RECENT  POSTS:  » 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 » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out  

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

11/05/2009

Like gay activists, Minnery wanted 'NO' vote; not liking gay activists the reason why

by Jeremy Hooper

The Maine legislature had passed marriage equality and signed it into law. You know, the way we enact laws in this nation: via our elected lawmakers. That's what the elected Maine legislature did when they obtained a principled, reasoned "yes" for the civil marriage equality bill known as LD 1020.

So obviously, those who managed to overturn the equality had to vote in a so-called "people's veto" in order to to sue their personal faith views to do away with the equality. The burden was on them to pass something. They had to obtain a new, and in fair-minded eyes, grossly unnecessary, action that would repeal the passed law. They had to obtain a majority of "yes" votes, because they were seeking approval for something they wanted: The rejection of a law.

This being the case, the wording of Question One ended up reading like so:

Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?

Clear. Straightforward (in more ways than one). Accurate. Because again: Our opposition was seeking the approval of a veto!

Tom-MinneryBut leave it to Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery to mine-ry an "agenda" out of anything having to do with LGBT people. He's convinced himself that his side was seeking a "yes" because those sneaky liberals wanted to confuse voters:




Complete and utter nonsense. In fact, many of us would surely argue that a "yes" would be better for us! But that's neither here nor there. The point here is that in both California and Maine, the anti-gay side was seeking to enact a ballot initiative. On purely technical grounds, a "no" would've made no sense!

It's admittedly a little thing. But it's these little things that give us insight into how agenda-laden our opposition either truly thinks we are, or simply wants us to seem to the public at large. What, we can't even have our rights put up to an offensive, dehumanzing public contest without them turning around and accusing us of messing with the process? They can't rip our souls out of our bodies without using their post-mortems to accuse us of chicanery? It's so gross! And we simply don't understand how they can walk through their days with such a distrustful view of us, when they are the ones who have declared this unrelenting war on our lives and loves!

**Full FOF video, touching on the far-right Chris Christie's ties to the overheated New Jersey Family Policy Council, more on Maine, and some ridiculous spinning around Washington's victory:

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


Your thoughts

Again, the wilful ignorance shines through by demonstrating a complete unwillingness to see the other side of their argument. To wit, if anti-gay voters had the potential to be confused by the fact that "Yes means No," then pro-gay voters can be confused by the fact that "No means Yes."

Posted by: DN | Nov 5, 2009 12:32:03 PM

Will all the confusing messaging, DN, I might even argue that we *are* the ones most affected by being on the "no" side. There's not telling how many uninformed voters say to themselves, "Gay marriage -- sure, why not?" and cast a "yes" vote thinking they are approving equality.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 5, 2009 12:35:37 PM

Didn't Maine's DP law get "people's vetoed" once or twice before they finally succumbed to the equitable reality of DPs? And, this might be another case where the lying liars' lies finally get debunked to enough of the Mainers to end the vetoes.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 5, 2009 5:18:09 PM

Wasn't that a song?

"When I say No, I mean Maybe... and maybe I mean Yes!"
-- Holly Dunn

Posted by: Dan T. | Nov 6, 2009 8:57:49 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails