— OPINION: SAME-SEX UNIONS —
Two steps back?
Nebraska lacks national progressive sentiment
Nebraska has just taken yet
another subhuman step back for
mankind. You think I’m kidding?
Look in die paper.
As I’m sure most of you have
heard by now, there are some
mean people out there who want
to ruin other peopled lives. Gay
people’s lives to be exact Let me
take you back to 1996 when
groups like the Nebraska Family
Council and the Nebraska
Christian Coalition have been
seething and festering, waiting
for the perfect moment to strike
out against gay marriages. ..
Since then, these groups have
been goading brainless people
into carrying around a clipboard,
a pen, some ballots and VAGUE
DESCRIPTIONS OF A CAUSE
in order to change the Nebraska
Constitution. They needed
107,000 signatures; they got
155,000.
Folks, gay ones that is, we’re
gonna lose this battle. Call me
negative, but call me realistic.
The gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans
gender and straight folks who
believe in equality can only do so
much. We are outnumbered and
got a late start. Of course, we did
n’t know this was coming so the
late start was reactionary, but now
the best we can hope for is
craploads of national coverage so
people all over the nation can
snicker and then try to help us
poor souls.
I see this all as a big step back
for Nebraska, but in the mean
time, other states out there (like
the other 49) are making
progress. They are learning to
share die wealth of the happiness
of marriage instead of hoarding it
for themselves. All right, maybe
this is just Vermont, but it’s a
start! I still love Nebraska despite
its backward momentum; it
always provides me and the rest
o’ the queers with something to
fight for (or against).
No one can say, “There’s
nothing to whine about in
Nebraska”. I say, let Nebraska be
conservative and STRAIGHT,
we’re already ostracized for
enough things that we will never
live down. In fact, if Nebraska
does ever accept marriage for all
people, it won’t matter — the
other states will continually beat
us up and give us wedgies the size
of, well, Texas because it took us
so long to catch up to die crowd.
Nebraska is afraid of this “catch
ing up” but believe you me,
sometimes it’s for the better.
Sometimes it's for equality’s
sake.
The only thing to do now is to
educate *the people who signed
the goddamned petition to know
exactly what they signed. We
have not the manpower compared
to the ASSHOLES AT LARGE
(they had 4,000 armed units) but
there’s nothing to do but try. For
instance, a-hem, there is a meet
ing at the Unitarian church
tonight at 7, to plan and assemble
a strong military...er, void of
weapons, uniforms, and straight
soldiers of course.
Now, I’m so tempted to tell
these lost souls that signed and
passed around the petition that
the Nebraska Constitution
already states what the proposal
is going to say.
The proposal says that “Only
marriage between a man and a
Please see BROWN on 9
Fuzzy logic
Ban of same-sex unions flawed
Let s hear it for the Religious
Right
In thei^ endless pursuit of
instilling the fear of God in the
rest of us, die religious initiative
has gathered enough signatures
to put a proposed constitutional
amendment on the ballot in
Nebraska this November. As it
stands, the amendment would
not allow the recognition of gay
marriages, unions or any other
“domestic partnership.”
The amendment is a wonder
in modern government. It has
serious practical, ethical and
constitutional errors. However,
the public seems to be support
ing it thus far, as it wants to pro
tect marriage, a “fundamental
building-block” of society.
That heterosexual families
form an essential mortar to this
pseudo-capitalistic, mostly
democratic society can’t be
denied. But ban supporters claim
this mortar needs to be defended
— that the work of gays and
straight allies to give tolgay cou
ples rights that straight couples
take for granted is a direct
assault on traditional marriage.
True, allowing gays to marry
in civil ceremonies will redefine
the public’s perception of what
civil marriage really is — but it
doesn’t change the facts.
Ban-supporters who claim
that the gay minority is trying to
redefine marriage for die major
ity don’t acknowledge that there
are two dimensions to marriage
— the civil and the religious.
Often melded together in cere
monies, these dimensions are
still distinct.
The claim against acknowl
edging homosexual unions rises
primarily from religious argu
ments — and if a particular reli
* gion wishes not to acknowledge
such unions, that is their right,
and no one can, or should, force
that religion to change its posi
tion.
However, the civil dimension
of marriage — which includes
not only tax adjustments, but
hospital visitation rights, inheri
tance procedures, sick leave to
care for an ill spouse, among oth
ers — is based neither on reli
gion nor on the desire to promote
the religious dimension of mar
riage. It is simply an acknowl
edgment that married couples
often act a certain way, and there
are certain privileges that seem
only natural for a long-term,
committed relationship.
And since some gays have
the desire for such relationships,
and will do so with or without
the support of the state, why
should we deny them? Is it ethi
cal to use the state to separate a
couple of dedicated partners
simply because the society’s
majority thinks it is wrong for
the two to be together?
That the ban is little more
than an official statement of anti
homosexuality, forging an
indelible blemish on our state
constitution, should be enough
for the signatories to reconsider.
But there is a further issue to be
addressed: the separation of
church and state.
Article I, Section 4 of the
Nebraska Constitution states that
“no preference shall be given by
law to any religious society.” The
proposed amendment does not
Please see GIAZESKI on 9
read it anytime
dailyneb.com
always here