RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: TLC to air show about humans' ability to suppress truth in name of religion » AFA, LaBarbera think being publicly pro-gay is still a liability; how quaint » Video: Blended family with lesbian moms heads Tylenol holiday ad » NOM's new conspiracy theory: Census Bureau making changes to hide marriage equality's ill effects » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy  

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

05/21/2009

Hey opposition: Stop. Dumbing. Everything. Down!

by Jeremy Hooper

Mat-StaverOh this is rich. The Liberty Counsel's Mat "lesbian parents will raise violent kids" Staver is responding to the New Hampshire Rep. Steve Vaillancourt's resistance to a marriage bill that's loaded down with "religious protections" by claiming that as a sign of the marriage equality movement's hostility towards religious people:

“The good news is that the same-sex marriage bill did not pass. The bad news is that some legislators want to force clergy to perform same-sex marriages. This bill failed to garner enough votes because it contained a clause designed to protect clergy and religious institutions from being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. This should be a wakeup call for people who cherish freedom. The same-sex marriage agenda being advanced is on a collision course with the values and freedoms shared by most Americans. This is clear evidence that the end game is to force clergy and religious institutions to not just accept, but to celebrate and participate in same-sex marriages.”
New Hampshire House Voted Down Same-Sex Marriage Bill Because it Contained a Religious Liberty Protection Clause [LC]

This is evidence of our desire to force religious institutions to marry? BULLCRAPEROOSKIE, MATHEW! The only thing that this is clear evidence of is the fact that WE. DON'T. WANT. THESE. UNNEEDED. RELIGIOUS. PROTECTIONS. BECAUSE. NO. GAY. ACTIVIST. -- NO. GAY. ACTIVIST. -- IS. SEEKING. FORCED. CHURCH. RECOGNITION. OF. OUR. CIVIL. MARRIAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's much the same way that religious people have never needed protections from the non-religious heterosexuals who have long utilized the civil marriage system. The church decisions, as always, are to be left to the individual sects, and the reform of church policy must come from within the same.

The insinuation that our rejection of these added protections is indication of our hostility is along the same anti-intellectual, thoroughly offensive lines as the insinuation that congressional Democrats' refusal to insert pedophile stipulations into hate crimes law is "proof" that they love child molesters! It is nothing more than a thoroughly, proudly deceptive movement trying to mine political opportunism out of points that the pro-equality side is neither making nor seeking!

And of course this is made all the more disingenuous when you consider that the organized anti-gay movement doesn't want these protections anyway. Nothing short of a full-on gay ban will ever appease them -- yet another reason why we see no need to cater to what is nothing more than politically opportunistic fear! It's the same way we wouldn't add special Saturday "driving protections" to state drivers' licenses so as to appease those who honor the Sabbath.

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


Your thoughts

Wasn't it the Republicans who voted down the amended version of the bill?

I'm a little confused. I thought it was voted down because Republican house members had gotten a flood of calls telling them to kill the bill.

But then I also heard that some of the "religious protections" language would allow, say, a baker with Christian beliefs to basically post a sign in his bakery that said "We do not bake homo wedding cakes."

I mean, most of the bloggers I've seen have been like, these are unnecessary and stupid protections (because they're already provided by the First Amendment), but we'll accept them if it means we get to marry.

I'm baffled. WTF is going on?

Posted by: Donna | May 21, 2009 2:25:39 PM

Basically, it seems like they've won, and still want to claim discrimination.

Posted by: Donna | May 21, 2009 2:29:12 PM

Donna: You're confused because it's confusing. And honestly, I don't think any of us who the full story yet.

But one thing that is verifiable: Some marriage supporters like Rep. Vaillancourt changed to a "nay" vote *because* of the news language:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/pro-gay-republican-gov-lynch-allowing-wound-to-fester.html

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 21, 2009 2:51:02 PM

This is what I emailed Mat Staver from my "liberty.edu" email address. I BCC'd you, Jeremy:


Dear Mr. Staver,

In a recent press release regarding the New Hampshire vote on same-sex marriage you said, “The good news is that the same-sex marriage bill did not pass. The bad news is that some legislators want to force clergy to perform same-sex marriages.”

This is absolutely untrue, and I am completely disgusted. As the dean of the law school, you know that a clergyperson can refuse to perform any traditional, heterosexual marriage for any reason -- even interracial and interfaith marriages.

You are portraying these men and women as tyrants who want to force pastors to go against their religious convictions. This sickens me on several different levels.


Sincerely,

Jake ****
Liberty University Alumnus 2003

Posted by: Jake | May 22, 2009 2:14:09 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails