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 »

04/18/2008

A 'civil-less' plan for a less civil world

by Jeremy Hooper

How can we end the confusion that comes from our nation's varying laws on gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.? Well, the obvious answer is for us to do the right thing and standardize marriage equality for everyone, giving all tax-paying men and women the freedom to enter into civilly wedded bliss with the person of their choosing.

200804181244At least that's what those of us who value civil liberties and American freedoms would say. However, if you're someone who works on a daily basis to stifle the application of those freedoms to the LGBT community, you might have other ideas. Ideas like the ones that Peter LaBarbera has conveyed to the American Family Association's One News Now site:

"We recommend that there be a federal marriage amendment that also bans civil unions, because civil unions are only gay marriage by another name," he asserts. "Otherwise you're going to have these battles across the country -- you're going to have marriage battles, divorce, custody battles -- and it's just going to be sheer chaos."

LaBarbera maintains that the country is much better off when the government is "not recognizing aberrant relationships
."

Yes, because during a wave of uber-conservatism, they just had SO MUCH success with the FMA that only bans marriage. What sort of reasoned mind wouldn't think that a federal measure that also bans civil unions would have greater results?

And why stop there, Pete? What about banning gays from standing within three feet of each other while wearing formal attire? Maybe you think THAT is the point Congress has been waiting on before lending their approval to this measure?

::writer rolls eyes so sarcastically, he fears Pete will next try to ban gays from conveying annoyed frustrations via ocular gestures :

But whatever. Let him push for more and worse. Like so many other relics from the quickly passing Bush era, we're optimistic that the FMA is soon to be seen in the cruel, unforgiving light that it always deserved. And those who want to "strengthen" it will lose favor faster than you can say, "The Bush library should have an apology wing."

Homosexuals finding it hard to divorce across state lines [ONN]

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


Your thoughts

My my my, Pete sure is getting extra crispy shrill as of late.

Poor thing, the world is just passing her by isn't it.

Posted by: Scott | Apr 18, 2008 1:22:48 PM

I have asked Peter more than a few times what the world he is working towards looks like? Where are they gay people in this perfect world he is striving for? Are we all stepford dads with 2.5 children playing golf and watching football on Saturday while our reformed lesbian brides are baking? What does this world look like if Peter gets what he wants.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Apr 18, 2008 2:41:31 PM

"Otherwise you're going to have these battles across the country -- you're going to have marriage battles, divorce, custody battles -- and it's just going to be sheer chaos."

Ok, how is this going to be worse? Are a bunch of heterosexuals going to get divorced and get married to people of the same gender? Is he saying that no one wants to be a hetero? Is he talking about himself? I think having gay marriage might keep people from living in loveless marriages yes, but not cause a huge rise in divorces.

Posted by: Piper | Apr 18, 2008 9:11:38 PM

"Otherwise you're going to have these battles across the country -- you're going to have marriage battles, divorce, custody battles -- and it's just going to be sheer chaos."

Chaos being that lives, love, and relationships would, as we have always been, be no different than that of heterosexuals?

Posted by: Patrick B | Apr 20, 2008 12:29:05 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails