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 »

09/20/2012

Minnesota for Marriage vs. heterosexual atheists (by logical extension)

by Jeremy Hooper

This week, the so-called Minnesota For Marriage coalition gathered pastors for the purposes of opposing civil marriage equality for same-gender couples. But look at what was said on this day and ask yourself why it, if it were to become precedent in the state of Minnesota, would not affect any number of heterosexuals couples as well:

Screen Shot 2012-09-20 At 9.10.36 Am
Screen Shot 2012-09-20 At 9.11.12 Am
Screen Shot 2012-09-20 At 9.11.22 Am
Screen Shot 2012-09-20 At 9.11.33 Am
Screen Shot 2012-09-20 At 9.11.45 Am
Screen Shot 2012-09-20 At 9.09.51 Am
Screen Shot 2012-09-20 At 9.10.27 Am
[Full set]

It is outrageous that those of us who fight for *civil* marriage equality have to dignify these claims about the wide-ranging, personally-held decisions of churches and church leaders in regard to the religious ceremony. Virtually no marriage equality activist is working to deny any of the men above of their right to make their own religious decisions in terms of who they will or will not marry. We are not focusing on that, the always ancillary (even if often implemented) religious ceremonial aspect of marriage. We are focused on the *civil* component —the element that is required of any couple, gay or straight, that seeks state/federal recognition. Which is to say, we are focused on the actual core of this conversation while our opposition is focused on personally-held dictates.

There is nothing else like it in American politics. It would be like universal healthcare advocates having to constantly field questions about faith healing or economists being required to hold side debates about tithing. The "protect marriage" opposition movement has so fully shat in the waters of this civil equality debate. It's time to flush.

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