The audactity of 'Nope!'
The arrogance of our opposition never ceases to amaze us:
A lot of young people have not seen a good role model for marriage. They have seen a lot of failure in marriage. They've seen their parents try again and again. They know something's wrong with what is being presented to them, and I think they're hungry and eager for a better way. That's why I founded the Ruth Institute.
Unfortunately, one of the issues that's giving us all fits now is the same-sex "marriage" issue, which a lot of young people favor. They don't realize that by changing the definition of marriage, you're really doing something very destructive to the whole social structure.
If you go down that path, marriage becomes much more of an adult-centered institution that has nothing to do with the needs of children and nothing to do with lifelong married love. If they could put the pieces together, they would see it isn't what they want.
-Professional anti-equality advocate Jennifer Roback Morse
Friday Five: Marriage Advocate Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse [Citizenlink]
Wait a minute -- gay people don't have kids? Gay adults don't start out as children who would greatly benefit from seeing their lives and loves treated as normal? Married same-sex couples, whether kidded or kid-less, don't contribute to the well of marital positivity? Gay people aren't part of the social structure? Gay marital love isn't lifelong?
Bullshit, Ms. Morse! The truth is that you have approached this topic with a closed mind that views gay people as some sort of "other" who are not fit for equality. Your social structure is structured around your own unfortunate social decisions. Rather than weave LGBT people into society's fabric, you and your ilk are trying ever more desperately to rip us to shreds. You won't admit that young people's changing attitudes are a natural evolution born out of visibility and experience, instead acting as if pro-gay mindsets have been duped into acceptance. And you will never, ever, ever admit all of the world of positives that marriage equality demonstrably brings (and will bring) to society, because you have already cast this sort of progress as an unequivocal negative.
Well guess what, Ms. Morse? Your side has overplayed your brazen hand. You've already lost. And when all is said and done, it will not be marriage itself that will ultimately be seen as a failure: The remembered snafu will be your side's arrogant attempts to erase the wall-writing rather than embrace its heartening message!
The reason young people support the rights of gay families isn't because they are craving something better than what they have seen. It is because you have lost the war on keeping us stuffed in the closet. Therefore most young people know gay people, know children raised by gay people and therefore will not believe your lies about what awful people we are and that we are not worthy of marriage.
Is there disillusionment with marriage among younger people? Sure but that is nothing new. My generation had it too (Remember "That's the Way I Always Heard it Should Be" by Carly Simon). But the fact that the church lies about its history and how it relates to a whole class of people adds to their disillusionment.
My advice to Ms. Morse is to stop lying about people and let history take its course. You are not only hurting gay people and their children, but the Church as well.
Posted by: Steve - Geneva, IL | May 18, 2009 11:27:47 AM
"Ruth", eh? I wonder what JRM would say if she knew about the Book of Ruth's popularity for Christian two-woman ceremonies. I myself saw Ruth as a bi woman.
I have seen my own younger cousins take my wife and I for granted. They don't find us or other LGBT people scary. Their parents are getting red in the face over us and gritting their teeth as the try to be courteous to us; they're asking my wife to give them martial arts lessons and wanting to show me their prowess with carpentry. Their youth pastors try to warn them about us; they tell the youth pastors we're not the way they describe us. I'm sure this goes on in many other families as well.
As for your post, I can neither add to nor subtract from your response to JRM. At all.
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 18, 2009 12:14:09 PM
"Rather than weave LGBT people into society's fabric, you and your ilk are trying ever more desperately to rip us to shreds." .... OH such a fine piece JH. Posted to fb to share.
THEY HAVE LOST! and are only hurting themselves and denigrating themselves as selfish, low intelligence, church sheeple more every day. Maybe they can all move to Texas and seccede!
Posted by: LOrion | May 18, 2009 12:23:06 PM
"If you go down that path, marriage becomes much more of an adult-centered institution that has nothing to do with the needs of children and nothing to do with lifelong married love."
Have you noticed the moment a group they despise who can't naturally produce children wanted to get married marriage instantly became all about making children? Not once have these bigots presented a law in American history requiring married couples to have children or one barring infertile couples from marriage. And to further prove they're lying out their ass they also want to ban adoption for gays.
gays cant get married because they cant raise children.
They cant raise children because they're not good parents *every single credible authority on the matter be damned*
They arent good parents *I never actually get a reason for why from the bigots, so I'm assuming* because they cant get married.
they cant get married because they cant raise children...
Posted by: Penguinsaur | May 18, 2009 12:39:57 PM
As part of my testimony last week before the RI House Justice Committee regarding marriage equality I made this point:
"Our opponents will try to make the claim that we are trying to change the definition of marriage. I put forth that we are not changing the definition, but the prerequisites. The rights and benefits would remain the same."
I also brought up that the bill proposing marriage equality had a few line changes for the prerequisites and several paragraphs of religious protections.
Posted by: Tony P | May 18, 2009 1:31:49 PM
Wish I could post pictures here. I would put up the photo of Cynthia Nixon, her fiancée, and their two children!
Posted by: LOrion | May 18, 2009 1:31:55 PM
This woman has a doctorate...in ECONOMICS. Just like Dr. Laura, she should stick to her own discipline.
That said, I hope the reference here on G-A-Y to "Ms." Morse is meant to indicate that she has no business being an expert on this issue and not to insult the doctoral degree.
Posted by: Dr. D | May 26, 2009 11:27:25 AMcomments powered by Disqus