RECENT  POSTS:  » Openly anti-gay Chief Justice of AL Supreme Court vows to openly defy marriage equality » AFA's Director of Issues Analysis: LGBT activists possess 'unvarnished energy of Satan himself » Wait, FRC has been able to 'uphold natural marriage'? That's news to all non–cave dwellers! » Because when am I not calling up Fox News personalities to do my bidding? » Anti-equality conservative admits GLAAD CAP is 'smart' and 'effective' » You know what's not presidential? Like at all? » Inevitable justice temporarily delayed in Alabama » Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling » Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!' » When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized  

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

11/17/2011

What we're up against in NH (hint: It's more of a ::facepalm:: than you might've imagined)

by Jeremy Hooper

New Hampshire native Calvin Stowell -- whose straight brother Craig has become a leading marriage equality advocate in the Granite State -- recently corresponded with his local Rep, Paul LaCasse, asking the lawmaker to not go about plans of repealing the state's current marriage law. Today, Calvin shares his findings with the rest of us:

Aedkfw3Ciaano9H
Aedl7Suciaaquwm
SOURCE: @aurosan [Twitter]

"If a civil contract is okay with you…"? Wait, what does Rep. LaCasse think a CIVIL MARRIAGE LICENSE is, a Communion wafer? Last time I checked, this conversation is all about the civil contract. At least our side's is. It's people like Rep LaCasse who are confusing that by exalting the optional (even if oft-utilized) religious ceremonial portion of marriage above the always-required civil contract.

And I'm sorry, but how dare a legislator in a state that currently has marriage equality say that same-sex marriages would make the institution "cease to have meaning"? Do New Hampshire's opposite-sex couples feel that their marriages are meaningless here, today, now? Because New Hampshire has marriage equality in the here and now, and it would seem to most everyone that heterosexuals are still living, loving, and marrying in the same benign way they were prior to the 2009 legislative action! Correct me if I'm wrong. But you won't. Because you can't.

And then of course there's the reproduction red herring. I am so beyond tired of this anti-intellectual train of thought. If these folks want reproduction to be a marital requirement, then they need to make it one. For now it's not, and therefore cannot be used against us as if it were. Especially considering (a) the vast and growing number of same-sex couples who are rearing children; and (b) the other side's sheer inability to state, with any sort of accuracy, how and why same-sex couples' legal rights threaten anyone else's ability to have and raise wee ones.

I'll excuse the atrocious misspellings, since they could've stemmed from the understandable haste so common to mobile correspondence. But none of us should tolerate the wholly baseless rationale that threatens to cruelly strip away a fairly granted right!

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