RECENT  POSTS:  » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » 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  

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

02/08/2011

Maggie to testify today in MD; we know *exactly* which 'unfortunate' 'behavior' she should share

by Jeremy Hooper

Today at 1PM, the National Organization For Marriage's Maggie Gallagher will speak before the Maryland Assembly. NOM's all kind of excited:

Screen Shot 2011-02-08 At 7.22.14 Am

We're excited too. Because if Maggie's honest in her testimony, she'll finally tell America how she really feels about gays and their "unfortunate" "behavior." you know, just like she did on Christian radio last summer:

8/9/10:

*AUDIO SOURCE: In The Market with Janet Parshall -- 8/9/10 [Moody Radio]
"Well I do think there's a lot of negative reaction around [ex-gay programs]. But
To me it's just even more basic. Maybe you can change your desires and maybe you can't,
but you can always control your behavior. There's a sleight of hand going on when Ted Olson
says just as we can't discriminate on race, this always applies to gay marriage, he isn't acknowledging
-- some of it's just a fundamental difference where we may or may not find certain relationships deeply
satisfying, and maybe we can't totally control that, but
behavior has to be subject
to moral critique
and reflection, and skin color doesn't because it's not a behavior.

'Whatever theory you have about how people become gay, and I
think there's sort of a mystery in our
fallen world about how people are saddled with that, what I view as an unfortunate thing
,
but in any case, you can't expect to be exempted from the idea that your theory
about what sex is, what it's for, how we're supposed to behave can't just be reduced to the
question of what skin color you have. You've got to live in a society where people are free to reflect,
to critique, to disagree with you about that. And that's what Ted Olson and Judge Walker's decision doesn't
acknowledge. It's not about live and let live at the private level, it's about importing as
quote/unquote fact into our founding documents the idea that religious views about the nature and
meaning and purpose of sex are judicially harmful to gay and lesbian people, and
that's just wrong, it's a category error. And it's damaging, I think, not only to the rights of Christians
and other traditional faith communities
--
ultimately it's dehumanizing to gay people for it to be suggested that
their desires are not subject to moral reflection and critique.
"

This would surely help the Maryland legislator MUCH more than repeated "protect marriage" code wording.

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