RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » 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'  

« 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