« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/12/2007
Fully ban gays? Partially ban gays? Eh, just flip a coin!
There are two different gay marriage amendments that are being proposed by anti-gay groups in California: one that would ban nuptials and domestic partnerships, and one that would only ban marriage. Justifying why he is backing the latter rather than the former, San Diego-area Baptist preacher Chris Clark (pic) says the following to Baptist Press:
"When you approach the typical California voter ... they don't want to take anybody's rights way," he said of the current domestic partnerships law. "That is the difference.... While the other one may be more iron-clad, it won't get in the constitution if it doesn't pass. That's why I'm backing this one. We cannot afford to lose.
"I'm at a point right now where I'm not even willing to go and debate this issue [which amendment is better] any further. We don't have time. We have to get these signatures by April 1 to get it on the ballot. None of us have time to sit around and talk about which one is better. We're going to go with this one because it wins. We can get people to jump on and sign it."
Comments that really annoy us in terms of the way Chris makes it seem like this is simply a stock tip that he must act upon right away in order to benefit himself. He seems to have thrown an actual reasoned consideration of which bill best meshes with his societal views out the door, and is instead acting on a purely strategic level. That just seems so offensive to those of us whose lives would truly be affected by either of these proposed amendments! Because what we are talking about here are actual tax-paying citizens who would see discrimination written into their state's most precious governing document with either measure, but who'd see rights and benefits that they currently enjoy stripped away under one of the two proposals. Yet Chris makes it sound as if polling numbers and ease of passage are the only thing that he should be taking into consideration on this, as he and his team want to see something, anything passed in order to make their side look powerful. It's a worldview that seems about as un-Christian as the National Atheist Society's holiday dinner!
Now look, obviously we find any and every gay marriage amendment to be more disgusting than a used truck stop toilet that hasn't been flushed since the Reagan administration. However, we would actually respect Mr. Clark a great deal more if he'd give a clear reason why favors either the all-exclusive or the partially-exclusive measure. We'd still disagree with him, but at least we wouldn't feel like he was playing games with our lives on a wholly mindless level. As his comments stand, however, they have only served to further confirm our suspicions that the last people anti-gay marriage proponents consider when they wage these campaigns are the tangible queers whose existences would be rocked by their passage. And that's not only disgusting on a socio-political level. It's also deeply disturbing on a humanity one.
Calif. Baptists have 'gay marriage' deadline [BP News]
Your thoughts
Since when has the majority ever had time to debate the merits of unjust laws they would have others held to but not them. I'm truly to feel sorry for the time it has taken up for him and his group(s) to determine what is the best choice when make our relationships and the ones we love legal strangers. The urgency in his quote, as if after that deadline his own life with be the one to suffer, is pathetically laughable.
Posted by: Patrick B | Dec 13, 2007 3:26:55 AM
Homosexuals are not natural and is a result of outside influence
Posted by: Most people | Jul 2, 2008 12:30:55 PM
Keep telling yourself that, "Most people."
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 2, 2008 12:48:33 PM
comments powered by Disqus