Why does the very term "states' rights" put my teeth on edge, with vague, nefarious imagery like that of dirty old men lusting after kittens (the four-legged kind...oh look, there's Bill Frist!), good ole boy employers paying "our darkies" a living wage of at least .50 cents less an hour than whites, and CCC (the new face of the KKK) barbecues with Harley Barbour?
I mean, states' rights DO NOT just amount to that. Some state issues are incredibly important. But I'm not certain why the same wing-nuts screaming for a constitutional amendment disallowing gays from marriage also calling this a states' rights issue? They clearly DO NOT want states to decide this, hence a constitutional amendment with the intent of keeping states from letting gays marry.
I dunno. Since the first gays married with legal recognition, I haven't felt my heterosexuality challenged once. I hold the issue of marriage in the same level of respect I did before (cagily not stating what that position is, mind you, but it's the exact same level as before, really).
No comments:
Post a Comment