RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: Viciously anti-LGBT activist Peter LaBarbera justifies lifting my wedding photo to 'express moral disapproval' » 'Public Discourse' writer introduces me to some guy named 'Jeremy Hooper,' who seems like a real ass » NOM vows to keep destroying the Republican party through spiteful campaigns » FRC: Christians must vote to stop same-sex marriage, 'other evils' » Religious freedom, American Family Association style: 'We should treat Islam like the Ebola virus' » Pro-discrimination activists continue to use one woman's one-sided spite against ex-husband to attack marriage equality » Audio: Tony Perkins minimizes actual religious persecution; pretends he and anti-gay pals face 'deadly consequences' » Ryan Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Rick Warren, other inequality advocates urge Pope to 'commit to marriage' » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress  

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

02/22/2011

Nu uh, Maggie Gallagher: You're not gonna blame us for foreskin!

by Jeremy Hooper

Really, Maggie? You're seriously connecting the following independent push -- which has been met with diverse support and opposition that transcends all political, religious, gender, etc. lines -- to the modern civil marriage equality movement?

The next big idea out of San Francisco: ban circumcision.

That's really the next big idea for liberals? No Jews allowed?

BY MAGGIE
After SSM: What Next? [NOM Blog]

So is this what we're in for: Anything that happens from this point in time forward is all part of same-sex marriage's supposed "slippery slope"? Every time a gnat farts out a wind that drifts too leftward, and I'm going to have to answer for the ring that proudly resides on my left hand? Really?

And ironically: This circumcision proposal is making use of California's ballot initiative system, the very system that Prop 8 proponents like Maggie used for their own purposes. So if we were going to connect it to any prior thing (though we probably wouldn't), wouldn't it be most logical to look back on those other times that the CA ballot was used to fulfill a motivated group's personal whims? We're thinking so.

Bottom line: As long as both brains and clocks still move, there will be new ideas. But we in the modern marriage equality movement are not going to answer for every notion that scratches one's political consciousness. This goes for polyamory. This goes for most matters specifically pertaining to heterosexual marriage or divorce. This goes for the ceremonial bris (even if our thighs might answer for the multiple bagels we eat at it).

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