RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/14/2006

Another day, another 'Concerned Woman' criticizing Kennedy

by Jeremy Hooper

   Following up on yesterday's comments wherein 'Concerned Woman' Robert Knight criticized Sen. Ted Kennedy for saying that a vote for the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment is a "vote for bigotry, pure and simple," Knight's fellow 'Concerned Woman' Jan LaRue (pic.) says today in her own Kennedy-criticizing post-mortem:

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) called the amendment “bigotry, pure and simple.” Years before his state’s highest court trashed traditional marriage, Kennedy and most of his family married under Massachusetts law. By Kennedy’s logic it means they took advantage of a bigoted law. Does Kennedy think that his Catholic Church, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and African-Americans who support the amendment are all bigots?

Which is sentiment that speaks volumes about how those on the "pro-family" side view the gay marriage ban. Ms LaRue says that "By Kennedy’s logic it means [his family members who entered heterosexual marriages] took advantage of a bigoted law." Only problem, that is not even close to following Kennedy's logic! Sen. Kennedy decried an amendment that would ban homosexual citizens from access to marriage; he didn't say he thought heteros were wrong for going ahead and enjoying what many gays so desperately crave! It'd be like a group of people eating birthday cake even though two members of the party are on a no-sweets diet; just because a couple at the table can't at this time dine on the devil's food delight, it doesn't mean that the rest of the group is wrong for having a slab. Kennedy is criticizing the BAN, not the unexcluded's right to enjoy their non-banishment.

Following Ms. LaRue's logic, a Senator would not be allowed to criticize gay adoption bans as unequal treatment if he/she had themselves acquired a kid, no lawmaker could support a woman's right to choose if they or their wife had carried out a life-producing birth, and members of Congress couldn't have spoken out against segregation if they themselves were drinking out of the "white's only" fountain and sitting in the front of the bus. Just as Mr Knight did yesterday, Ms. LaRue is taking Mr. Kennedy's (rightful) opposition to this divisive, deplorable measure and spinning it as if he said that any and everyone who accepts the current state of marriage is a "bigot." But he did not say that! He attacked the discrimination he perceives in the measure, not the characters of those who, for whatever reason, have been led to support it.

We, and presumably Mr. Kennedy, actually want those of you who are currently allowed to become one with your sweets to enjoy your cake! In fact, we'll happily be there to drink watch. We simply ask that as you dine on your confectionary concoction, you also help us reach the day when we all can have a piece!

Senate Abandons Marriage After Brief Engagement [CWA]
GOP Says "I Do" To Bigotry [Ted Kennedy]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails