23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
blatham
 
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 07:43 am
This is an important issue.

Here's a quote from The Family Research Council's site
Quote:
States Overwhelmingly Support Marriage Amendments

This year marriage has been a key issue across the states. FRC has worked diligently at the state and local level to ensure marriage remains the union of one man and one woman. We are proud to report today that the latest numbers indicate overwhelming support for the protection of traditional marriage.


And here's what is actually going on, from Thomas Oliphant at The Boston Globe
Quote:
The gay marriage deception

WASHINGTON
THE NEWS media have grossly misreported the contents of state referendum questions targeting Americans who are apparently seen as more dangerous to national security than John Kerry -- gay people.

Using unthinking shorthand that carries out the hidden agendas of the people who want gays banished to the fringes of society, the press has over and over again referred to these measures as banning gay marriage. In fact that is only accurate regarding three of the 11 initiatives passed last week.

In state after state -- most prominently in Ohio (which Bush barely won) and in Michigan (which he nearly did) -- these referendums went far beyond the question of who gets to be formally married. They also banned legal and other conventions incidental to marriage, which are central to the evolving institutions of civil unions and domestic partnerships.

For political reasons, it was central to the hidden agendas of the groups pushing these restrictions (the target is homosexuality, not relationships between homosexuals) that they not become the focus of the debate.

Therefore marriage was used as the cover for the far more consequential effort to strip contractual rights from gay couples who have formed hundreds of thousands of families in recent years across the United States.

That is why proponents described them repeatedly as efforts to ban gay or same-sex marriage, a formulation the press has mindlessly repeated. It reminds me of the success of groups who spent nearly a decade on behalf of banning a rare pregnancy procedure, the name for which was invented solely for political and shock-value purposes -- partial-birth abortion. Again, the press's lazy penchant for a catch phrase, unexamined for accuracy, led reporters and editors to mindlessly repeat the phrase.

The point about that phony campaign -- already rejected once by federal judges of all stripes, including the Supreme Court, and back in the courts now -- was to use the shock value of the procedure to create a ban written to cover all three trimesters of pregnancy without an exception to preserve a woman's health, in other words to challenge Roe v. Wade and abortion rights themselves.

Just for the record, the three states whose initiatives last week refer only to the granting of marriage licenses are Montana, Oregon (the one place where the vote was very close), and Mississippi. The states that used marriage as a cover to mount an assault on contractual relationships of all kinds were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.

In pivotal Ohio, for example, the voters may not have realized it but they voted to strip people of the right to contractually arrange distribution of assets, child custody, pensions, and other employment benefits. They most definitely were not "protecting" marriage; they were attacking gay people. That is why the political and business establishment there, including Republicans, opposed the measure.

The evidence is that the voters who approved it also opposed its actual contents. In the official exit poll Tuesday night, 27 percent of the voters said they support full marriage rights, 35 percent supported civil unions, and only 27 percent oppose any legal rights for same-sex couples. In other words, to underline the importance of artifice and deception in our sound-bite culture, the voters approved a measure opposed substantively by 62 percent of the very same voters.

President Bush embodies this incoherence while he manipulates the sentiments cynically. Just before the election he tried to say he supports the rights of states to have civil unions, though he would have opposed them as governor of Texas. He also supports a federal constitutional amendment that would both limit "marriage" to man-woman couples and permit states to ban civil unions.

The incoherence was tactical. Bush knew fair-minded supporters of civil unions were going to vote for him (according to the exit polls, up to half did); but he also knew he needed to keep his base of bigots happy, too -- hence his campaign's alliance with them at the grass roots in places like Ohio.

The irony is that a federal amendment is probably necessary for the pro-discrimination forces to succeed.

Many states have laws to keep groups from putting two issues in the same referendum, in order to avoid exactly the kind of deception that has occurred. In fact, injunctive relief on that ground has already been granted in states that passed such initiatives earlier. In addition, they directly challenge both the contract and the equal protection clauses of the US Constitution.

The federal amendment does not have the votes, even in the new Congress, and my hunch is that Bush doesn't have the stomach to truly fight for discrimination. He was, however, willing to benefit from the deception this year, and a lazy news media played right into the hands of those who would officially sanction discrimination.
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 07:56 am
HOMOPHOBIC????? Typically, the liberal mantra is to distort reality when their position is rejected by the VAST MAJORITY of people in this nation.

NO BALLOT INITIATIVE EVER suggested that HOMOSEXUALITY be banned, only the MARRIAGE of homosexuals. There are law on the books that protect homos from discrimination at home and at work.

Since the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICAN have voted to maintain tradition, I would suggest the VAST MINORITY of homosexuals stop trying to distort tradition and look for a compromise that would provide the financial and life benefits currently provided to traditional married couples.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 08:17 am
woiyo wrote:
I would suggest the VAST MINORITY of homosexuals....


Um, this is sort of silly to say....vast minority? If they are the minority then they are not vast...

