Saturday, August 11, 2007

Equal rights aren't special rights

The Rev. Susan Russell posted a great summary of a Dem candidate debate you may have missed (not found in the Rapid City Journal's National news section fo sure:
Stumbling to make separate sound like anything other than unequal the Democratic front-runners swore allegiance to civil unions for LGBT Americans in Thursday night's HRC/Logo sponsored candidate forum. I was privileged to be in the studio audience for the historic gathering of presidential candidates addressing LGBT issues to an LGBT audience — an event hardly even imaginable an election or two ago. It was an honor to be there and one of the questions a reporter asked me afterwards was "did you hear anything new?"
My favorite part is a comment by Lois to her post, which should be read by South Dakotans that still wonder what our shiny new Constitutional Amendment really means.
As the very proud mother who with her husband raised five children to adulthood -- four straight, one gay, all equally loved and cherished by us -- I find it abominable that the media and the population as a whole still speaks of 'gay rights' rather than EQUAL RIGHTS! Would we dare speak of 'black rights' or 'Hispanic rights'or 'women's rights' any more, in this country? You bet your life we wouldn't, and that's the way it should be.What in the name of God is it that keeps society from seeing our countless millions of gay children, grandchildren, siblings, friends as equal in every way to our straight children, grandchildren, siblings, friends?

My four straight kids married the person they loved; my gay son was 'allowed' to wear a wedding band, with nothing official attached to it, even though his life partner and he were together for years, until our beautiful son died. I've written to each Democratic candidate (the Republicans are a lost cause on the issue) who blithely speaks of 'civil unions but not marriage,' and have told them they will never get our vote.

Cherished gay family members are first class citizens in every way, and that includes marriage, nothing less. Civil unions? They're scarcely even 'marriage lite,' and are *not* acceptable. Equality is just that ... equality in all ways. As one of the questioners at the forum wisely asked (paraphrased, here): Would the panelists accept 'civil unions' for *themselves*, rather than marriage? I think we know the answer to that one.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for posting Lois' comment. I read a post on another blog this evening that although it doesn't deal with politics, it deals with speaking truth when one's child is gay. Even, especially, when it ruffles feathers. It is along the same vein as Lois' comment.