H/T to Brad Parr.
|
I got a fundraising email from Maggie Gallagher the other day. It’s unbelievably long (as in, I can’t believe she expects people to read this whole thing). One sentence jumped out at me before I gave up on the piece.
Personally I’d answer, No. Actually, I’d blink twice, tilt my head, squint quizzically, and then answer, No. Mostly because I don’t know many men who have pledged to each other in a merely sexual relationship. On the other hand, suppose Maggie had asked: Are two men in romantic relationship — who have pledged to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, from this day forward until death does them part — in a marriage? I’d answer, Of course. But of course, Maggie didn’t write that. She knows it would devastate her argument. She knows the only way she can win is to deny that such a commitment is even possible between two men. That’s why NOM’s website contains this false and dehumanizing assertion:
‘Cause you see, two men can’t feel that kind of love. Not for each other. Not for their kids. Maggie’s key strategy here is denial of reality. We see the same thing in different words from NOM’s resident intellectual (God help them) Jennifer Roback Morse, who claims marriage equality will reduce the institution to nothing more than a “registry of friendships.” Again: denial of reality. And it truly is offensive. Compare it to statements like these:
Well, perhaps that last item doesn’t belong. But those first two statements are no less offensive than what NOM wrote about gay and lesbian relationships. Okay, that last bit was kind of a tangent. My real point here is that our opponents resort to this rhetorical strategy all the time. We need to point out that it’s not just false, but self-defeating. Not just wrong, but devastating to their own argument. We need to Gingrich ourselves up (rhetorically, not maritally), stop playing defense, and turn their words against them. We need to say: No. It’s not just a sexual union. It’s not just a friendship. And if you can’t make your case by calling things what they are, then you don’t have a case at all. Same-sex marriage is legal in New Hamshire, but state Rep. Frank Sapareto is sponsoring HR 1264, a bill to protect religious freedom. It allows businesses and employees to refuse service to anyone if it involves “solemnization, celebration, or promotion of a marriage” in “violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith.” The bill is extraordinary in scope. I’ve written a little skit showing what could happen if the bill passes. Imagine you’re the owner of a charming New Hampshire bed and breakfast… Owner [walking into kitchen]: Margaret, you’ll need to fix a honeymoon dinner for Room 202. Cook: Nope. Owner: What? Cook: Same-sex couple. I don’t have to help them celebrate their “marriage.” Owner: You can’t just refuse. Cook: HB 1264. Owner: I’ll fire you. Cook: HB 1264. Owner: Dock your pay. Cook: HB 1264. [Bellhop enters] Bellhop: Room 203 wants a cheese platter. Cook: Nope. Interracial couple. Nasty. Owner: That’s not even a religious belief! Cook: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Owner [to Bellhop]: Did you take up Room 201’s luggage? Bellhop: Nope. Saw birth control pills in her bag. Not a real marriage. Owner: What the – Bellhop: HB 1264. Owner: Room 205’s stuff? Bellhop: Catholic and a Baptist, married by a judge. HB 1264. [Maid enters] Owner: Valorie, thank god! Everyone’s gone nuts. I’ll need you to – Maid: Nope. Owner: You don’t even know what it is! Maid: I’m a Shaker. We don’t believe in marriage. Owner: We specialize in honeymoons and anniversaries — that’s all we do! Maid [kicking off shoes and picking up magazine]: Guess I’ll have lots of down time. Owner [red-faced]: I’ll – Maid: HB 1264. Owner: This is crazy! Bellhop: HB 1264. Owner: You’re all – Cook: HB 1264. Owner: I’m paying you people!! Cook, maid, and bellhop: HB 1264! Who would you rather have a beer with? That’s a ridiculous way to choose a president, but I thought about it as I watched last night’s Republican debate, two hours likely to inspire nothing but heavy drinking. Here, then, is my rich and foamy analysis. If you ask Mitt Romney to have a beer he’ll agree, immediately, ordering a Miller Lite after finding the bar doesn’t stock any of his 43 favorite imported microbrews. He’s the big handsome fellow in the middle of the room who surprisingly never seems to be with any friends. He’ll nod yes to everything you say and give a hearty laugh when he realizes you’ve made a joke, but he’s too busy looking for someone better to actually hear anything you’ve said. You ask the gloomy awkward guy in a sweater vest to have a beer mostly because you feel bad for him, at which point Rick Santorum explains that beer is technically a poison, dangerous to you, your family, your community, the nation at large, and humanity in general. He starts off with the resigned voice of a man irked at having to state the obvious, and escalates to such peevish annoyance that you order six tequila shooters just to shut him out. You don’t have to ask Ron Paul to have a beer. He’s always there, at the far end of the bar mumbling to himself and letting out quick, tiny yelps before settling back into his constant murmuring groove. When you sit too close you realize he’s now directing this stream at you. Half of it strikes you as audacious, daring, and honest, and half of it’s just batshit crazy. You slip away and he goes back to talking to his mug. I thought I was tired of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. Anti-gays cite the group constantly as an example of how good Christian folk will be persecuted — persecuted! — by marriage equality. But the story’s back in the news and, as it turns out, demonstrates exactly the opposite. Quick recap: Ocean Grove is a ministry that owns an open-air pavilion which it rents out for weddings and other events. They refused to let two lesbians rent the space for their civil union ceremony, and as a result, lost their property tax exemption on the pavilion. Oh, the horror. From Ocean Grove’s lawyer:
