They rage because we're out, yet we're the 'outrageous' ones?
In a short piece covering the gay marriage-banning historical misstep on which Arizona voters might have a chance to weigh in come November, the folks at Focus on the Family's CitzenLink present the following quip:
Cathi Herrod, president of The Center for Arizona Policy, said homosexual-"marriage" activists don't want the people of Arizona to vote on the issue.
“Opponents to one-man, one-woman marriage are making outrageous claims — and even threats — in their desperate effort to defeat the marriage amendment so they can push for same- sex 'marriage' in Arizona,” she said.
You're damn right we don't want the people of Arizona or ANY state voting on the equal rights of a minority sect! We're not hiding that fact. We find these marriage bans to disturbingly discriminatory, and see them as not only weakening the nature of civil liberties, but also as undermining the principles for which America supposedly stands. And we want to save all who are blindly led to vote for such bans from the inevitable shame that such biased measures will attach to their future selves' good names.
As for "outrageous claims" that we supposedly make to to oppose these bans -- well kettle, the pot just called with some thoughts on that idea. After all, those who support gay marriage bans do so under the guise of "marriage protection," "child protection," and the idea that gay marriage will cause a Pandora's box of ills to fall upon society. Hell, they can't even admit that they are working to actually ban something, with them reframing the debate in a way that makes them seem like they are bestowing morality rather than hijacking the same! And they act as if marriage has always been exactly as we currently know it, despite the historical data that proves them wrong with 100% certainty! Their every word in this so-called "culture war" (a term that's also a far-right construction) is an "outrageous claim"!
Meanwhile, on our side, we simply present the very true realities that can arise from telling certain people that they are not quite as equal as their heterosexual counterparts. And we raise the very real possibility that the bans could cause problems for other types of unmarried duos. But most importantly, we highlight the many ways in which these bans are JUST PLAIN WRONG. Our claims are only "outrageous" if you view the world's landscape as only being able to accommodate the love of heterosexuals, and view America as a place where f***ing with rights is a-okay, just as long as it's done in a way that pleases evangelical Christians!
Look, despite the way they all present our pleas for marriage as "pushes," this is not a situation where we are staking out territory that's not rightfully ours. Marching down the road to progress in a way that brings only peace to the world is the organic, truthful, humane aspect of this marriage "debate." By their very nature, people everywhere wanna be free (thanks, Young Rascals). But what we have here is a large, outspoken group who is stifling the reality of the human condition and the truth about the way we love. They are holding on to antiquated, heterosexist notions that see gay people as an immoral bit of the world's fringe rather than a perfectly normal, vibrant part of the world's beauty. And that, my friends, is the true outrage!
I think, Ms. Herrod, you should abandon your efforts on the marriage amendment and tend to something much more urgent - the Driver's Protection Amendment.
With the recent spat of road rage incidents it's about time we got those red-haired people off the road.
This amendment prohibits issuing a driver's license to a redhead. Throughout history the fiery temperament of these people is well known . The Greeks had their notorious red-haired warrior Achilles. And, of course, the aggressive conquerer Genghis Khan had red hair.
The Driver's Protection Amendment would provide for not only the safety of unsuspecting drivers, but it would protect our children from the accident-prone driving of a red-headed school bus driver!
So that's it, Cath. It's time to hitch your wagon to a credible goal. We just know you can win this one. After all, protecting marriage by prohibiting it is not a concept that's exactly rich in logic.
Posted by: dave b | Mar 27, 2008 12:13:20 PMcomments powered by Disqus