RECENT  POSTS:  » The anti-gay right is really testing the limits of America's bullsh*t meter » Breaking: Arkansas's Republican governor won't sign license-to-discriminate bill in its current form » AFA goes after Megyn Kelly for suggesting Indiana protect gays and lesbians from discrimination » Hillary Clinton comes out against Arkansas license-to-disriminate bill!! » #RFRA and a movement that shirks responsibility (almost) as much as it shirks equality » Audio: Limbaugh admits #RFRA fight is about same-sex marriage; links homosexuality to bestiality » Sen Schumer, federal #RFRA coauthor, knocks down lie that Indiana's version is the same » Video: I can't fathom invoking concentration camps in my political discourse. But Glenn Beck on the other hand... » Get a load of this double-talk from the Family Research Council #RFRA #Indiana » NOM admits 'religious freedom' bills are about discriminating against same-sex couples; thanks, NOM  

« 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