RECENT  POSTS:  » Maggie Gallagher's new gig » How do you even talk with a movement that insists we 'cannot coexist'? » Sen. Manchin picks odd way to (D-istinguish) himself » Photo: Before city council votes on nondiscrimination, Charlotte anti-LGBT activists frame us as 'Homo-Nazis' » AG Holder: 'Marriage equality is an idea whose time has come.' » Viciously anti-gay activist Scott Lively to help us show SCOTUS what animus looks like; thanks, doll! » Audio: NOM prez equates his anti-gay fight with defeating slavery, conquering 'evils that were occurring in the Roman empire' » SCOTUS deals another blow to NOM; more to surely come! » Federal judge strikes Nebraska's discriminatory marriage ban » CA Republicans of 2015 do thing that will make CA Republicans of 2025 say, 'Yeah. Okay. so?'  

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

03/01/2010

MisReps Cheatus (D-liberately)

by Jeremy Hooper

Rep. Cheatham (D-North Vernon, IN):

201003010932



*AUDIO SOURCE: Indiana Democrat Supports Marriage [Focus On the Family]

God told him to vote against us, huh? Oh, well that's fair. After all, it's not like he's using a justification that's completely outside the realm of the should-be civil marriage discussion, or that he's using a supposed personal commandment that is wholly impossible to argue against. And it's not liking he's overlooking the fact -- the FACT! -- that no gay activist is seeking to force any church to marry anyone, or the fact -- THE FACT! -- that religious ceremony is already an optional component of marriage.

Oh wait a minute: Yes, he totally is overlooking all of this! And he, an elected lawmaker, is saying that his personal faith views on this one subject should define CIVIL policy for an entire state!

It's beyond unreal that we're still having to have this conversation in 2010. But as long as we live in a nation where people can claim a personal conversation with God as a common and acceptable bullet point in their legislative powerpoint presentations, then we who traffic in the literal legal landscape are going to keep *facepalm*ing our way through this should-be, could-be closed CIVIL case. As long as folks like Rep. Cheatman can use their sources of personal calm for the cause of causing us personal disruption, we will never be free.

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


Your thoughts

"[Albert] Ellis contends that he has made it clear that devout religiosity, rather than religion in its usual definition, tends to be emotionally harmful." Ellis, Albert, American Psychologist. Vol 47(3), Mar 1992, 428-429.

Ellis is no longer with us, but his contributions have helped to eliminate religion's stranglehold on what they falsely call "morality" especially with regard to sexuality. I think that the APA should go further, and classify "devout religiosity" (zealotry) as a psychological disorder. Then, maybe, we can finally get some help for these whack-jobs (technical term for loonies).

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 1, 2010 3:13:14 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails