RECENT  POSTS:  » Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans » Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief » Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking » NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case » Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If you feel like you hear about another marriage case every day, here's why » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition  

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

05/31/2012

Gallagher thinks her marriage 'defense' lessens confusion; is confused

by Jeremy Hooper

Maggie Gallagher's heading to Minnesota this weekend, where she will make her (Catholic) case for why she is right and the rest of us are simply "confused":

Screen Shot 2012-05-31 At 8.30.16 Am
[Chesterton Academy]

The age of confusion? Well maybe, Maggie, this debate is "confused" because, for eons now, you have been leading the charge to convince Americans that gays are some sort of bizarre threat. With language like "protect marriage" and platitudes like "the two great halves of humanity," you have been making a wholly rhetorical case for why, exactly, your faith-motivated view should deny certain, qualified citizens of their deserved civil rights.

Or, in the instances when the conversation moves from the rhetorical to the physical, Maggie, you and NOM take situations that are either highly complex or easily understandable under an objective read, then twist and exploit them so that they are made to sound completely different than they are (e.g. The willfully NOM-twisted Ocean Grove, NJ, situation; vendors whose public accommodations scenarios were due to easily understandable nondiscrimination law, with a body of fact that more than justifies the outcome; the idea that the extremely anti-gay Frank Turek is simply a "traditional marriage" advocate; twisting a Canadian situation so much that it brought legal action from the participants, etc.). Confusion is the NOM game!

Oh, and let's not for get all of those ads. How many times have we been warned about the crushing sense of tolerance that same-sex marriage will impart on this nation's young people? This confusion is twofold. Most obviously: the idea that more and greater acceptance is a bad thing is itself a confusion of principles. But even if you are someone who disagrees with me on that, it is undeniable that NOM has confused the matter, making it sound as if marriage equality is the notion on which this greater acceptance hinges. It is not. The matter here is whether or not LGBT people exist, and whether or not they deserve decent treatment. If the answer is yes, then schools can take strides to make our world more in tune with this reality—and they can, will, and already do so regardless of whether or not the stat win question has marriage equality!!

"The age of confusion," Maggie? On marriage, we've all been living through it. Some of us have been fighting our way out of it. But you? You have been fostering it. Let's not confuse the roles here.

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