A little perspective

With the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, there was much talk to be had about late-term abortion and the people who protest them. Dr. Tiller was one of only two or three doctors in the country who performed abortions in the third trimester, which is not many.  Turns out, the demand for more doctors isn’t there.

It came to my attention today that in actuality, third-trimester abortions just aren’t common.  When they do happen, it’s pretty much always a matter of the life or health of the mother—or an often-fatal fetal abnormality.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, in fact, 90% of all abortions occur within the first trimester; of those, more than 2/3 occur within the first 9 weeks.

Unclean!

I’m sure at least a few of you have seen the latest in Gallup polling, which indicates that support for gay marriage is strongly tied to personally knowing someone who is homosexual.  Though from the results, I’d point out that instead, opposition to gay marriage seems to be strongly tied to not knowing any homosexuals.

Among people who personally know homosexuals, there seems to be a plurality of support for gay marriage, while amongst those who don’t know any, there’s an overwhelming opposition to gay marriage.

A Couple Shorties

Just a couple of short things.

And New Hampshire makes six

Just a short time ago New Hampshire’s Governor, John Lynch (R), signed into law a bill extending marriage to homosexual couples, effective January 1st, 2010.  That—as the title indicates—makes the sixth state to open it up.  It joins Iowa, and every other state in New England except Rhode Island.  New York, meanwhile, has the Governor pushing same-sex marriage legislation, which has handily passed the New York Assembly, but has stalled in the Senate, because the Democratic Majority Leader seems to have gotten his position by promising to prevent this bill from reaching a vote.  In other news, Nevada’s legislature overrode the Governor’s veto to pass a Domestic Partner bill, opening up the rights of marriage to gay couples.

On the Nature of Politics, Part 2

I was doing some thinking the other day, and I was looking for insurance. I was reading about a community down in North Carolina that put into place a municipal broadband system system a while back. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that broadband is a good/service that is needed to survive, though that I will say about medical care. Further, I got to thinking about pensions and 401(k)s. This all gets intertwined to become this congealed glob of goo wherein one thing, one aspect of this formula, changes and so does the end result.

Marriage Equality

Legislation to give full marriage equality in Rhode Island has stalled, due to a lack of support in the legislature, and the promised veto of the Governor.  A lack of marriage equality has real consequences for people:

“I do not hear voices raised, voices stating absolutely that this just cannot do,” said Cassandra Ormiston, 62, a lesbian who could not get divorced in Rhode Island after she and her partner married in Massachusetts. “It is not enough to be patient.”

[emphasis mine]

See?  Why should homosexuals be denied the experience of a messy divorce?  Is that much emotional and property damage solely the domain of heterosexuals?

The downsides, continued

As if in response to my post yesterday, Rod Dreher put up his own list of how homosexuals are infringing on Christians’ religious freedom; or rather, he copied it from a report by the Washington post about how religious people are being sued when they deny services in non-religious settings to homosexuals.

What are the downsides?

This is a question that’s been knocking around in my head for a few days now, since I had a little debate on another blog over gay marriage:  What exactly is the downside to allowing gay couples to marry?  What are you afraid is going to happen?

I really can’t figure it out.  I mean, gay people are going to be gay people whether they’re allowed to marry or not.  They’re not going to just start having hetero relationships anymore than you (I’ll assume you’re straight for this example) would decide one day to have a homosexual relationship.  So it’s not like more gays are going to magically start existing.

Last time (today)

I promise, I will post no more (today) about gay marriage, but I simply had to share.  Some blogs I read were wondering what the Right was going to say now that they couldn’t scream “judicial activism” about Vermont and Washington D.C.

Well, I got the answer:

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage,” said [Tony] Perkins.

Good to know.  I wonder what they’ll say when 2012/14 rolls around and Iowa upholds the right of homosexuals to marry?  Or when the repeal of Prop 8 comes up in California in a year or three and people vote to repeal Prop 8?  Actually, on that second one, they’ll just say that it’s California, and hates your freedom or something.

Good to know that your elected officials are also judicial activists, destroying your democracy.

Vermont FTW

Less than an hour ago, the Vermont legislature successfully overrode the veto of Governor Jim Douglas to expand marriage rights to all couples in Vermont—gay or straight.  This marks the first time that a state has legislatively granted these rights to their whole population without first having the courts intervene.  So add this to my list of why Vermont is one of my favorite states.