RECENT  POSTS:  » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too » FRC prays to take LGBT Americans out of nondiscrimination law » In lieu of typing 'Look how desperate we are' over and over again, NOM president wrote this instead » I'll remind you that FRC also compared our marriages to human-horse unions  

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

02/07/2012

NOM's Culture Director tries to put winning spin on inherently losing view

by Jeremy Hooper

And now, as per the burdens of his short-sighted gig carrying water for the radical anti-equality agenda's most visible organization, NOM's Thomas Peters feigns this willfully obtuse analysis:

…[I]f it is unfair to subject the "rights" of a minority to a referendum, why have gay marriage activists in Maine done precisely this? Demanding that the people of Maine vote on marriage again, having already rejected same-sex Screen Shot 2012-02-07 At 11.12.44 Ammarriage a mere two years ago? Will [Politico contributor William Yeomans] compare gay marriage activists in Maine to those who supported the continuation of Jim Crow? I doubt it.

Second point: if subjecting the "rights" of a minority to a free and fair vote of the people is always wrong, why do gay marriage activists continually cite polls claiming that a majority of people in a given state support redefining marriage? All of Yeomans historical examples claim that if the civil rights of African Americans were to be voted on for much of our history, they would lose at the ballot box. But gay marriage proponents want us to believe that a majority of people, say, in New Jersey, support their agenda. And these same activists won't allow the only "poll" our democracy proscribes -- the people voting -- to be registered. So why cite polls? It's like claiming there is no need to vote on a President every four years if Gallup says a majority of Americans support the incumbent the day before the election.
If Referendums Aren't the "Avenue to Equality" -- Why File Them? Why Poll? [NOM Blog]

Okay, first part: As I've already discussed, Maine activists already went through the proper channels to obtain equal marriage rights. The local advocates did the work, the legislature passed a bill, the Governor signed said bill, and marriage rights were granted. Or at least should've been. Another group determined that they could not let this, the due actions of representative government, grant fairness to certain kinds of taxpayers, so they decided to treat the question like a particularly childish student council election. By going back to the polls now, in a proactive way, Mainers are only attempting to reclaim what should've always been theirs. Nobody wants to do it, but the anti-LGBT side forced the hand. There is no reason to go back through the same process with the full knowledge that a passed bill would again go to a "people's veto" vote anyway.

Second: Nice try with the Jim Crow thing, Thomas. But you know, there's a little called merit. Not all actions are created equally. A vote to extend rights to a minority population is not even in the same ballpark as a vote to deny the same. So no, nobody would compare Jim Crow to the current push underway in Maine. At least not anyone who cared about historical accuracy, civil rights aptitude, or a sense of civics that transcends personal biases.

And finally, on the polls thing: Really? REALLY?!? We're seriously likening the practice of political polling with the action of putting civil rights on a ballot? Like we're seriously doing this as adults engaged in political dialogue? Well uhm, okay -- if we really must.

[::Exasperated sigh::] Yes, Thomas, we do look to polls and note the turning tide, just as any modern politico looks to any number of polls (some more trustworthy than others) for insight into our society. But what you on the "pro-family" side fail to understand (or at least admit) is that those of us who truly reject the notion of civil rights being put to a popular vote would still reject that notion even if we were polling at 99.9% favoritism! That's because we understand the dangerous precedent set by this kind of referendum. Even if we had guaranteed "wins," we'd much rather our rights benefit from the rigors of legislative or (especially) judicial tests than from those tests that meet nothing more than the ever-changing whims of a bare majority. We reject this practice of public plebiscite because we understand the crucial need to secure any vulnerable population's constitutional freedoms -- a need I and most every equality activist I know would fight to secure on your behalf as well, Thomas, should the threat arise!

And again: Most everyone I know feels the same way about Maine, too. We are itching for the day that this crude and cruel popularity contest will stop. We wish with all wishes that the fair process would've been respected back in 2009. But unfortunately, that didn't happen. And here in 2012, we still live in a world where a self-appointed team of "values" leaders refuses to offer that sense of respect. We hate the game, always. Unfortunately in the state of Maine, if we want to restore the rights that we do and always did deserve, we have no choice but to be a player. But don't even try to blame us. It's the social conservatives who have created this awful reality for 21st Century America!

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