"A Principled Decision"
A few days ago, someone posted a comment about recent post on gay marriage where I called those who actively oppose gay marriage bigots. He thought I was not being moderate in using that word. He went on to say they are worried that allowing same sex couples to marry would redefine marriage.
So, today we hear word from Maryland that Republican Governor Robert Erlich vetoed a bill that would have allowed some rights to be granted to same sex couples that hetrosexual couples already have. He thought the legislation "threatened the sancity of traditional marriage."
The legislation would have done the following:
Modeled after laws in California, Hawaii and other states, the legislation would have granted nearly a dozen rights to unmarried partners who register with the state. Among those: the right to be treated as an immediate family member during hospital visits, to make health care decisions for incapacitated partners and to have private visits in nursing homes.
To political cowards like Erlich and the social conservatives whose boots he is licking, I can only ask this: how is this Christian? How can one call themselves a Christian and yet deny someone access to their loved one when they are in the hospital? You can believe being gay is a sin, but does that mean that you treat the person as less than human? And how is this not bigoted? I would like to know where the "love" is in all of this.
Let's hear the story of one Maryland Lesbian:
A woman who could have benefited from the bill, Stacey Kargman-Kaye of Baltimore, said yesterday that she was heartbroken. "I don't understand how a human being who has a significant other and children could not see the need for this," she said.
Kargman-Kaye, 37, said that after she emerged from heart surgery five years ago, a nurse literally pushed away her longtime partner, who was there to support her, "because we're not considered a family in the eyes of Maryland."
This should make even social conservatives have some heart, but I guess they think all sinners deserve to be treated this way.
Erlich campaigned as a moderate, but this veto shows that he is not a centrist. One can be against gay marriage and yet see the need for some protections for people who don't fit the norm. A true moderate would have seen signed this into law as a pragmatic piece of legislation. Erlich caved into bigots, and Free Staters should remember that come 2006.
How I wish for a Russ Potts to challenge Erlich.