« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
08/01/2007
Master of 'scare game' accuses gays of stealing playbook
Speaking about a possible gay marriage-banning amendment that could be put before Florida voters in 2008, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (or his ghostwriter) today says this:
As marriage opponents have falsely claimed in other states, the Florida coalition is attempting to scare voters by saying the marriage initiative would have negative consequences on the state's private domestic partner benefits, particularly those for elderly, heterosexual couples--a false allegation that has been made in other states in an effort to defeat marriage amendments.
Yet another example of how skewed these kids' world views are in regards to this "culture war" battle. They have employed so much fear and so many scare tactics in their campaigns to stem the tide of same-sex nuptials, that they can't even imagine that our side is acting out of any other motivation than fear-mongering. They think that when we vent our fears about these bans, we are just using a "sky is falling" political strategy, not a valid argument that truly does make a difference in actual human lives. That's likely because these "pro-family" players don't traffic in actual human-based ideas; they instead play their political games with abstract concepts like "marriage protection" and "child protection." They seem to be so wrapped up in their own press that they have forgotten that some people do come to action out of genuine concern for society's greater good, not "culture war" game-playing.
The truth of the matter is that constitutional marriage bans, with their often sweepingly discriminatory language and narrow constrictions, do genuinely pose a threat to domestic partner benefits. If you don't believe us, just ask same-sex couples in Kalamazoo, MI, where the city has stopped offering health coverage to the same-sex partners of employees wholly because of the state's voter-initiated marriage ban! And while this situations involves same-sex benefits in the public sector, there is ample reason to fear that private benefits for all are threatened by these bans. While some courts have found that the ban's language does not affect DP benefits or protections, others have gone the other way. So whenever some state takes the historical misstep of writing bald-faces inequality into their state;s most precious governing document, our side does step up to see just how goddamned discriminatory this particular ban is going to be! Not because we are fear-mongery, but rather because we are truly fearful!
It's enraging that folks like Tony Perkins cannot join us in these attempts to shine clarity on these measures. This does not have to be a red state vs. blue state, gay activist vs. "pro-family" activist shouting match. If they truly do not intend these bans to affect DP benefits or protections, then they should help to clarify that such will not be the case. But why would they do that when they can instead try and make us look deceitful, agenda-driven, and militant? After all, admitting that gay activists are often good people with valid concerns is simply not good for business.
Domestic Lies Trouble Marriage Effort [FRC]
Your thoughts
If I am not mistaken, DP benefits are no longer being offered to opposite-sex couples in Michigan - so it does affect straight people too, contrary to what Mr. Perkins states. It is a shame that we have to take the "If this ban passes, straight people will be hurt," angle, but if that is the only way to get straight people to vote against hateful amendments, that is what we are going to have to do.
At times I feel a little conflicted about straight people getting hurt under these bans. Part of me wants it to happen so they can see what gay people have to go through every day. I was kind of bummed that an Ohio judge said that the marriage amendment doesn't prevent the state from enforcing domestic violence laws for unmarried people. Kind of hoping it would and perhaps people might start the process of repealing the ban. And then there's the part of me hates the fact that anyone has to get hurt.
To me, it is no different than when that blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl from AK went missing from a school trip a couple of years ago. How many black girls go missing or are killed every day and don't make the news? But the minute it happens to someone who fits the ideal American image, it is a tragedy that has to be covered on every news channel.
Posted by: jeff | Aug 1, 2007 3:29:38 PM
Jeff: Yes, it is beyond ridiculous that this is a necessary angle at all. But then again, it's beyond ridiculous that we are having to pause our lives to discuss such non-issues in the first place thanks to others' inability to f***ing get over the idea of gay marriage!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 1, 2007 3:34:29 PM
comments powered by Disqus
