RECENT  POSTS:  » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case » Read: Wyoming to become our 32nd marriage equality state » GLAAD: Victory is what happens while you're busy making other plans » What fake victimization sounds like in Arizona » Federal judge strikes Arizona's discriminatory marriage ban; marriages should begin today! » NOM's latest desperation: Relying on hearsay James O'Keefe video to smear Democrat for 'secretly' not opposing equality  

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

12/15/2010

Morse's Walker reduction: Divorces deep analysis from movement's shallow goals

by Jeremy Hooper

This 1:45 clip pretty much sums up the intellectually reductive mindset that "protect marriage" crowd calls a movement:


*Morse's full speech: Marriage Equality: Impossible (@ ASU) [Ruth Institute Podcasts]

Because while Morse pretends to completely get Judge Walker's gay goose with this supposedly definitive read, the reality is that this one quip was part of eighty extremely detailed "Findings of Fact": The totality of which did, quite ably, cover all aspects of marriage as it pertains to children, permanence, sex, exclusivity, procreation, and just about anything else, carefully factoring in the arguments presented to the court by BOTH SIDES.

To demonstrate just how deceptively reductive Morse's supposed summation actually is, we will now present the Findings of Fact in their entirety, with Morse's one quote highlighted in yellow. We don't expect you to re-read them all -- but just from a cursory glance of the visual, one can see how intellectually offensive it is to suggest that this one quote is the be all, end all of Walker's marriage stance, the likes of which might also include college roommates within the marital spectrum. Take a look:

201012151235-1

201012151235

201012151234-12

201012151234-11

201012151234-10

201012151234-9

201012151234-8

201012151234-7

201012151234-6

201012151234-5

201012151234-4

201012151234-3

201012151234-2

201012151239

201012151234

201012151233-11

201012151233-10

201012151233-9

201012151233-8

201012151233-7

201012151233-6

201012151233-5

201012151233-4

201012151233-3

201012151233-2

201012151233-1

201012151233

201012151232-10

201012151232-9

201012151232-8

201012151232-7

201012151232-6

201012151232-5

201012151232-4

201012151232-3

201012151232-2

201012151232-1

201012151232

201012151231-10

201012151231-9

201012151231-8

201012151231-7

201012151231-6

201012151231-5

201012151231-4

201012151231-3

201012151231-2

201012151231-1

201012151231

201012151230-5

201012151230-4

201012151230-3

201012151230-2

201012151230
201012151230-1

201012151229
But when one traffics in a pre-conceived soundbite structure, as the practitioners of the modern "protect marriage" so often movement do, one doen't tend to care about full breadth. When the goal is myopic limitation, so too the legal reads.

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