RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

« 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