RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

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


You're right, Mr. Huntsman: 'Redefinition' *is* impossible

by Jeremy Hooper

Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman is actually pretty spot on here:

HuntsmanHUNTSMAN: I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it’s something I would not be in favor of. But I believe, just subordinate to marriage we have not done an adequate job in the area of equality and reciprocal beneficiary rights. I’ve spoken out about that, my support of civil unions, some people like it, some people don’t.

Jon Huntsman: ‘Redefining Marriage Is Something That Would Be Impossible’ [Think Progress -LGBT]

We say "spot on" because he's pretty much right: "Redefining marriage" via same-sex unions alone would, in fact, be impossible. That's because marriage, as currently defined, is quite capable of accommodating same-sex couples, as has been proven both in this country and worldwide for quite some time now. Why should any of us be in favor of redefinition, when mere accommodation will do just fine? Why should any of us seek new meaning, when most marriage laws, as written before the anti-gay DOMAs and amendments (i.e. redefinitions) crept in, were quite capable of supporting same-sex couples? And why should gays be intimidated by this "redefinition" nonsense, when nature's definition has always included our family forms and equal protection's definition must quite logically do the same (as written)?

Even Merriam-Webster, an outfit that knows a thing or two about definitions, has caught on to the breadth of marriage. So here's hoping that in future statements on the subject, Mr. Huntsman will stop even dignifying right-wing buzz words like "redefinition." In doing so, perhaps Mr. Huntsman will find that redefining GOP primary politics might not be as impossible as some pollsters would have him believe?

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