RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

« 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