
me that I can join with someone of the opposite sex. (!?) Couples (of
all kinds) need certain types of legal instruments to function well as a
couple, especially when it comes to joint property, survival benefits
and taxes, raising children and so on. It is primarily the religionists
who say that only marriage between a man and a woman should be so
construed and respected.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:16 MST