RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM president: Marriage ruling is 'Dred Scott decision of our time' » Episcopalians approve ceremonies for all legally-qualified couples » NOM's wishful (and disrespectful) thinking: SCOTUS ruling is 'illegitimate' » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house  

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

01/12/2012

CWA = Conning Washington Aggressively

by Jeremy Hooper

To undermine pro-equality movement in Washington state, the Concerned Women For America are returning to familiar territory. This from CWA of Washington's Maureen Richardson:

MaureenrichardsonGov. Gregoire issued a statement on January 4, 2012, saying it is time for marriage equality for all Washington citizens. She stated that love, commitment, responsibility, and partnership are the determining factors for marriage. How far is she willing to extend that? To adult-minor marriages? How about to first cousins? To mother and son? To one man and two women or two men and two women? Where do you draw the line after changing the long-respected definition of one man plus one woman? And although the supporters of this new definition claim that it will not force religious institutions to participate, how long until someone demands that my pastor or your priest marry them within our churches and sues in a secular court bound to uphold the law? Three years ago, we were told that homosexuals only wanted the rights of marriage, not the title. Was that true?
1-10-12 CWA E-Alert: Marriage Matters [CWA]

Okay, first we have the "slippery slope" thing. It's crap. Right now, as we speak, incestuous couples could go before a court, TV camera, legislative body, or what have ya, and make an individual or larger movement case for why they should be free to marry. Same goes for a polyamorous grouping. Same for a man and his toaster. Same for ANYONE. Because the right of a person who seeks a certain kind of marriage to make a case on the basis of merit (perceived or actual) is not hinging on whether or not same-sex couples and the larger marriage equality movement ably make their own case. Each idea will be judged on its worth, legal grounding, added value, societal benefit, support base, and so on. And all of these new ideas -- EVERY LAST ONE -- are possible not because same-sex marriage exists, but rather because a concept known as marriage exists at all! You started it, "traditional marriage"!

Then there's the "they'll force our pastors to marry us" thing. This one annoys the ever-loving piss out of me. We, the marriage equality activists, are the ones who take every opportunity to remind our almost exclusively faith-motivated opposition that we are fighting for C.I.V.I.L. MARRIAGE EQUALITY. The civil license. The civil rights. The religious ceremony, which is an option for any couple, is to remain under the purview of the churches. No marriage equality group is trying to change this. It's not even within our interest to do so. In fact, it wouldn't even be politically smart, since the separation between the church and the state is a key point for us! They are the ones muddying these waters -- we are the ones purifying the debate.

But as per usual, the so-called "values voters" don't want to hear it. They completely overlook what we, the ones actually affected by marriage discrimination, are actually saying so that they can continue to bear false witness against this fight and, by extension, us. It's galling, really.

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