« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
05/19/2009
Give 'em an inch or a mile -- they'll still demean ours lives and loves!
Q. Religious protections are unneeded in marriage equality bills, because we are talking about civil marriage and not religious ceremony. But what makes these special accommodations even more enraging?
A. The fact that these stipulation never, ever, ever appease the gay marriage opponents that they are meant to satisfy, since the organized opposition cares only to stop same-sex civil marriage at any and all cost!!!!
This from the A Lie in Defiance of Fun Alliance Defense Fund:
“Contrary to what marriage redefinition activists might argue, redefining marriage in New Hampshire would have serious consequences for the religious community beyond the limited protections the governor has proposed,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “The governor is right to recognize the threat to religious liberty, but he underestimates the threat by a long shot. Where are the protections for business owners with religious objections to recognizing same-sex ‘marriages’? Formally affiliated organizations are not the only ones who need their religious liberty protected.”
...
After reviewing the proposed language of the statute, ADF attorneys claim that religious organizations would be forced to recognize counterfeit “marriages” of potential clients or customers in many situations or face severe consequences.
NH gov's proposed revisions to marriage redefinition bill fail religious freedom test [ADF]
So even once legalized, they are still going to refer to our marriages as "counterfeit" -- and yet we're asked to honor and respect their homo-hostile "religious freedom" with specially added language?! They want all business owners to be free to disrespect same-sex civil marriages at their own faith-based discretion -- and yet we're told we have to bed over backwards to make sure we don't interfere with something with which no gay activist -- NO. GAY. ACTIVIST. -- is seeking interference?! And they are making a stink about the supposed "consequences" that they will face -- and yet we're asked to subscribe to specially-designed rules that could have great consequences (no quotes) for the fair and equal recognition of our civil freedoms?! Sheesh, the freaking gall of these people!
Only under the auspices of faith would these glaringly unfair suggestions earn an ear in the halls of governance. Which leads us to this annoying announcement: The aforequoted Austin Nimocks is actually testifying before the New Hampshire senate this afternoon, where he will peddle these thoroughly offensive ideas in a last ditch attempt to curtail the state's civil fairness. In a perfect world, a swath of senators would rise to their feet and call out his audacious attempts to position the world so that it accommodates evangelicals at the expense of just about everyone else (especially LGBTs). But in the real world, his fear-mongery untruths will most surely (and unfortunately) manage to dupe a few more.
Your thoughts
This is just bullshit. (I'm not wasting my time with politeness when it comes to dealing with the ADF.) Ministers can already decline to officiate for marriages that are perfectly legal in the civil realm for a number of reasons. To run through a few: Catholic priests won't marry divorcees. Jewish rabbis, Catholic priests, and many Protestant Christian ministers won't marry interfaith couples. The pastor thinks the couple is immature or marrying for the wrong reasons. The church is booked up. I know a Pagan priest, whom I don't like very much, who disapproves of my marriage to an atheist and will not marry Pagans to atheists. (This is a pretty common pairing, too.) And so on, and so on.
In other words, there is already that protection. An extra layer is not needed. I'm tempted to say, "Let the babies have their bottle if that will help," but of course, we know so well that it won't. Besides, do we really want to marry in their ugly, boxy "modern" churches with a minister who's gritting his teeth during our vows?
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 19, 2009 11:46:26 AM
I appreciate that this site calls it as it is -- they are ANTI-GAY and do not just want to preserve the WORD "marriage" they want to erase us altogether.
The position of these churches is they want a right to not recognize reality. It's like saying "TExas is a state, but let's add extra language saying Churches do not have to call it a State, and if they want businesses do not have to pay State taxes if they do not believe it is a State." How far would THAT idea fly? Come on! Reality is reality, and some gay people really are married. Really.
Posted by: Strepsi | May 19, 2009 12:57:18 PM
Okay. Where are the protections for gay business owners with objections to recognizing opposite-sex ‘marriages' due to inequality?
Posted by: Jon | May 19, 2009 3:38:02 PM
You guys are very correct! They want a grocery store clerk to be able to refuse to checkout the gay couple that dared to queue up behind the rest of the "normal" store patrons in her line. They want the receptionist in the dentist's office to be able to the refuse services of the dentist to LGBTs. And, the night janitor to be able to refuse to venture near the bathroom stall where a lesbian took a whiz.
And, to them, that is rational?? To me that is the vilest form of supremacist hatred. That is exactly the same as racial segregation - which, I might add, many of the religiots are still sore about losing those battles.
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 19, 2009 7:23:19 PM
I pray your eyes are open to the truth and you can finally admit that to act on a homosexual desire is a choice.
Posted by: sinner | May 20, 2009 1:02:19 PM
Okay, Sinner, tell me something. If the world were different and homosexuality was the norm while heterosexuals were still being treated as an immoral fringe group, would you, as a straight person, bend over (literally and figuratively) just to preserve the status quo, or would you act according to what you knew would truly make you happy?
You fail.
Posted by: Harrison | May 20, 2009 6:45:52 PM
comments powered by Disqus
