Sunday, May 09, 2004

One Fish, Two Fish, Red State, Blue State

Ah...Smell that fresh, gay-free air? That's Bush Country.

This from today's Washington Post editorial:

IN THE GATHERING debate over gay marriage, some state legislatures have moved to ban it, others to create civil unions or domestic partnerships. Then there's the Virginia General Assembly, which last month -- brushing aside proposed amendments from Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) -- passed with veto-proof majorities a jaw-dropping bill that bans not only civil unions but any "partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage." And it declares "void in all respects" and "unenforceable" in the commonwealth any such arrangement made in another state.

In other words, not only is any public affirmation of gay relationships banned but even private legal arrangements between two people who love each other are prohibited. The bill's broad language would preclude contracts to share assets or provide for medical powers of attorney, and though its sponsors deny they intend to do so, it would seem to ban even certain contractual business relationships undertaken by people who happen to be of the same gender.

I think it plays pretty well with this:

DAYTON, Tenn. - More than 400 people turned out Saturday for a Rhea County Gay Day celebration prompted by the county commission's vote to ban homosexuals and have them arrested for "crimes against nature."

It's worth noting that the commission reversed course two days after the vote. Still, this is proof that for a sizable portion of people on the right, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage means little or nothing; this group won't be happy until gays and lesbians either a) keep their sexuality strictly behind closed doors a la the 50's, or b) are limited solely to "blue" states.

I suspect most of them would prefer the latter.