There's little left to debate about same-sex marriage Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 The Free Press seems to think that just because only two people out of a hundred spoke against gay marriage, it means that the debate is unbalanced and that a boycott is responsible for the low turnout. There might be another explanation for the low number of anti-marriage people willing to speak out now. Back in the year 2000, the anti-marriage people argued very passionately that civil unions were simply gay marriage by another name. They said that if we allowed civil unions in Vermont, the sacred institution of marriage would be at risk. They claimed that the fabric of society would be utterly destroyed. They even said that the foundation of civilization itself would crumble. They said that if we allowed civil unions, it was a slippery slope and there would be no way to stop polygamy. They told us that people marrying animals would soon follow. Since no one can honestly point to any of these predictions actually coming true, then these people may be a little slow to show their faces and repeat the same tired talking points now that everyone has seen the truth. There were no negative side effects from civil unions. The only thing left for this crowd to argue is that they believe that gays and lesbians are immoral. Denying marriage to gays because they are immoral without having a morality test for straight people is a little one-sided. Isn't it strange to believe that murderers, rapists, thieves, and thugs are moral enough to be married because they are straight, but honest, loving, gays and lesbians are not? Don't people believe that they should treat their neighbors as they want to be treated and don't they realize that they have gay and lesbian neighbors? We should treat everyone equally in Vermont. If it is too much of a stretch to give marriage to gays and lesbians, let's have only civil unions for everyone. Then everyone will experience the reason why civil unions aren't good enough. When unequal civil unions are substituted for marriage, I think that most Vermonters will be surprised to find out that their rights stop at the border. When they go to any other state, they will have to figure out if they are married, civil union partners, or completely unrelated in that state. They will have to pray that nothing bad happens to them in another state because without marriage, hospitals don't have to treat your spouse as a next of kin. If you work for a large company, you might find yourself on the phone to your human resources people trying to explain to a person in another state that your spouse really does deserve coverage, but the person on the other end of the phone might tell you that the company only recognizes marriages and not civil unions. If you lived in Massachusetts, your spouse could be covered, but since you live in Vermont, they don't get benefits. You might want to scream that it is only a word, but that word is important to whether or not your loved one gets benefits. When you have a civil union, you better enjoy doing taxes because you will have to do your federal taxes three times: once for each of you and once combined. Then you will have to send a physical copy of the federal taxes to Montpelier; no online TurboTax for you because you have a civil union, not a marriage. Let's all support the inherent worth and dignity of all people and support marriage rights for any two people who love each other. And let's recognize that the reason that there is less anti-marriage participation in the commission is because a lot of the opposition knows how silly they sound when they repeat the discredited warnings of what will happen if Vermont allows marriage for all. |