February 26, 2004

diversion

Well, so Bush thinks that couples shouldn't be allowed to legally marry if both members are of the same sex. I'm always curious how sex is defined in these circumstances. If I've had enough medical intervention to look like a man, can I still marry one, or would I be allowed to marry my girlfriend instead? Can intersex people marry men or women, but not other intersex people? If the issue is procreation, are marriages dissolved when the woman has an hysterectomy? And why do we recognise reconsituted families by allowing a man to adopt (and legitimate) children when he marries their mother? Why would the gender of the marrier make any difference?

I wonder whether his desire to defend marriage has something to do with dragging attention away from climate change. Apparently the Pentagon now thinks that climate change is a greater threat to national security than terrorism. Or possibly that is a nice example of a media panic - as the report is actually a worst-case scenario for the purposes of planning. Actual report lives here.

I hope Bush doesn't influence the passage of the local civil union bill for the worse. I don't care how people want to celebrate their relationships, or how many of what flavour vows they want to take, or who they want to get to witness and bless the whole shebang. I do care that the law is capable of recognising my actual family as accurately as possible.

Posted by carla at February 26, 2004 08:53 AM
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?