RECENT  POSTS:  » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win.  

« 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