The Happy Feminist: THROUGH THICK AND THIN

I entirely and wholeheartedly agree. I was glancing over our local Sunday paper two Sundays ago, and came across the aniversaries/engagements section. Near the bottom was the anniversary announcement of a gay couple who had been together since 1982, twenty three years. A beautiful photo of them on vacation outshined every other photo on the page.

Over the course of my life I've read of the same group of people essentially denying the rights of others based on their own personal views. For a great deal of these people on this issue, I know they've never met the couples or individuals they are repressing, and don't care to, and it saddens and angers me that they could deny anyone's right to happiness, especially people they've never met.

Posted by: Jessica | November 07, 2005 at 11:34 AM

Ugh. I also know a lesbian couple who split up under less than amicable terms. They had a daughter, who I think was 9 or 10 at the time, and since one of the women had given birth to the daughter via sperm donor (the other partner's brother, actually), she was the legal mother and the other partner had no rights at all to her daughter. Ten years she'd been this kid's mom, and because she was never legally allowed to marry her partner, when things went sour she lost her daughter as well as her spouse. It's ridiculous.

Posted by: Ann | November 07, 2005 at 11:52 AM

I live in Texas...I'd like to be more hopeful but I'm feeling like the case for civil rights has a bleak future here.

Earlier this year, Senfronia Thompson, a representative from Houston, gave a moving speech on this issue. Here is a link:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19098

Posted by: ellamae | November 07, 2005 at 04:08 PM

Well said. This is an aspect of marriage that most of us take for granted.

Posted by: jo(e) | November 07, 2005 at 06:09 PM

"I believe that all unions, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be referred to legally as “civil unions.” The term “marriage” would refer to whatever unions are sanctioned by people’s churches."

And I agree completely. Excellent post.

Posted by: Alice | November 08, 2005 at 02:40 PM

"I believe that all unions, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be referred to legally as “civil unions.” The term “marriage” would refer to whatever unions are sanctioned by people’s churches."

I believe the same, as I don't believe that any secular government has a right to regulate marriage; nor should the religious institution of marriage be yoked to or define the legal institution of a partnership between individuals. On those grounds, I see no reason to outlaw gay civil unions, though I don't really get what the legal basis is for the "marital privilege". Do you how this particular protection was established?

That said, I wouldn't hold out hope for today's vote in Texas. Ever since Austin's voting district was gerrymandered out of existence, the balance is way way off in favor of R voters (not that I really blame the Republican party- the Democrats would've, and have, done the same when the ball is in their court).

Posted by: Samara | November 08, 2005 at 06:21 PM