RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » 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  

« 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