RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

« 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