RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » 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  

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

02/26/2009

The 'Maine' point: That Michael Heath is being unfair and mean-sprited

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 15-66Michael Heath, Maine's most prominent anti-gay activist, recently gave a speech addressing the reasons why the Pine Tree State should not allow marriage equality. Now, we want to be nice, so we will just say: It's an offensive load of disingenuous anti-gay cockapoopy, the likes of which shouldn't be believed by anyone who find oceans of reality to be the most conducive waters in which to swim.

Here now is but one small chunk of the speech (in red), along with our running commentary (in standard text):

***

A very good family was needed to bring God into the world. Families are the basic building block of society. Families bring right thinking and happiness into the world. Society must not privilege the wrong type of families.

The family exists for procreation, and for the rearing and education of children.

The "wrong" type of families. This is seriously how these good, moral, loving, Christians feel comfortable talking about our lives and loves?! They, the heteros, are innately filled with familial goodness, while we, the homo monolith, are devious society-wreckers who could never fit any acceptable model of kinship. It's seriously frightening that so few of our fellow fair-minded citizens have risen up to resist this sort of rhetoric!

Also, children are not a marital requirement! If you want them to be, then propose that sort of legislation.

Our opponents want the public to believe that same sex marriage is only about law and civil rights. At the heart of the issue, however, is an ethical question which concerns the proper definition of marriage. The reality of procreation, and of child-rearing by man and woman cannot be set aside. They exist in the real world. Marriage reflects an existing reality. To put it very simply, Marriage is what it is, and nothing else.

Again: Children are not a marital requirement. If you want them to be, then propose that sort of legislation.

And yes, CIVIL marriage is about the law. 100%, by its definition. Have your religious ritual however you want to have it. Have enough children to fill a clown car. Literally burn pride flags at your church services. WE. DON'T. GIVE. A. FLYING. FLOCK! But you will not deny us of our liberties.

There is an element of selfishness in the gay rights movement, in that homosexuals already have the right to form domestic partnerships. Let us assume for a moment that same sex marriage does not harm society - which it does, of course. Why should a practice which lacks the elements of marriage -- procreation and child-rearing -- be called marriage? What if this practice is also based on harmful and immoral sexual practices.

Well for starters, not all gay people have a DP option. But even if they do: How dare you suggest that they should walk an alternate path to obtain less-than-equal civil rights?! THAT's the true selfishness, Mr. Heath!

Oh, and again: Children are not a marital requirement. If you want them to be, then propose that sort of legislation. This cannot be repeated enough.

Also, please don't assume anything about same-sex marriage. Your assumptions make and ASS out of U and ME, Mr. Heath.

If there is no proof that same sex marriage benefits society more than domestic partnerships, isn't the call for same-sex marriage based on nothing more than selfishness? And marriage is, above all else, a matter of sexual morality. It is selfish for a vocal minority to impose its special version of immorality on the definition of marriage.

Well, the mere fact that domestic partnerships don't confer the same rights and benefits is "proof" that they are not enough. And again, it's beyond selfish to ignore that reality in order to push your dogmatic goals.

Married couples who are committed to one another for life and who are parenting deserve the protections and privileges of traditional marriage. Homosexuality and promiscuity cannot be equal to marriage because they are fundamentally unequal. You can see now that this vocal minority actually seeks special rights, not equal rights.

Yea? Couples who are committed and parenting are the ones who deserve marriage? Well that's weird, considering that neither children or commitment are actual civil marriage requirements.

Oh, and as for the "homosexual and promiscuity" quip? It's cute how you so slyly link those, Mr. Heath. About as cute as the way we will remind you about AshleyMadison.com, a website designed for the sole purpose of helping married heterosexuals have affairs.

A so-called equal right becomes a special right when it ignores, or attempts to alter, reality. The reality is that an expanding, creative and growing civilization does indeed privilege the traditional family unit by making real marriage the ideal. A declining civilization confuses the matter.

Make no mistake, the special rights that are demanded by this vocal minority are not equal -- they are special indeed.

Where did you get these nuggets, Mr. Heath: Concepts Convenient to Conservatives Weekly? Because to us, reality is based in fact, not personal opinion. And the vast majority of semi-awake eight graders who understand the meaning of the word "opinion" can see that simply saying things are "special" or indicative of a "declining civilization" does not make it so.

We are for equal rights, not special rights. You must tell your legislators to vote against the special right to so-called same sex marriage.

So what, exactly, would gay "equal rights" mean to you then, Mr. Heath? After all, considering you're on record as saying that "homosexuality is perverse, deviant and disgusting sexual behavior that isn't a topic of discussion in polite and civil societies," referring to employment non-discrimination as "legal rights that protect evil," and suggesting that the nation could get over its economic crisis if it eliminates gay partnership recognition (among years of other affronts), where are we to assume that we stand in your "loving Christian" eyes, Mr. Heath?

Or is the reality that you realize that gay rights ARE equal, but you've just placed the LGBT community in a special box into which no amount of compassion or humanity should ever enter?

Speech for Maine Marriage Rally [Whatever Michael Heath's group is now calling itself]

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


Your thoughts

I do not live in the US, but I would love to see someone there (like Goodasyou?) start a petition or resolution to BAN marriage rights for sterile men and post-menopausal women.

Why should a woman over 45 be allowed to marry? Clearly she can not procreate. Let's see how logically consistent these clowns are willing to be.

Keep up the great blog!
Thanks

Posted by: Strepsi | Feb 26, 2009 4:02:54 PM

My husband and I are registered as domestic partners. It doesn't do all that much for us. It pretty much assures that most Minneapolis hospitals allow us to visit as if we were a married couple. The only other thing it has done is make it very easy to prove that we are domestic partners when I had my husband covered by my employer's health and dental insurance. Of course, I still have to pay taxes on my employer's contributions. I wouldn't have to if we were married.

Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Feb 26, 2009 4:11:25 PM

geez this guy is a hot mess. You remember a while back when he wanted tips on just which legislators were gay and in the closet?

Posted by: a. mcewen | Feb 26, 2009 5:24:35 PM

Strepsi-- Something similar to your suggestion was proposed in Washington (state) two years ago, after their supreme court ruled that procreation was a rational (legitimate) reason for the state to have an interest in keeping the gays unwed. The organization's web site has gone missing (www.wa-doma.org) but here's a detailed blog posting:
http://www.chezlark.com/?p=962
and a news article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003558717_nokids06m.html
and a posting from this very site:
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/02/wa_marriage_pro.html

Posted by: tjc | Feb 27, 2009 1:51:37 AM

Well done.

Heath and his ilk never tackle domestic violent or child abuse as damaging to families and children, either, although the news here in Maine have stories daily for examples.

No, it is the "selfishness" of the LGBT community and their desire to marry...

Posted by: Melouise | Feb 27, 2009 6:16:26 AM

For all these christians in such a hurry for the so called rapture. It would seem to me they'd be all for gay marriage and the moral down fall of society so they could be raptured all the sooner. God bless em! and good fking riddance.

Posted by: Jim Casella | Feb 27, 2009 5:26:32 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails