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 »

05/13/2013

Minnesota For Marriage claims ownership of church, mothers

by Jeremy Hooper

Posted on Sunday:

Screen Shot 2013-05-13 At 8.29.46 Am

Posted today:

Screen Shot 2013-05-13 At 8.29.40 Am

Okay, first off: "Mothers" is not a term in marriage law. What a sham thing to say!

And the second one: Nowadays, the main people using the word "bigots" in these marriage debates are those on the side of self-victimization. Those of us who are pushing for marriage equality are not, by and large, focusing on motivation. Our supportive legislators certainly aren't. We're focused on the deserved right to civil marriage, which is always—ALWAYS, EVERY TIME!—separated from the ancillary religious ceremony that a couple may or may not opt into.

Give it up, MN For Marriage. This desperation is unbecoming.

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