RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: Q&A with former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider: 'I’ve never met an 'ex-gay' man I thought was not still attracted to men' » Head of Virginia's anti-equality org: 'open season to discriminate against anyone who believes that children deserve a mom and a dad' » Force behind Virginia's marriage ban ably demonstrates animus behind it » NOM to show rest of world its impressive ability to exacerbate loss » Bryan Fischer: Marriage equality supporters are like baseball's legendarily winning team » On NC's Attorney General and the bipartisan hunt for a 'culture war' off ramp » Read: 4th Circuit strikes down Virginia marriage ban » GLAAD: Change is possible: Former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider 'celebrates the worthiness and equality of all people' » Man who stands in way of Texas equality works to stunt economic windfall as well » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling  

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

06/10/2010

Audio: 'Fool' me once, shame on James Bowman

by Jeremy Hooper

Think marriage equality for same-sex couples constitutes something other than a "drastic or far-reaching change to 'the institution of marriage'"? Well then you are nothing more than a "fool," says a contributor to this Focus on the Family news report:

(click to play)
*SOURCE: Judge Questions Parties in Prop 8 Suit [Focus on the Family]

Well then in that case, Mr. Bowman, "fools" we will gladly be. Because those of us in or around areas where same-sex marriage is a reality 20030418 Jbowman W150 H200-1know that there is nothing drastic about gay and lesbian inclusion into the system. We also know that addition does not equate subtraction. And we know that there's nothing far-reaching about the kind of hand movement that checks two male or female boxes on a licensing form rather than one of each.

In fact, in a world where thousands of same-sex couples are legally marrying without any discernible societal disruption, one can quite easily argue that it's the "protect marriage" proponents who are take the anti-intellectual position here. But we don't have to use ad hominem words like "fool" to assess our opposition. "Wrong" will do just fine.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails