Well some pretty stunning advancements were made for civil rights in 2003. We saw the death of sodomy laws, for instance, it's no longer criminal to be homosexual, and frankly homosexual civil rights have been being persuade with a sudden renewed fervor, it seems. Civil rights in America haven't been this hot a topic since the 60s.
With a few victories under it’s belt, and growing support, enough to put civil rights back on the list of issues worthy of the attentions of the president, and potential presidential candidates, it was really probably only a matter of time before those hive-mind right-wingers received orders from the queen, to whip them all into a frenzy, put their new rhetoric of “Defending marriage” into effect, and start squeezing down the vice, as it were.
It seems that the backlash has just begun, frightened republicans in legislatures all across the nation are trying to get more solid anti-homosexual laws put into place, even going so far as to attempt to amend state constitutions to ban homosexual marriage.
This wave of hatred is a bit alarming, though honestly not surprising, especially after I heard about the Massachusetts ruling to completely legalize “Nothing less” than homosexual marriage, I figured that this was coming, the unthinking glaze in any republicans eye as he talks about “defending marriage” should have been enough to predict it.
Here’s the primary argument that the Republicans are running on. Without substantiating exactly how this works, they consistently assert that homosexual marriage would somehow infringe on heterosexual marriages. Do they think that once it’s legalized all married hets will suddenly have second thoughts, and decide to divorce in favor of marrying a same-sex partner just like they’d always wanted? Pretty unlikely. To sum up my thoughts on this argument, I’d have to quote my young, but very bright sister, “How the fuck does homosexual marriage effect mom and dad’s relationship?! That’s just stupid!”
Stupid though it may very well be, It’s what the wild reactionary religious right is basing their arguments on. Apparently it’s ok to deny civil liberties so long as you have any bullshit excuse at all to run on. This is good news for me, because secretly I’ve always felt that Puerto Ricans should not be allowed to vote, because bears hibernate in the winter. All you need to follow that logic is to be ok with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; simply because one follows another, doesn’t mean that one is the cause of the other. . . but it doesn’t mean that we can’t pretend it’s true.
Another clever tactic used by supporters of denying homosexual marriage is to completely obscure what the idea is. They talk about the sanctity of marriage, as if that truly means anything. Unless you worship our secular government as being some sort of holy body (and if you do, then you’re probably in Bush’s cabinet), then there should be no worry of sanctity or godliness. We’re talking ONLY about the state institution of marriage, which gives all sorts of legal benefits and considerations appropriate to the nature of the relationship two married people display. Under no circumstances would any religious body be required to perform services for a homosexual couple. In other words, if it’s the eyes of god that you’re genuinely worried about, here, then you shouldn’t be at all concerned with this issue. It’s about equal protection under the law, not some fuzzy religious idealism, so cool down, the catholic church won’t be performing wedding ceremonies for Adam and Steve any time soon under any circumstances, and you can go right on thinking that the big man up stairs shares your ape-like irrational hatred of homosexuals without the government even implying any different.
With a few victories under it’s belt, and growing support, enough to put civil rights back on the list of issues worthy of the attentions of the president, and potential presidential candidates, it was really probably only a matter of time before those hive-mind right-wingers received orders from the queen, to whip them all into a frenzy, put their new rhetoric of “Defending marriage” into effect, and start squeezing down the vice, as it were.
It seems that the backlash has just begun, frightened republicans in legislatures all across the nation are trying to get more solid anti-homosexual laws put into place, even going so far as to attempt to amend state constitutions to ban homosexual marriage.
This wave of hatred is a bit alarming, though honestly not surprising, especially after I heard about the Massachusetts ruling to completely legalize “Nothing less” than homosexual marriage, I figured that this was coming, the unthinking glaze in any republicans eye as he talks about “defending marriage” should have been enough to predict it.
Here’s the primary argument that the Republicans are running on. Without substantiating exactly how this works, they consistently assert that homosexual marriage would somehow infringe on heterosexual marriages. Do they think that once it’s legalized all married hets will suddenly have second thoughts, and decide to divorce in favor of marrying a same-sex partner just like they’d always wanted? Pretty unlikely. To sum up my thoughts on this argument, I’d have to quote my young, but very bright sister, “How the fuck does homosexual marriage effect mom and dad’s relationship?! That’s just stupid!”
Stupid though it may very well be, It’s what the wild reactionary religious right is basing their arguments on. Apparently it’s ok to deny civil liberties so long as you have any bullshit excuse at all to run on. This is good news for me, because secretly I’ve always felt that Puerto Ricans should not be allowed to vote, because bears hibernate in the winter. All you need to follow that logic is to be ok with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; simply because one follows another, doesn’t mean that one is the cause of the other. . . but it doesn’t mean that we can’t pretend it’s true.
Another clever tactic used by supporters of denying homosexual marriage is to completely obscure what the idea is. They talk about the sanctity of marriage, as if that truly means anything. Unless you worship our secular government as being some sort of holy body (and if you do, then you’re probably in Bush’s cabinet), then there should be no worry of sanctity or godliness. We’re talking ONLY about the state institution of marriage, which gives all sorts of legal benefits and considerations appropriate to the nature of the relationship two married people display. Under no circumstances would any religious body be required to perform services for a homosexual couple. In other words, if it’s the eyes of god that you’re genuinely worried about, here, then you shouldn’t be at all concerned with this issue. It’s about equal protection under the law, not some fuzzy religious idealism, so cool down, the catholic church won’t be performing wedding ceremonies for Adam and Steve any time soon under any circumstances, and you can go right on thinking that the big man up stairs shares your ape-like irrational hatred of homosexuals without the government even implying any different.
they're trying to steal marriage!! We must stop at nothing to keep it from them 