Dear friends,
also happen to someone like me to change my mind every now and then. Some of you remember a certain evening spent discussing the legal rights of gays. My position was determined: these are not the problems of our country. Well ... Part of what I thought remains unchanged, given the cultural drift when due, the relative freedom of the press, the shameful legacy of political and economic environment that we are, the Mafia, the conditions of workers. I think that is that, having similar problems, not only is detrimental from the point of view of public opinion, focus on the rights of unmarried couples, but also unrealistic (after all ... a country where gays could marry, but where the employee was no safeguard in any case a country would be thrown away). When some left gave the idea to focus more on these other issues that he lost. And miserably. Ma .. There is a but. Different idea is coming up in my mind. I want to share with you.
The point is not really a mountain? That is ... The presence of certain problems seem to discourage any serious effort towards improving the rights of gay (we almost absent). In fact, the interference of the Church and would not allow a common moldy a quantum leap. But in reality it is not is flawed, always the same, as that does not solve the problems mentioned above, does not allow even a release for this? This is not the usual cultural backwardness? Maybe not the case to start with problems that seem less important (only because they are less useful in terms of politics) to give the feeling of change, of renewal, which could, over time, invest the other bad apples?
Where did this post? Arises from the story of Thea Spyer and Edith Windsor, two elderly American women who love for 42 years, having obtained a legal marriage in Canada two years ago. On the death of the second before you has had to pay in the U.S. exaggerated the inheritance tax (over three hundred thousand dollars) which says, "I would not have happened if I had been married to a man." And then I found myself thinking about the joke ... In addition to pain at the loss of a person, it must be heard Edith canceled. For her it was natural to think of his wife Thea, without the need for a piece of paper be presented. Needless to say that I touched. It has also touched Barack Obama apparently who ordered the amendment of certain articles of the Marriage Defense Act, signed by Clinton, stating only the legal union between a man and woman. Well ... But is it possible that we are still here talking about?
I've come up with something shocking. Although this lack of legal rights, like other tall tales told in past centuries, to become a form of deterrence, because economically disadvantageous.
There is the idea that one can disparage the idea of \u200b\u200bfamily. Cabbages, is simply to recognize two people who have shared a lifetime, their union! I doubt that the vast majority of gay interest to be told "Go in! You are a family !!!". Today, even some heterosexual couples do not see marriage in the road that best expresses their union. This is not to have a recognition of "formal". Here we talk about money. And dignity.
's just homophobia? Or is there some factor utilitarian and cheap (I do not see) to prevent such an opening? For example ... The celibacy of priests of the Church is a precautionary measure to prevent personal property may be lost in legal wrangling and civil rights. There is a factor similar to clear the rights of homosexuals? I was not that we're very understanding. In some countries have not made too many problems, because we are?
Once again I urge you not to stop the injustice of certain situations by declaring "It 's unfair!", "What country shit!", "Look what happens to Fruttolandia instead." Ask yourself "WHY '?" Responding to this question, and working about the common opinion, it may be possible to make progress.
await answers and ideas.
Your correspondent Emilia
0 comments:
Post a Comment