Oh, certainly, I'd rather see everyone just accept that people are people. Period. It's the best answer, always has been. But then, as blackfog points out below, the US still hasn't managed to pass the ERA prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. This is not a country with a good track record for accepting equality for ANYONE! (From what I've read, Canada seems to be so much saner a place in so many ways.)
I accept the validity of your example. Perhaps someone should hold that up to the "sanctity of marriage" crew as a suggestion that they are the ones destroying it. The problem is, they wouldn't listen. The law doesn't require much change to achieve equality, but the people certainly do. One of the reasons I don't work in politics is that I can't stand the bigotry and the irrationality.
In the meantime, I'm more concerned that all of my friends be able to (for example) be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital, not be excluded because they don't have the legal status of next-of-kin. And so on.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2005-03-01 04:55 pm (UTC)I accept the validity of your example. Perhaps someone should hold that up to the "sanctity of marriage" crew as a suggestion that they are the ones destroying it. The problem is, they wouldn't listen. The law doesn't require much change to achieve equality, but the people certainly do. One of the reasons I don't work in politics is that I can't stand the bigotry and the irrationality.
In the meantime, I'm more concerned that all of my friends be able to (for example) be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital, not be excluded because they don't have the legal status of next-of-kin. And so on.