As can be read here, New Hampshire has passed a law allowing civil unions between gay partners. The reaction from the Religious Wrong was predictable, but sometimes they surprise even me with their sheer stupidity. Thus, our Idiot of the Week hits us with this Hall of Shamer:
"Let's just call it what it really is, no sugarcoating," said Republican Sen. Robert Letourneau. "This creates same-sex marriage. There is no right to marriage in either the New Hampshire Constitution or the federal Constitution."
"We don't let blind people drive or felons vote, all for good and obvious reasons," he said.
Uh huh. So allowing same sex people to have a civil union, to have the same rights to life insurance, to visit their injured mates in hospitals, and all the other benefits of committed unions that heterosexuals get when they get married, is the equivalent of allowing blind people to drive and felons to vote.
As is so common with the Religious Wrong, they are hard to distinguish from satire. Just what exactly is it about homosexual civil unions that threatens traditional marriage? Those wishing a traditional marriage still may have one. Those so opposed to this are never able to present the slightest coherance in response. There is simply nothing a heterosexual couple can do in marriage that does not apply to a homosexual union save one: unassisted procreation.
Now, this may come as a shock to people like Senator Letourneau, but we have an overabundance of people on this planet, and that is indirectly contributing to most of our major problems, such as global climate change. Having more people get married that can't have children together is actually a good thing. It also gives them a much more stable environment in which to raise whatever children they already have.
It is the height of hypocrisy for the Religious Wrong on the one hand to condemn homosexuals for living a frivolous lifestyle, and then on the other, to refuse them the right to have a civil union. It is also hypocritical for them to carp on and on about how important it is for parents to remain together and have a stable home in which to raise children, and then to fight efforts by homosexuals to do exactly that.
I'd like to ask Senator Robert Letourneau to explain what it is about homosexuals that makes them incapable of having a committed relationship, as his comparison to blind drivers implies. What is it about them that they have done to morally disqualify themselves from doing so, as his felon/voting comment implies.
I'm not holding my breath.