« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/01/2008
Video: One man, one woman debate in FL
Bizarrely, the following video was uploaded by the anti-gay side. We say it's bizarre, because usually when someone calmly and rationally smacks down our logic and forces us to get hyper-defensive, we try to hide the evidence rather than publicize it. Have a look:
And why are Mr. Stemberger's protestations so much louder than Ms. Smith's? Well, because the anti-gay side in Florida has taken on the strategy of loudly crying "foul!" whenever the amendment's opponents point out that domestic partnership benefits might be impacted. But the heightened decibel levels do nothing to change the facts. Based on precedent set by a recent Michigan Supreme court ruling, there is a 100% valid belief that this amendment could also be used to target DP benefits and other unmarried couples. That's exactly why groups like the Florida Professional Firefighters and the Florida AFL-CIO, as well as individuals like Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink have come out against the amendment. The possible effects the amendment could have on seniors is exactly why groups like the Florida AARP and the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans have come out against the mean-spirited ban. And the baselessness of the measure is exactly why the only backing the ban's supporters can muster is coming from churches, pastors, family groups, Republican politicians, Exodus International staff member, "pro-family" attorneys, and private citizens. No unbiased civil body concerned with society-building and equal rights would even think of supporting it!
Folks like John Stemberger are uber-defensive on the possibility of far-reachiing effects for one reason and one reason only: Because they know that the points are real and valid. But why should anyone trust their guarantees that this measure is only about "protecting marriage"? Hell, their every move is steeped in code-wording and duplicity! They can't even admit that they are working against gay rights, so by what token would we expect them to own up to the other groups that the amendment might target?! When it comes to civil, legal authority, this movement has absolutely overplayed their hand. Now they are trying to protect themselves from a rapidly awakening consciousness by hiding any and all of their discriminatory negatives behind a superficial veil of denial.
Florida voters, you can stop the "wacky" chance that narrowly defining acceptable unions might, oh, I don't know -- NARROWLY DEFINE ACCEPTABLE UNIONS! How? By voting no on 2! You can do it for gays. You can do it for seniors. You can do it for unmarried couples of all kinds. You can do it for HUMAN DECENCY. Just do it!
**UPDATE: After the jump, see part 2. In a humorous twist, he begins this section by talking about "homeowners":
**UPDATE, 7/2: Look at how they repackage the above video (and others) to highlight only what they want their followers to hear:
Your thoughts
I bet his sister *is* gay. If I were her, I wouldn't inform him, either.
Posted by: | Jul 1, 2008 5:31:11 PM
never mind the homeowners. domesticates men....magnigimous relationships,,,,wait, what?
Posted by: c-freak | Jul 2, 2008 2:25:24 AM
Go back and watch the video and you'll notice something very interesting. As the debate progress, Stemberger's face becomes redder and he starts blinking at a rapid pace. Anyone who has ever watch a CSI (or Dr. Phil) can tell you that this is what happens to people who are lying!!!
Posted by: stojef | Jul 2, 2008 11:14:25 AM
One other note - if we have to reframe the issue so that is shows straight people are going to get hurt, I'm all for it. People vote for these laws and amendments because they think they are only going to hurt the gays, so who cares?? But once they realize that EVERYONE gets hurt, it changes minds. It sucks that we can't fight this battle on our own, but we have to do what we have to do.
Posted by: stojef | Jul 2, 2008 11:16:27 AM
Kudos to Nadine Smith!
Posted by: gary | Jul 2, 2008 11:57:12 AM
comments powered by Disqus
