Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Gay Marriage: A question of Civil Rights
Gay Marriage: A question of Civil Rights
Statement of Peace and Freedom Party Senate Candidate Marsha Feinland:
Statement of Peace and Freedom Party Senate Candidate Marsha Feinland:
In the United States, the institution of marriage controls our right to such matters as child custody, hospital visitation, and retirement income. It is also the most common and socially accepted form of a committed relationship between two adults. To deprive any couple of the right to marry is discrimination. We cannot allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, just as we no longer allow "miscegenation" laws to prohibit interracial marriage.
As the U.S. Senate takes up a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in time for preelection posturing by the right wing, we should study the poses assumed by the two senators from California. Both Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were opposed to gay marriages in San Francisco when they were briefly legalized. This time, we will probably see them pointing out that the proposed amendment is "unnecessary," "inappropriate," or "not the business of the federal government."
My position is that a constitutional amendment or any law banning gay marriage is unjust, discriminatory and absolutely wrong. As long as the institution exists, everyone has the right to marry.
Also see:
Pro-War Diane Feinstein, What Are The Alternatives?
http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/28/18302034.php
Marsha Feinland for United States Senate
http://feinlandforsenate.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
As the U.S. Senate takes up a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in time for preelection posturing by the right wing, we should study the poses assumed by the two senators from California. Both Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were opposed to gay marriages in San Francisco when they were briefly legalized. This time, we will probably see them pointing out that the proposed amendment is "unnecessary," "inappropriate," or "not the business of the federal government."
My position is that a constitutional amendment or any law banning gay marriage is unjust, discriminatory and absolutely wrong. As long as the institution exists, everyone has the right to marry.
Also see:
Pro-War Diane Feinstein, What Are The Alternatives?
http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/28/18302034.php
Marsha Feinland for United States Senate
http://feinlandforsenate.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
for myself, and how i want to live my life both personally and politically, i do not agree with the institution of marriage. it seems to me that it is designed to exclude people, such as queers, but also any other type of family or alternative way of raising children. historically it has enslaved women to their husbands and helped enforce other types of discrimination (such as the prohibition of mixed-race marriages).
personally i do not want to partake in this institution but not every queer person feels this way. but just as i can do many things but choose not to, i will fight for the right of queers to marry as this is a choice they are entitled to. i agree that while we live in a world that places so much emphasis on marriage homosexuals must have the same rights as heterosexuals to partake in it. it is not a matter of morality and it certainly isn't a matter of religious belief. it is a matter of having the same rights as married couples have and having queer relationships recognised as equal to those of straight couples. though, in regards to this last point, if marriage equality legislation would actually be able to change social attitudes is a question that can only be answered in the long term.
personally i do not want to partake in this institution but not every queer person feels this way. but just as i can do many things but choose not to, i will fight for the right of queers to marry as this is a choice they are entitled to. i agree that while we live in a world that places so much emphasis on marriage homosexuals must have the same rights as heterosexuals to partake in it. it is not a matter of morality and it certainly isn't a matter of religious belief. it is a matter of having the same rights as married couples have and having queer relationships recognised as equal to those of straight couples. though, in regards to this last point, if marriage equality legislation would actually be able to change social attitudes is a question that can only be answered in the long term.
In November 2006,
the U.S. Senate race offers an easy opportunity
for progressives to express their opinions --
without any risk of letting a Republican candidate win.
The Democratic Party incumbent (whom I dislike)
has a comfortable lead over the Republican challenger.
This allows me to cast a protest vote for
the candidate of a minor party ( Peace & Freedom,
Green, et cetera).
So my Senate vote will go to Marsha Feinland.
....
the U.S. Senate race offers an easy opportunity
for progressives to express their opinions --
without any risk of letting a Republican candidate win.
The Democratic Party incumbent (whom I dislike)
has a comfortable lead over the Republican challenger.
This allows me to cast a protest vote for
the candidate of a minor party ( Peace & Freedom,
Green, et cetera).
So my Senate vote will go to Marsha Feinland.
....
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$355.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network