Just an observation.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 08:32 am
I don't think passing the marriage amendments proves people are homophobic. Another possible reason it might pass is a general inability to understand the incoherent rhetoric... Another reason it might have passed is the churches had an agenda to get/keep things not exactly homophobic, but establish influence among the conservative christian base for completely separate (or perhaps intertwined) reasons... You saw them motivate parishoners to turn out in droves to vote across the country... I understand that pastors nationwide attended seminars so they would know how to get the message to vote out fromt he pulpits... and this tactic turned out to be amazingly effective. Nothing specific can be proven by the passage of the marriage amendments across the states. Jmo, fwiw.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 08:41 am
i think it astutely cynical that most of the referenda where not only defining "marriage", and by association, outlawing any other relationships , but also theyve deprived the partners of rights conferred by civil unions.
Ive found that most people did not 'think out" their votes , as Blatham said--we are a sound byte universe with no grounding in understanding of long term consequences.
iIts sad that exit polls clearly show that people were for a 'sort of" guarantee of civil righhts. However, that isnt the outcome of the election referendum.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 08:51 am
The Arkansas Amendment:

The proposal to change Arkansas' constitution says "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' But the question voters will consider does not mention that the measure would bar the state from recognizing civil unions or gay marriages performed in Massachusetts or outside the country.

Justice Jim Hannah pointed out in a dissenting opinion said there is "simply a lack of candor in the popular name and ballot title."

Source
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:24 am
How does defining marriage as "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' constitute homophobia?

If it said "The law says fags do not deserve any rights." I would say that it smacked of homophobia. But it doesn't say that.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:28 am
McGentrix wrote:
How does defining marriage as "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' constitute homophobia?

If it said "The law says fags do not deserve any rights." I would say that it smacked of homophobia. But it doesn't say that.

Quite right and I do believe the Mormon church would agree with you (well, not really) so much for "religious freedom" except for mormons who are kinda weird anyway.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:36 am
princess said
Quote:
I don't think passing the marriage amendments proves people are homophobic.


Oliphant is speaking of two issues: first, that the press has fallen down on reporting the text and legal consequences of many of these states' referenda, and that the intention of those who wrote and pushed forward the ammendments is homophobic, if disguised. That doesn't mean, and Oliphant doesn't say it does, that voter Tom Smith who checked the ammendment is himself a homophobe.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:37 am
from Squinney's link
Quote:
Justice Jim Hannah pointed out in a dissenting opinion said there is "simply a lack of candor in the popular name and ballot title."

The challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union which claimed the wording on the ballot was purposely misleading and violated the Arkansas Constitution..

The amendment would grant greatly increased power to the legislature over what the legal rights and obligations of marriage are, the ACLU argued. The legislature could, for example, take away homestead protections involving bankruptcy, which are currently a state constitutional right, from married people.


That's the point.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:39 am
McGentrix wrote:
How does defining marriage as "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' constitute homophobia?

If it said "The law says fags do not deserve any rights." I would say that it smacked of homophobia. But it doesn't say that.


McG

You're missing what we are arguing here. If your first paragraph was ALL that these referenda contained, one might give your argument some credence.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:44 am
woiyo said
Quote:
Since the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICAN have voted to maintain tradition, I would suggest the VAST MINORITY of homosexuals stop trying to distort tradition and look for a compromise that would provide the financial and life benefits currently provided to traditional married couples.


You have a real problem if you argue from 'tradition'. Slavery was, of course, quite traditional. In India, it was quite 'traditional' for new wives to be stoned to death for arriving with an insufficient dowry. Stringing up blacks without anything like a trial was a tradition in the American south previously. Women, traditionally had no vote and could be raped by their husbands with no worry of legal consequences, the assault being quite legal under the traditions of the day.

Ought such traditions always to be maintained?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
How does defining marriage as "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' constitute homophobia?

If it said "The law says fags do not deserve any rights." I would say that it smacked of homophobia. But it doesn't say that.


McGentrix, those states did strip homosexuals of rights like a gay partner having the right to visit a partner in the hospital and other rights that a civil union like thing would provide. I believe that was blatham's point about the media being so sneaky in just saying it was about a definition of marriage.

I know in my prescient (the right word and spelling?) the question was asked and it also added that bit about denying gay couples any rights that married couples have. The fact that it passed is dismaying.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:48 am
Furthermore, it is homophobic if people think they got to define a marriage between a man and a woman in order to sanctify their own marriage. What are they afraid that if live next a married gay couple that they might change into a homosexual or what?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 09:48 am
revel

A quick point. I don't think the media (other than some extreme examples of 'media') were being sneaky. I think the reality is that they have simply evolved towards something of a stenographer function, rather than a more civic-minded analysis. The first is easier and cheaper, and that's why it is happening in most cases. The numbers of reporters stationed by networks and papers in foreign countries is now much reduced from twenty or thirty years past, and economic rationales head the list of why that is so.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 10:11 am
I got to confess that a lot of is over my head, but I think what you are saying is that the media does things the quick, easy, and cheap way rather than a desire to get at the truth for the good of the people they are suppossed to be informing?

I hope that is the case.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 10:19 am
" Slavery was, of course, quite traditional. In India, it was quite 'traditional' for new wives to be stoned to death for arriving with an insufficient dowry. Stringing up blacks without anything like a trial was a tradition in the American south previously. Women, traditionally had no vote and could be raped by their husbands with no worry of legal consequences, the assault being quite legal under the traditions of the day.

Ought such traditions always to be maintained? "

The PEOPLES elected officials STOPPED the "tradition" of slavery.

If and when THE PEOPLE or the PEOPLES ELECTED officials feel that marriage the time is right to change the "traditional" definition of marriage, it will be done.

Apparently, NOW is not the time.

You really post some silly examples Blatham. Each "tradtion" you outline was changed according to the laws of OUR land at a time when the PUBLIC deemed it necessary by a majority of votes.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 10:21 am
Is it really anti-gay marriage or is it more like pro-hetero marriage?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 10:36 am
McG

Tough to be pro something and not negative it's converse.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 10:38 am
Then people that are pro-gay marriage are anti-hetero marriage?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 11:35:29