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 »

10/06/2013

The 'right' to not use the right terms (*as determined by the far-right)

by Jeremy Hooper

Laurie Higgins will call you whatever she damn well pleases, thank you very much:

"But the law is not the ultimate arbiter of truth and reality. Compelling [anti-gay activist Peter Breen] to use the term “wife” would rob him of the right to use the term he wanted to use and believes reflects truth and reality. Conservatives have the ethical right and obligation to use the language they believe reflects truth and reality. Conceding terminology to the Left, as conservatives too often do, is not smart, not truthful, not helpful, and not compassionate.

In reality, a wife is the spouse of a man (and each partner must actually be the sex they claim to be). No one is ethically obligated to participate rhetorically in any fiction the government has foolishly decided to join.
"

—Illinois Family Institute's particularly vehement researcher, Laurie Higgins. [Quote source]

Oh, Laurie. You can call my family "a basket of breadsticks," if it makes you feel better. You can call my legally-binding marriage "chocolate tuna," if it pleases your senses. You can call my husband my "pet rock," if it scratches your disrespecting itch. My dear opponent, you can use whatever words come to your (reliably verbose and frequently hostile) tongue. Have. A. Blast!

But what you can't do, Laurie? You can't deny us of our deserved rights and protections. And you won't. That's a promise. A vow. A pledge. An unwavering commitment which I will see carried out, even if it's the last thing my dying body accomplishes.

You WILL NOT rob my family in order to appease your personal whims. Call us "mayonnaise Snickers bars," should doing so make you feel properly superior—but you will not call us less-than-equal. You will not pronounce us unmarried. You will not put the definitive stamp on our bond, worth, or peace of mind. Neither you nor your thesaurus have that power.

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