RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would  

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

07/29/2008

The wanna rob us of marriage, as long as nobody knows the truth

by Jeremy Hooper

As you might remember, the California attorney general's office last week changed the wording of the state's proposed anti-gay marriage amendment so that it more accurately described what the measure would do: "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." A move that makes total sense, as in the days since the initial language was submitted, we gays obtained the full and legal right to marry in the Golden State. Whereas the amendment, when submitted, would have only placed a limit and narrow definition of the institution, now the ballot initiative, if passed, would take away something that we have already been granted. So one could argue that a wording change was not only fair, but also essential

But leave it to our opposition to eschew common sense and instead accuse the AG's office of making the change for purely political reasons. And not only are the crying foul over the move -- they now say they plan to sue to have the initial wording restored:

Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8 [LA Times]

 Good As You Images 200806271555-1-1So why are they so intimidated by the change? Well, because it's yet another layer of mask being pulled off of their whole "protect marriage" charade. Their side has masterfully shaped the course of this national debate in a way that puts them in the good, moral, "saving society" seat. Such a positioning is essential to their movement, since it is how they've so successfully duped otherwise fair-minded folks into supporting cruel bias. With their true agenda more fully laid out in the Prop. 8 wording, they not only fear that this particular amendment will fail in November -- they also fear that the discourse will more fully turn in a way that puts them in the discriminator seat.

And guess what? Their fears are justified. People are starting to get it. Their movement's coffin might not be sealed yet. Hell, society may not even be yielding the hammer yet. But with developments like this one in California, it is clear that the body politic is at least window shopping for nails long enough to seal this needless, unjustified, code word-laden debate for all of time.

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


Your thoughts

It's clear that the religious right knows the stakes here. Donald Wildmon of AFA concedes "If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I'm afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost."

Given that the stakes are so high for them (and us), it doesn't surprise me that they'll pull out the stops on this.

Having said that, their movement still has a lot of life and has traction with certain demographics, and we could still lose prop 8 is we're overconfident.
What's important is that they're losing the weighty "status quo" argument. They've functioned as if they don't even need to argue the merits of their argument, that is, as if "everyone knows" that marriage has always been the 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" model, and no other alternatives have ever existed or are possible without anarchy being unleashed. When they're forced to come up with actual REASONS to support their argument, even an ally like O'Reilly can't get them to make rational arguments.

Posted by: Walt | Jul 29, 2008 10:26:04 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails