RECENT  POSTS:  » 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' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win.  

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

10/11/2011

Pre-nups or Pre-'Lawrence': What do 'protect marriage' groups *really* want?

by Jeremy Hooper

While most social conservatives don't come out and admit it, the "traditional marriage" movement's real problem is not even with marriage equality itself, but rather with the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling that overturned this nation's "sodomy" laws. Which of course means that most within this movement would be quite happy if private, consensual sex was criminalized, the inverse of Lawrence's justice.

But sometimes they do admit what's apparent to those of us who cover this stuff. This month, in its official magazine, it's the North Carolina Family Policy Council that's quite plainly doing so, with NCFPC staffer Mary Summa, J.D. (who once worked for Jesse Helms), writing a whole article decrying Lawrence and how it "opened the legal floodgates for future legal attacks on 'morality laws.'” Check it out:

1109-SexualLibertySP,FN

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