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 »


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