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 »


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

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