RECENT  POSTS:  » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition » NOM-aligned organization claims God will soon punish us for pro-equality rulings » GLAAD: The rise of toxic terminology: Losing anti-LGBT movement turns to corrosive labeling » Founder of anti-gay Boy Scouts alternative links sexual orientation, adultery; earns merit badge in ill-intended comparisons » 'Playbill' to let the two previously unaware playgoers in on Broadway's love for gays » New record: Anti-gay activist Ralph Reed contradicts self in less than minute » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead)  

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

02/28/2011

Video: Midwifing marital meddling

by Jeremy Hooper

As we continue to have a national conversation about the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, we think it's important for everyone who positions his or her self as an expert on the subject to look at what might be the most important component: The arguments that were used to get the thing enacted in the first place. Arguments that were most prominently shaped by the Family Research Council. Arguments that were steeped in scientifically-discredited "ex-gay" propaganda, an overreaching desire to shun even the most basic inclusion in public life, and a generalized sense of moral superiority that went well beyond the supposed desire to "protect marriage." Arguments delivered by the likes of Peter LaBarbera, Robert Knight, Gary Bauer, and some other folks you may know.

Catch a few glimpses to get the general tenor of the times:

7/2/1996

Same-Gender Marriage [C-SPAN]

Look, I know it's not the most exciting thing in the world. But it's important. When the Maggie Gallaghers and John Boehners of today talk about defending this flawed law, it's not like they're talking about some more evolved piece of legislation. This DOMA, the one built on "ex-gayness" back when Alanis Morissette topped the charts and the Menendez brothers topped the headlines, is the same DOMA that we have on the books today. The conservatives of a very different, post-Lawrence v. Texas, five-marriage-state-having now must not only answer for the whims of 2011: They must also justify the roots of 1996.

***

*SEE ALSO: Ha! Be sure to check out this seriously snarky description C-SPAN gave the vid:

Screen Shot 2011-02-28 At 8.29.40 Pm
***

*SEE ALSO, ALSO: Vintage reasoning, print edition:

THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY [FRC]
WHY WE NEED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT [FRC]
THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: EXPERT TESTIMONY [FRC]
THE IMPLICATIONS OF GAY 'MARRIAGE' [FRC]
THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON EDUCATION CURRICULA AND POLICY OF HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE' [FRC]
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: HOW ADOPTION POLICY IS AFFECTED [FRC]
THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: A SOCIAL WORKER'S VIEW [FRC]
***

*SEE ALSO, ALSO, ALSO: FRC class of 2011 talking about the organization's mid-'90s role:

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