RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

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

03/07/2007

Sheldon just may be to the right of Fred Phelps on the marriage 'issue'

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images Picture-4-22 1-3In response to the news that the Alliance for Marriage -- the organization that has written the language and backed the failed pushes for a so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" -- is planning to refocus its efforts on getting marriage bans passed at the state level, the Traditional Values Coalition's Louis Sheldon has this to say:

The Alliance for Marriage gets it half-right when they defend marriage,”... “But then they go on to talk about the ‘right’ to civil unions. No true pro-marriage, religious conservative agrees with that.

This is the same approach which some well-intentioned people tried in Massachusetts with disastrous results. Civil unions are synonymous with homosexual marriage and to see them as some sort of compromise is delusional and naive.

The Alliance for Marriage should either renounce its past support for civil unions or stay in Washington where its amendment has always been and will continue to be a non-starter. True grassroots religious conservative activists are battle-tested and they know that throwing homosexual marriage extremists a bone like civil unions does not keep them from attacking marriage.

Most reasonable people realize that the battle against homosexual marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships et al are one and the same fight. A superficial marriage victory which also established a right in the U.S. Constitution to civil unions, as AFM proposes, would, in fact, be a defeat for religious conservatives.
...
I am encouraging our allies in the states to be wary of AFM. If there was a ‘truth in labeling’ requirement for political groups, AFM would be forced to change its name to Alliance for Marriage and Civil Unions.

Wow, for once we sort of agree with Mr. Sheldon about something -- civil unions are less-than-stellar. However, whereas we aren't the biggest fans of these quasi-marriages because we understand that gay couple deserve the exact same form of rights and protections as their heterosexual peers, Mr. Sheldon is of course against civil unions because he thinks "homosexual" and "immoral" are synonyms.

We also both agree that the AFM is less-than-great. However, we don't care for the AFM because they have tried unsuccessfully on repeated occasions to tarnish our nation's most precious governing document with the legislative equivalent of cow vomit, Mr. Sheldon is critical of the group because the bans which they have sought are not the legislative equivalent of cow vomit that's been left in a used truck stop toilet to age for 2.7 years.

We also agree that gay marriage advocates will not settle for civil unions. But whereas Mr. Sheldon says this is because "throwing homosexual marriage extremists a bone like civil unions does not keep them from attacking marriage," we think the reason is more because: "We are not dogs who are begging their heterosexual masters for a treat, but rather tax-paying citizens who are DEMANDING that our government stop telling us that by living our truths and seeking recognition of our couplings, that we are barking up the wrong tree!"

We also both agree that “Most reasonable people realize that the battle against homosexual marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships et al are one and the same fight." We just happen to believe that those reasonable people are not the ones who are fighting against any version of LGBT equality!

We also both agree that folks should be wary of the AFM and that "truth in labeling" is a problem with our opposition. After all -- "Alliance For Marriage?!" Call us crazy, but we believe it is gay folks who are pausing our lives to run the gauntlet that our opponents have laid between our love and "I do!" A more suitable name for those opponents? How about the "Alliance For Marriages in which 'Here Comes The Bride' Need Not Be Eliminated or Pluralized!"

And on that same, duplicitously named token -- "Traditional Values Coalition"?! Devaluing millions of decent individuals in not a tradition needs to be upheld!!

Alliance for Marriage Also Supports Homosexual Civil Unions [TVC]

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


Your thoughts

There are only so many bigot dollars to go around, so the various factions need to differentiate themselves as they compete for a finite donation pool.

Posted by: KipEsquire | Mar 7, 2007 4:16:04 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails