Of Breeders, Homos, and the Marriage Debate

So straight people are being harassed in Provincetown. Apparently they're being taunted and called "breeders."

My first instinct is to laugh. Hahaha! The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? There are enough places in the country that a gay person can't go -- it's about time there's one where straights get harrassed just for being straight.

But then I realize that the straight people who would choose to surround themselves with homos for their vacation are probably not the ones who deserve this kind of treatment.

There's one particularly absurd case, though, where a Provincetown woman who signed the same-sex marriage ban petition was called a bigot by some guy... who she then turned around and filed verbal assault charges against. The kicker is that she drives around in a trolley with a sign plastered on it that reads "That 'love thy neighbor' thing? I meant it . . . [signed] God."

So I guess it's loving thy neighbor to publicly declare him a second-class citizen, but calling someone a bigot is crossing a line. Hypocrites.

---------

Joshua had a good idea for solving this whole marriage debate. There should be no marriage at all, he says, except within one's own church. The state should recognize civil unions only, and those civil unions should be available to any two people regardless of gender or relationship. You would be legally bound to any one person of your choice. Obviously in most cases it would be husbands and wives. In other cases, gay or lesbian partners. But if, say, two widowed sisters wanted to combine their finances and ensure that they could make medical decisions for each other as they age, they should be able to get a civil union.

I definitely agree. Why should the government require that we be sleeping with the person we want to take care of us?

I'm so sick of seeing people protesting up at the State House (they were there two days ago for the umpteenth Constitutional Convention). I think civil unions for all is a perfect compromise.