RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist?  

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


Oh be honest, anti-gays: You hated this bill before it was even written!

by Jeremy Hooper

Connecticut already has legal marriage equality, but there is a bill currently making its way through the legislature that does nothing more than codify the October ruling in the state law. And since this bill, numbered 899, is a strictly procedural address of civil marriage and all that it entails, there's no reason for the bill to mention things like gay acceptance in public schools or other matters that pertain to what the far-right calls LGBT "promotion." Also, even though there shouldn't really be a reason to further reinforce the idea that civil marriage is a separate thing from religious ceremony, the bill does, in fact, make specific mention of this point:


Yet despite these facts, the religious right is still raging against the bill on grounds involving schooling, "religious liberty," quotas, gay "promotion," and a whole host of other blanket gay rights condemnations that couldn't have LESS to do with the simple, straightforward (yet gay-inclusive) concept of civil marriage! Because that's what our opposition does: Takes data and dips it in mud, then strategically slings it around so that certain folks are dirtied while others are left with eyes that have been blinded to reality.

Here now are two documents. First is the Concerned Women For America's take on the bill, and then, because we like to actually show you facts rather than tell you what you should think, is the text of the bill itself. Thanks to G-A-Y friend Andrew Williams for directing us to both:

Act Quickly To Protect Connecticut from Extreme Pro-“Gay” Bill [CWA]


SB 899

Wait -- the bill doesn't take on speed limits, either. CLEARLY Connecticut lawmakers don't care about your safety behind the wheel. [::beyond annoyed eye roll::]

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

Your thoughts

"Because that's what our opposition does: Take data and dip it in mud, then strategically sling it around so that certain folks are dirtied while others have their eyes blinded from reality." Just wonderful JH... a true keeper.

Well, what can they do when they are running out of facts. That's like all those people who were demontrating yesterday against George Bush's taxes.... (as Obama has just lowered them for 95% of Americans).

Posted by: LOrion | Apr 16, 2009 6:18:39 PM

I think that the religiots are mostly mad about the prohibition against marrying your stepmother or stepfather! I know of one pastor of a local church who married his ex-daughter-in-law!!! Maybe they can still do that, though?

Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 16, 2009 6:27:51 PM

Thanks, LOrion. I edited a little before I saw your comment - but the text remains mostly the same.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 16, 2009 6:45:33 PM

I knew I should have invested in straws. They seem to be grasping at them, and soon they will claim to have reached the last one.

Posted by: John Ozed | Apr 17, 2009 9:31:29 AM

A pastor who married his ex-daughter-in-law? Ew!!! Please tell me she at least didn't have kids.

Posted by: Bill S | Apr 18, 2009 4:45:00 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails