RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too  

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

03/08/2013

Video: Spokesperson for losing MN For Marriage campaign still speaking; hopes for different result

by Jeremy Hooper

Autumn Leva, one of the top surrogates who the Minnesota For Marriage campaign brought in from DC to speak for last fall's failed (from their perspective) effort, is now trying to convince the public that her side has the intellectual capital in the current conversation about legalizing marriage equality. This even though the 2012 elections both repudiated their cause and gave control to the pro-equality Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.

Here's Leva's spiel:

That last part if particularly frustrating. Leva acknowledges that the state already has nondiscrimination laws but then acts like marriage is somehow the pivot point that turns these laws into "weapons." Um, NO! No, no, no, no, no.

If nondiscrimination laws already speak to the problem of anti-LGBT bias (newsflash: they do), then a vendor who seeks to wantonly discriminate against a same-sex couple could face the very same penalty right now that he or she could face if the state moves forward with marriage equality. Sure, there might be more same-sex couples seeking more vendors, since more weddings (read: more $$$$) would surely come to the state. However, the law would be the very same regardless of whether or not the ceremony up for discussion is legally binding or not. A couple who is denied a cake for their non-legally-binding commitment ceremony could seek the very same recourse as a couple who is denied a cake for a legally-binding marriage. And in fact, in most every case that the far right uses as a supposedly marriage-dependent matter (e.g. the Oregon cake baker, the Arizona photographer, the NJ pavilion), the host state does not even have marriage equality. This is because the issue is NON-DISCRIMINATION, not whether or not the cake has a two-groom topper or the booked hotel room is for wedding night coitus.

The opposition movement's positions are anti-intellectual lies. It's enraging that we have to dignify this kind of misinformation, which poses a real and dangerous threat the good of our fair-minded communities.

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