RECENT  POSTS:  » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way  

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

01/06/2009

Staver on DOMA's repeal: It'd make it so much harder for me to profit from anti-gay bias!

by Jeremy Hooper

In response to the growing calls to do the inevitable and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver has issued the following statement:

 Good As You Images 200806190817-1The sovereignty of each state to preserve the integrity of marriage must be maintained. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the first foundation of a stable and healthy government. Same-sex unions would establish the unwise policy of saying that children do not need moms and dads. The federal Defense of Marriage Act preserves state sovereignty and prevents one state from rewriting the definition of marriage for every other state. DOMA was passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It is an extreme position to advocate the repeal of DOMA.
States Need the Federal Defense of Marriage Act to Maintain Marriage Integrity [LC]

Typical conservative response, viewing the issue ONLY in terms of the states and citizens who don't want marriage equality while completely overlooking those who do. You know, the whole fairness and justice for all (who think and pray like we do) proviso.

But we do applaud Mat for one thing: The pluralization of the terms "mom" and "dad." Considering all of the wonderful and proserpous gay-headed households that we know, we also oppose the "unwise policy of saying that children do not need moms and dads"!

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


Your thoughts

that comment about children and moms and dads is just dumb. a same-sex relationship does not strip children of this. staver needs to work on his talking points.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Jan 6, 2009 7:55:27 PM

"Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the first foundation of a stable and healthy government." Seriously? I somehow can't remember reading that in:
The Constitution
The Federalist Papers
J. J. Rousseau
A. De Tocqueville
etc. etc.
Sometimes you have to wonder how these people don't just start laughing at their own ridiculous exaggerations...

Posted by: UK Chris | Jan 7, 2009 12:08:27 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails