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 »


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:

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