RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM finally admitting that marriage amendments are, in fact, bans » Kentucky's big anti-LGBT org hopes to pray away a fair court ruling on civil marriage » Iowa's governor sponsoring anti-gay Family Leader summit? » Head of Virginia's top anti-gay org: One mean email proves 'the left' is sexist, intolerant » Video: Ohio should be so lucky to have married couples as adorable as George Henry » GLAAD: Q&A with former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider: 'I’ve never met an 'ex-gay' man I thought was not still attracted to men' » Head of Virginia's anti-equality org: 'open season to discriminate against anyone who believes that children deserve a mom and a dad' » Force behind Virginia's marriage ban ably demonstrates animus behind it » NOM to show rest of world its impressive ability to exacerbate loss » Bryan Fischer: Marriage equality supporters are like baseball's legendarily winning team  

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

02/24/2014

Banning advocate denies he wants to ban the marriages he does, in fact, hope to ban

by Jeremy Hooper

The social conservatives decided long enough to never address their marriage discrimination in the form of "bans." They know this honest language is bad for them, which is why the National Organization For Marriage used to run directives telling its supporters to stay away from "ban" language at all costs.

But as time goes by and more state bans fall away, the idea that there are no such bans in place sounds even more ludicrous. Yet that truth doesn't stop them from pushing the silly notion:

"Talk of “bans” on same-sex marriage indicates a fundamentally flawed grasp on what is really being argued, by anyone, in the debate. The question before various courts and state legislatures is not whether to lift bans or abolish prohibition on same-sex marriages. The question is whether every jurisdiction must, on the conjugal view, equate marriages with same-sex relationships; or, on the revisionist view, legally celebrate and recognize marriages that already exist. But for neither camp is any present legal or juridical battle about lifting a ban on same-sex marriage. It couldn’t be, because no such bans exist."

—Writer Michael Bradley, contributing to EthikaPolitika.org

Wrong. There are bans. I was married in Connecticut but could not have married in my native Tennessee. Because I'm banned.

I know that folks like Michael Bradley think there is no potential for same-sex marriage bans because they don't think that same-sex marriage could ever be a thing. They are what I like to call wrong. Two men and two women can, in fact, marry one another—in some states. Other states have bans—for now.

Conservatives have every right to advocate for the legal barriers that prevent qualified, tax-paying, decent Americans from marrying their true love simply because of that loves' genitalia, but they can't change the language or our understanding of it. I'm sure they'd like a ban to be a rose, since the latter smells nice and the former always rots over time. They don't have the power to force the rest of us into fantasy.

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