…ignoring that the group never was forced to rent to the lesbians. The actual facts aren’t so ominous. Ocean Grove simply applied for the wrong kind of property tax exemption. Instead of basing it on religious grounds, they applied under a state program that gave non-profit corporations a tax break on property that is “open for public use on an equal basis.” Ocean Grove obviously violated that agreement and lost the exemption on their pavilion. But here’s the thing… Ocean Grove later applied for a religious tax exemption on the facility, and got it, leaving them free to discriminate without paying property taxes. And there’s more… Ocean Grove also owns chapels, chapels that don’t permit same-sex ceremonies, and never have. Those properties are also tax exempt. Why? Because they’re part of the group’s religious work. Ocean Grove’s religious freedom to discriminate against icky gay people was never violated. In fact, the full story actually affirms the religious right of the Religious Right to discriminate against us. That’s not how the antigays are spinning it, though. Here’s one juicy headline:
Wow, sounds like the judge declared that discriminating against gay people is wrong. But that’s nowhere in his decision. He simply says you can’t break your promises. Two points: First, Ocean Grove is a favorite anti-gay talking point, brought up over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, because it’s their best example of how marriage equality threatens their religious freedom in America. What does it say, then, when their best example completely falls apart? Also, note that Ocean Grove isn’t protecting its religious liberty. No, it’s asking for special rights — specifically, the right to discriminate on its non-religious commercial property. Churches own lots of stuff — restaurants, shopping malls, parking lots. According to Ocean Grove’s lawyer, churches should have the special right to ignore the law, be exempt from the law, on all of it. For years (literally!) I’ve been searching for an easy way to debunk this imaginary injustice. I think I’ve got it. Next time someone describes the loss of Ocean Grove’s tax exemption as a threat to religious liberty, you can reply: That was only because they applied for the wrong kind of tax exemption, one that required their property to be open to everyone. Once they applied on religious grounds, they got their exemption back and now they can discriminate to their hearts’ content. And that is the truth. Maryland Senate President Mike Miller (a Democrat) on same-sex marriage:
NOM is delighted, of course, and gives their readers a link to send him messages of support. But guess what happened when one of their devoted followers tried to use it? Believe it or not, I’m at low-risk for demonic possession. That’s a surprise and relief. More details coming soon. How’s this for a plan: 1. Send people letters and email, pleading for money to fight a terrible (yet non-existent) danger. 2. Use that money to finance another round of dishonest pleas for money. 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2, month after month, year after year, while taking a “management fee” for my efforts. Nice, huh? Actually, I didn’t invent it. I’m trying to figure out if that’s what anti-gay activist Eugene Delgaudio is doing.  Eugene Delgaudio Delgaudio is kind of a joke, known for extreme, over-the-top, even messianic fundraising appeals. On the other hand, he’s an actual elected official, and pulls in well over a million dollars a year in donations. He’s also in the news right now, because he rented the Weekly Standard‘s email list to send out an anti-gay fundraising request so appalling that the conservative magazine has actually issued a statement of regret. For some reason, I’m on the mailing list for Delgaudio’s organization (“Public Advocate of the United States”). Last month he asked for money with a novel and ballsy approach. He was about to file his 990 with the IRS (a financial disclosure form) and he was short of his 2011 fundraising goal. This would devastate the nation:
His chutzpah is breathtaking, as he pretends NOM, AFA, TVC, FRC and a host of anti-gay groups don’t exist. But that’s not even the ballsy part: Delgaudio is openly asking for money just for the sake of having money! He’s not even saying what he plans to do with it. But that’s not important — all that matters is making sure everyone knows Eugene Delgaudio has your money. Literally, that’s his pitch. Delgaudio’s been sending me junk for months, but it never occurred to me “scour” his 990s until he brought them up. Then I figured, Why not? What does he do with all this cash? I’m no accountant, but I can read a 990. Let me walk you through what I found. And I’ll try not to cackle like a demented hyena stalking its prey. Read more… I’m a dope, a patsy, a dupe. Or at least tragically naive: Somehow, it seems, I’m once again surprised by the unabashed dishonesty of our worst anti-gay opponents. This time it’s Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of NARTH, writing a long piece about same-sex adoption. It has a small section titled, “The children do suffer,” with this opening:
He brings up two studies to support this, one of them by Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota, and then regretfully tells us:
I know something that might surprise Fitzgibbons: One of those opposing scholars is — have you guessed? — Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota, the source of his weighty evidence. Actually, I take that back. Fitzgibbons won’t be surprised at all, because Sirota has already written to him, complaining that he has “mis-reported and misrepresented the results of my 2009 research in this blog.” Not surprisingly, Fitzgibbons has yet to correct his article. I know this because Dr. Sirota (whom I’ve never met) contacted me herself yesterday, asking for help in exposing what he’s done. Read more… JoeMyGod alerts us to Paul Angelo, a gay matchmaker who wants us to stop having anal sex:
I’m a little embarrassed for Paul Angelo. Apparently no one’s ever taught him that when you say stuff like that, you’re just revealing your own damn issues. Actually, Paul does try to make a case for his, er, position. He invokes neuro-linguistic programming:
Poor Paul. Somebody needs to tell him that flexing your arm, clenching your fist, bending your knees, and saying, “Yes, I can do it!” is often how anal sex begins. |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 wakingupnow.com - All Rights Reserved |
|
