RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

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

02/20/2008

Yea, Tony? We've been stealth about our goals? Really?

by Jeremy Hooper

Perkinscolor-2-1Speaking about the Civil Union Review Commission's finding that New Jersey's civil unions system is falling short of the court-mandated equality that they were supposed to grant, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (or ghostwriter) yesterday wrote the following cockamamie assessment (highlighting our own):

The Commission, which is stacked with pro-gay liberals, stops short of recommending that Jersey legalize same-sex "marriage"--but that is exactly what liberals are calling for in response. Gov. Jon Corzine (D) has already said that he would sign such a bill into law. "[The] bottom line is... about equal rights," said the Governor's spokesman. This is what I've been saying all along; the homosexual community is not interested in the "benefits" of marriage that most civil unions provide they want to force Americans to equate their sexual behavior with marriage. Don't be fooled! Civil unions are not a compromise, they are a stepping stone to the ultimate prize--marriage.

Okay, so for starters -- In the fourth sentence, there should be a period or at least a semicolon dividing the words "provide" and "they." As it stands, it makes for one crazy run-on sentence.

But punctuational errors aside -- What the hell is Tony (or ghostwriter) even talking about in this passage?! To a statement from Corzine's spokesman about this whole matter being one of equal rights, Tony responds by saying, "That's what I've been saying all along"?! And he says this as if he's somehow found out a deep, dark secret?! Uhm, have any of us really been hiding that equal rights is what we are seeking?! And have any of us been hiding that we want full marriage EQUALITY?! NO, we have not! We have made it perfectly clear that what we are seeking is FULL CIVIL EQUALITY, no more and no less. And we've no bones about the fact that when you boil down all the rhetoric and hyperbolic spin that has been launched by our opponents (i.e. Tony), then this does come down to a matter of basic fairness. If Tony has also been "saying [this] all along," then he's adopted a weird way of masking those demands for parity behind a really thick layer of bias!

So that there is no confusion for Tony or anyone, let us put this out right now: WE WANT MARRIAGE! While most of us view civil unions as a step in the right direction, they are largely viewed by the gay community as stopping short of the goal. This is what WE have been saying all along! And if anyone of Tony's side of the fence has been fooled, then they've been paying far too much attention to the issue-muddying "logic" that the "pro-family" community has spit forth, and not enough to the reasoned pleas that have come from those on the side of rational, honorable, equitable progress.

Honeymoon Over for New Jersey's Gay 'Marriage' Compromise [FRC]

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


Your thoughts

This is the part that bothers me most with his whole statement: "they want to force Americans to equate their sexual behavior with marriage"
How on earth does it have anything to do with sexual behavior? What does that even mean and why do the right wingers always "go there"? Again there's always this implication that all we do is run around having sex as if to suggest our relationships and our lives are nothing more than and defined by a specific sexual activity.

Posted by: Ron | Feb 20, 2008 10:09:43 AM

Oh yea, Ron -- that's totally the annoying part. In this post we chose to focus on the absurd rather than the enraging. The idea that we are somehow hiding our true "agenda" is one we see often with Tony, and it always comes across as bizarrely desperate.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 20, 2008 10:19:15 AM

I was going to make the same comment as Ron. How do you even respond to such a ridiculous comment. I thought it was our loving, permanent relationships we wanted to equate with marriage.

TONY: If you ever happen to read this, I'd love to invite you over for dinner so you can explain why my relationship with my boyfriend is no more than "sexual behavior." Heck, if our relationship was only about sex it wouldn't have lasted past the first month,

Posted by: GayMormonBoy | Feb 20, 2008 10:49:12 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails