RECENT  POSTS:  » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game  

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

01/26/2012

Thomas Peters thinks he caught us acting hypocritically; that had to have felt refreshingly different -- but no

by Jeremy Hooper

And now this from NOM's Thomas Peters:

Screen Shot 2012-01-26 At 1.20.22 Pm
[NOM Blog]

Nope. We won't change our message at all. Civil rights shouldn't be voted on. Ever. That is not the way to solidify minority rights and protections, not ultimately. And the far-right knows this too, which is why they've been on a decades-long war against "activist judges."

The reason we are going back to the ballot in Maine? That would be because we did already do the leg work, make the connections, show up at hearings, state our cases, and manage to pass a marriage bill once before. Only thing? Certain people took it upon themselves to position that process as wrong and unfair to "THE PEOPLE." This self-appointed crowd of "people's vetoers" stripped us of a right that we earned the right way (or one of the right ways). It was a right that we worked very hard to obtain. It was and is a right that we deserve.

So no, we are not going to go through that same procedure again and have yet another negatively-charged "people's veto" vote (which would surely happen, since the other side has the petitioning process down to a science). This time, we are going straight to the ballot, asking the marriage equality question in a positive way. We are giving locals the opportunity to remedy what happened in 2009. We'd much rather not. We'd much rather be enjoying the in-place equality, which could be a settled issue by now. But again: Certain people would not allow that to happen, leaving us with no choice. We are asking people to use the ballot process to restore past (and passed) legislation, which is a very different conversation from using the direct ballot process to stand in the way of fairness.

6A00D8341C503453Ef014E88E5D8A5970D-150

*Oh, and P.S., Thomas: People who work in Houses of Canards should not throw rhetorical stones.

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