RECENT  POSTS:  » Pro-discrimination activists continue to use one woman's one-sided spite against ex-husband to attack marriage equality » Audio: Tony Perkins minimizes actual religious persecution; pretends he and anti-gay pals face 'deadly consequences' » Ryan Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Rick Warren, other inequality advocates urge Pope to 'commit to marriage' » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress » FRC senior staffer: 'Ex-Gays: The Best Kept Secret in Your Child’s School' » Video: In inclusive ad, AZ Sec. of State hopeful makes discrimination his rival » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year  

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

03/08/2012

FYI, FPI: There are only negatives attached to your planned WA vote

by Jeremy Hooper

I just want to correct the Family Policy Institute of Washington (self-declared) on something. In a post entitled 'Keep the streak alive," FPIW says of the potentially marriage-banning referendum they are pushing on the state:

FPIWIf we are successful, it will because we had a historic effort by pro-family individuals and organizations on behalf of marriage. If we are not successful, Washington will become the first jurisdiction in the history of human civilization to usher in same-sex “marriage” by popular vote. [FPIW]

Correction: Washington citizens have already ushered in marriage equality by popular vote. The voters chose their lawmakers and they chose their Governor. Here in America, that is how we make and pass law: We elect representatives.

The current campaign is to stop fairly passed progress from sticking. Relying largely on personal faith as means to override CIVIL law, certain residents (aided by out-of-state groups like NOM) have determined that a public popularity contest should deny a minority population of their deserved rights. There isn't the sort of high bar that the legislative, executive, or judicial branches typically (or at least hopefully, ideally) apply to such considerations. The only ask, on the part of groups like FPIW, is for citizens to have the "right" to use personal whim to override the process. They are hoping for an autumn of regression.

So FPIW can go ahead with this referendum process, as they've chosen to do. But they do not have the power to "usher in" anything on election day. Their goal is to BAN something. To HALT progress. To DISCRIMINATE against certain citizens. Their campaign is an antagonistic act. I will not let them misstate their game.

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