« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
01/12/2007
Refuting the logic of Lonegan
You may remember last month when we lashed out against Bogota, NJ, mayor Stave Lonegan for saying he wouldn't perform civil unions for gay couples once the system begins in February. Well, in an email obtained by G-A-Y, Lonegan has responded to the criticism by saying the following:
"I have a fundamental belief government should stay out of our lives. That goes 2 ways. One, gay people should have the same rights as everyone else and government must not restrict those rights. Two, government must not legislate morality and force its social agenda on anyone else. Gay couples seeking a civil union in Bogota can have it conducted by the judge or another mayor. Nothing restricts their access to a civil union. However, I believe all Americans, gay and straight, must be concerned when the government uses coercion to force its social agenda. Whether you agree with someone's position or not, even the thought of forcing tolerance in this manner is a violation of fundamental principles of freedom.
This is the flipside of government using its power to outlaw gay relationships.
I have not said one negative word condemning gay couple's life styles (sic) or choices. When one groups (sic) rights are stripped away to create rights for another, they are not rights-it becomes the will of those who wield the most power. That's very dangerous for all of us."
Okay, so he's trying to twist the issue so that it makes his decision seem righteous. But this is just a clever smoke and mirrors technique; we will now outline why.
First off, Mr. Lonegan says he believes "gay people should have the same rights as everyone else and government must not restrict those rights." But then he immediately follows this correct assertion with a duplicitous one: "government must not legislate morality and force its social agenda on anyone else." For you see, he is trying to make it seem that by deciding gay couples are legally entitled to the same exact rights as married couples, the Supreme Court is "legislating morality." But in truth, legalizing equality is only an example of the government "legislating REALITY." Gay couples realistically, tangibly exist! Even for folks who believe that the concept of Biblical morality (and let's be honest, we are talking about Biblical morality here) is a false social construction, gay couples STILL EXIST! The only time morality comes into this situation is when folks try to deny the equality prescribed by the Constitution to tax-paying citizens who deserve social parity! Leveling the playing field so that ALL COUPLES are granted the same rights and benefits is not a "social agenda," but rather an acceptance of the truth of the human condition and situation at hand. If it weren't for the agenda of the social conservatives who wish to keep gay couples on uneven footing, then there would be no "fight!" "Morality" is only a question because they have made it one.
Secondly, Mr. Lonegan tries to make it seem as if he is not discriminating against gay couples since "[g]ay couples seeking a civil union in Bogota can have it conducted by the judge or another mayor. Nothing restricts their access to a civil union." But that sidesteps the issue at hand, which is that HE has made a specific political point to say that he personally will not perform these unions. The Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same exact marriage rights as opposite-sex couples. The legislature has (unfortunately) decided that civil unions are the vehicle through which these rights will be granted. If Mr. Lonegan wants to use the powers granted to him by the electorate for opposite-sex couples, then he is legally required to use this power for same-sex couples as well! Those of us who say this are not violating his fundamental freedoms, as he would like you to believe; we are asking him to not violate ours! And by picking and choosing which laws he deems worthy of upholding, he is also teeteringly dangerously close to violating his duties as an elected official.
Next, Mr. Lonegan says that he has "not said one negative word condemning gay couple's life styles (sic) or choices." But by so clearly judging us as lesser than and propagating that idea to his constituents and the public at large, he is doing more to foster a society of non-acceptance than had he verbally assaulted us. And then by using words such as "choice" and "lifestyle" in referring to our LIVES, he further reveals his hand. Sometimes people forget that malicious uses of "fag" and "dyke" are not the only ways one can offend the gay community. Casual implications that we are "lesser than" oftentimes hurt the most.
Lastly, Mr. L asserts that "[w]hen one groups (sic) rights are stripped away to create rights for another, they are not rights-it becomes the will of those who wield the most power. That's very dangerous for all of us." Again, that sounds good in theory, if only it held any water whatsoever! Nobody has the right to DENY RIGHTS! How is the legal recognition of our unions going to affect heterosexuals' rights in any way, shape, or form? Mr. Lonegan is still free to go to church and chastise gay couples as much as he wants! This is not to say he actually wants to do that, but if he does -- he can have at it! Those on the side of social disparity have quite cleverly painted this issue as if we are seeking to take something away from "traditional" couples and marriages. But they have never had the right to impose their Biblical beliefs on civil institutions! We are not talking about religious marriage here! We are talking about civil ceremonies that are legally separate from the church! Had Mr. Lonegan gone into the clergy, he would have a case! However, he chose to seek public office, and he has a duty to uphold the law.
What's "dangerous for all of us" is the way social conservatives have muddied this "issue" to make it seem as if the judges who rule for fairness are tyrannical, the lawmakers who uphold the ruling are enablers, and the gays who so desperately want to put this issue behind us are attacking a sacred institution. Fairness, love, decency, equality, tolerance, non-discrimination, acceptance -- those are sacred institutions! Spin it however you want, Mr. Lonegan, but you are not going to win the battle of logic on this one. You might get away with not performing the unions if you also abstain from performing opposite-sex marriages; however, you will not escape the unfortunate legacy that comes with standing on the wrong side of history.
Technorati Tags: Lonegan, New Jersey
Your thoughts
i believe that folks like steve lonegan are unwittingly softening many people's hearts when they hear his bleating. it's ironic, that this guy may actually be doing the NJ gay movement a favor with his unrelenting rancor.
i live in south jersey, pretty much across the state from this guys's township. but his words and sentiments have reverberated throughout the state and the consequences will be surprising:
First of all, he will likely not be re-elected. he;s taken one hard line after another, and seems addicted to the controversy. so in an attempt to top his last buzz, he taken onincreasingly radical positions that he knows will get him lots of attention. you can only do this for so ling before you start embarassing your constituents. that is beginning to happen up there.
and secondly, there are many people "on the fence" about the issue of marriage equality. they are looking around for the appropritate response and they see steve lonegam ranting and raving and they may look to folks in loving, long term relationships a bit more sympatheticly.
And finally, this guy's unkind words have mobilized the gay rights coalition across the state like few single events have managed to do. so bring on, bitch.
this is my 2 cents.
Posted by: jay lassiter | Jan 14, 2007 7:33:20 AM
Talk to us
*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy
