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 »

12/17/2007

Claim: Romney a carcinogen

by Jeremy Hooper

The director of the so-called Pro-Life Massachusetts group, R.T. Neary, is asking for a mea culpa from Mitt Romney in regards to the supposedly liberal things that the presidential candidate brought to the Bay State during his stint as governor. In regards to marriage equality, Neary says this:

With regard to your opposition on the presidential campaign trail to same-sex "marriage," as Governor of Massachusetts, you literally had your finger on the switch. And you pushed the full speed ahead, rather than locking in the stop lever. You, as a Harvard Law School graduate, knew that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no authority under the Massachusetts constitution to pervert this millennia-old cornerstone of our society. And the SJC made it clear in the Goodridge decision that a majority of one ruled that the Legislature had that authority. The Legislature didn't have the votes to enact this overhaul of our family structure, so you stepped in and instituted gay marriage on your own, as governor. Now we have these thousands of couples who claim they are "married" to someone of the same gender.

Surprise — they are not.

Yes, and as a side note, even the Goodridges have split up since. And how long are we going to have to wait before a "spouse" contests the other's "divorce" petition, challenging the constitutionality of their "marriage." Mitt, where's your mea culpa? We're in a mess, and this cancer already is showing signs of metasticizing to other states.

Wow, the legal recognition of our relationships is a "cancer"? And all this time, we thought that concept was one more way to level the playing field for gays whose uninsured loved ones might need treatment for cancer! But then again, what the hell do we know? We're just gays whose tax-paying existences deserve nothing short of being compared to life-threatening illnesses by those who are self-absorbed enough to use their own personal views on "morality" and "values" as the one and only definition for the whole of society.

::Writer rolls eyes so sarcastically, he's certain Mr. Neary will take the liberty of assuming that the cancer has spread to his eyeballs::

But then again, Mr. Neary is also so bold as to say that gays who've married in Massachusetts aren't married, when, in fact, they are (at least on the state level). So why should we really listen to anything he says in terms of malignant diseases or legal procedures, when he can't even ascertain the easily understandable concept of two dudes or chicas obtaining a marriage license? Perhaps he should let cancer be determined by the doctors, law be debated by the scholars, and societal definitions be guided by the whole of the realistically-existing society (rather than just the portion that wants to use personal faith to govern the populace).

Please Mitt, at least a mea culpa [Renew America]

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails