Same-sex Civil Unions? Republicans LOL.
[A similar story is posted at The Huffington Post HERE]
Oh, it was a rollicking good time at the House Majority press conference this week. Mark Miller of the Juneau Empire pointed out that only 30% of Alaskans were opposed to legally recognizing same-sex partnerships in some way. That means 70% of the population in our great state thinks that gay people should have the right to a legal union. That’s what they call, in statistical terms, “a ginormous majority.” In light of these overwhelming results, Miller asked the Republican House caucus if they would support legally recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships for same sex couples in Alaska.
He got his answer. It was, and I quote, “Hahahahahahaha!” Yes, hilarity ensued. Laughter erupted from those behind the microphones. Leading the bellowing guffaws were Speaker of the House Mike Chenault, and Rep. Craig Johnson (who was SO amused, he literally threw his head back). Once the amusement at the thought of civil rights for gay people died down, House Majority Leader Lance Pruitt commented that the caucus wasn’t really going to address that. What they were really focused on were “things that would allow people to have a great life.” Huh. I guess according to Lance Pruitt, either the right for your relationship to be legally recognized by the state doesn’t help make life great, or gay people are not actually “people.”
Here’s the video, courtesy of Alaska Commons. It’s worth watching.
[Full transcript]
Miller: I’m looking at a recent Public Policy Polling survey of Alaska that found that only 30% of respondents believed there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship in Alaska. I’m just curious – would the caucus support the idea of having domestic partnerships or civil unions open to same-sex couples?
Republicans: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Pruitt: Uhhh…. I don’t know if I saw that in our guiding principles. (Laughter dies down)
As you’ll notice, most of the discussion we had in here was related to um… they all intertie. Whether it’s economics… economics and its impacts on communities, whether it’s roads to resources, which is a lot of… I think what what’s is important about this caucus is that we focus on the things that really allow people’s uh.. allow people to have a great life. We’re not talking… we didn’t have a discussion here about what happens inside your home. We had a discussion here about whether you can live… uh… whether you can make money, you can… whether there’s a great economy, and whether or not you’re going to be… have the opportunity to live in Alaska with a great future. Now, your discussion on that? We didn’t talk about that, and uh… I’ll be straight. We did not talk about that particular issue, and that was not something that we said, “We’re going to make that one of our guiding principles!” It wasn’t something that came up in our discussion.
Lance Pruitt (photo Dave Harbour)
A gifted orator who can think quickly on his feet, Lance Pruitt clearly is not. Sifting through that large crock of word salad was revealing. In addition to not thinking legal unions contribute to a “great life,” we learn that either marriage or gayness apparently only affects you “in the home.” Neither does a legal union have anything to do with having a “great future.” Equality is not a “guiding principle” for the Republican House caucus, and neither is the overwhelming majority opinion of the voters. But hey, at least Lance Pruitt is going to be “straight.”
I, for one, am THRILLED that the Republican House caucus laughed uproarously when asked “if they would support legally recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships for same sex couples in Alaska.”
I, myself, DEPLORE the idea of said notion. How demeaning it is. How cruel it is. How de-humanizing it is. How fundamentally unAmerican. How dispicable.
And it’s utterly absurd. Why in the world would ANY ONE think “recogniz[ing] civil unions or domestic partnerships for same sex couples in Alaska” (or ANY where!) is a good idea? All such ‘recognition’ is, is a fifth-rate, condescending, and MOST begrudging conferring of ‘legal’ status on those who’d be effected (and their families) by the not-so-subtle back-of-the-hand smack-down from the holier-than-thous who daily pass negative judgement on their fellow citizens.
There is NO equality (as guaranteed by the Constitution) in “recogniz[ing] civil unions or domestic partnerships for same sex couples.” None. Never has been; never will be. Semi-equal, yes; Equal, no.
Full Marriage equality — Legally guaranteed as a right of citizenship (not to mention human-ship) — now *that* is a different story. And That is the Only legal ‘remedy’/option I can get on board with. Anything less makes a complete mockery of what my heart of hearts, my very soul, knows a good, strong, lasting Marriage to be.. beth.
So, you have equal protection under Alaska law provided you are (a) male, (b) straight, and (c) white. I’m glad my state has gay marriage on the books (tonight, I’m visiting my friends who got married in the summer after 38 years together), glad that the couple who won a wedding were from Alaska (yes, Fox News, that was a lesbian couple), and glad we have some legislators who can make laws without consulting their Cliffs Notes Bible.
What an insult and the worst of it is….we have neighbors, family members, etc that THIS issue center stage to them having a complete and happy life.
I am amazed in many ways that Alaska has grown up and forward enough to have 70% have no objection to civil unions or domestic partnerships. It makes me ever so happy that at least in some areas we are gaining ground in this state, as it seems in so many that we are in the dark ages.
Will keep my fingers crossed and make sure my votes support those who will allow ‘happiness’ to ALL of our residents.
Pruitt’s bio is like rice paper, flimsy. He says he’s a lifelong Alaska and graduated from Heritage High School in ’99 (can’t find a Heritage High School in Anchorage that existed in ’99…hmmm) and has a degree from an online college…no wonder he can’t think or speak clearly. Pitiful waterboy for the repubs….I’m sure the repubs are re-assessing their pick for House Majority Leader when it’s obvious he is in desperate need of a Speech 101 class.
Heritage Christian High School, it was here in 99, a friend graduated in 86 from there, but I don’t know how old the school is.
Thanks for the info. Must be why I couldn’t find it since he leaves out the “Christian” part of the title.
Is this a Prevo school?
Is Heritage High School part of ABT?
Wow. Talk about a case of “One Picture, Ten Thousand Words.”
Suggested title:
“Portrait of a Smug Little Prick”
You could replace this soundtrack with the goat soundtrack and I would bet most rwnj would still agree. For the record,I don’t rilly think goats are getting smarter so that only leaves one option to ‘splain rethuglicans.
His smarmy smirk says it all.
You beat me to it, Janet, word for word.
The context in which Mr Miller asked this question,
http://www.alaskacommons.com/2013/02/15/house-majority-fields-question-about-same-sex-partnerships/
the explication of the House majority’s “Guiding Principles “, adds extra insult to the guffaws.
I am ashamed of the House majority.
We fiddled with and damaged the basic premise our state constitution was developed within ( see below) by making a frickin constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman (1998) by an almost 70% yea vote.
In less than 20 years Alaskans have shifted enough that the majority think that same sex couples should be accorded , at the very least, the right to civil union not marriage, civil union, and these doofs laugh??
Aside from the obvious argument that fooling with overarching frameworks like constitutions every time some wahoo gets a bee-in-their-bonnet over a so-called moral issue ( NO on amending the constitution to allow state monies to be spent on education outside public schools!!!!!!!!!!) is stoopid , these doofs want us to all believe that equal rights, opportunities, and protection under law are restricted to economic issues only?
Pfft!
Pfffftttt!
Insult our LGBT neighbors by trivializing the issue and insult all of us ,including the naysayers, by sidestepping making a real answer.
Note to Mr Pruitt :
A simple no-we-haven’t-considered-the-issues-involved-in-our-guiding-principles would have been ok. Not good, not a real response, but ok.
Note to idiots laughing:
Go back and look at your oath of office and then
go home and laugh in the face of 70 percent of your constituents, ok?
Without the benefit of your majority club at your back. see how that one plays boys and girls, eh?
_______________________________________________________________
“Section 1. Inherent Rights
This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural
right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards
of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights,
opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have
corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.”
http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/docs/pdf/citizens_guide.pdf
I think I get “it”. Rethuglicans apparently do not think “those people” can make money at home. At least I don’t think….uh…. that was ever discussed by me…….;uh…um…because I don’t think I believe equality is equal until some people don’t get it……..uh….can I go home and play,now?
I think the crux of what was discussed was whether “you can make money.” It’s a bunch of Republicans, after all. They are not interested in civil rights, in infrastructure, in education, in helping anyone – unless it’s about making money.