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 »


Audio: Accurately labeling the MN For Marriage campaign is a 'rhetorical tactic'?

by Jeremy Hooper

I am beyond tired of this kind of justification and the ease with which its conscience-clearers state it:

SOURCE: Jason Adkins [MN Catholic Conference]

The speaker is Jason Adkins, one of the top leaders of the current, so-called Minnesota For Marriage campaign. That campaign is working to limit marriage, specifically because they fear what same-sex couples will supposedly do to the institution. They are not pushing a divorce amendment. They are not pushing a steeper punishment for adultery. They are not pushing a requirement that demands reproduction as a marital must. This coalition is engaged for the one purpose of stopping same-sex couples in Minnesota from earning the freedom to marry.

In the rest of this speech (which can be watched in three parts here), Adkins uses the word "attack" umpteen times. In fact, at one point he even says that it's not just marriage that is under "attack," but rather civilization itself. And in every instance, it's always the matter of marriage equality for same-sex couples to which he affixes the "attack" label. And yet here we have Adkins, a self-proclaimed moral values guy who works for the Minnesota Catholic Conference, seriously telling us that this proposed amendment, because it doesn't contain the word "gay," is not aimed for the one, glaring purpose that is so obviously driving it? That is so offensive on so many levels! It's offensive to gay people, obviously, who not only have to endure these public onslaughts, but also have to watch as their self-appointed adversaries work to wash their hands clean of the hurt they are causing us. But it's also offensive to the everyday Minnesota voters, who deserve accurate information about a ballot measure they have been asked to weigh. If those who brought this to ballot cannot have the fortitude to stand for equality, they could at least have enough grit to take ownership of the divisiveness they've so proudly wrought.

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