Jun '15
After 2003 the batallions against marriage equality were well ordered, well financed, and sure to command majorities in state legislatures and at the polls. Contentment reigned supreme in discrimination-land, and the forces of heterosexual privilege were not afraid to speak out loud what their goals were and why icky homos needed to be restrained (just like the KKK was proud and out and open in the 1940s and 50s).
And today? What a sorry ghost of a once Grand Army in full retreat. Napoleon after Waterloo. They have to grind their teeth and pretend to really like the disgusting homos, at least as long as a judge is listening. If the best argument they can muster is the fear that straight parents will abandon their children if their gay neighbors marry, they might as well give up and leave that field to the Westboro idiots. It is a bit early to break out the champagne, but not too early to put it into the fridge, just in case.
And cheers to the strategists at the HRC and elsewhere. It was a stroke of genius to change the battle cry from "same-sex marriage" to "marriage equality". Others are taking a leaf out of their book. In Germany the debate is raging after the Irish vote as well, and the gay rights organization have switched the slogan from "same-sex marriage" to "marriage for everyone" ("Ehe für alle"). It may sound a bit naive and pathetic, but to me it is the sound of progress on the march!
3 replies
Jun '15
Republicans know firsthand about gay men targeting children, don't they Denny Hasturd?
1 reply
Jun '15
Furthermore, in many places, constitutional amendments limiting marriage to straight couples were passed on top of legislative measures already in place banning gay marriage.
What's most interesting about this? It was the adoption of the constitutional bans that gave equality groups the ability to file Federal suits. Law of Unintended Consequences. The adoption of constitutional bans sped up the process of equality by 10-15 years. The opponents of equality brought about that which they most feared.
Jun '15
Imagine the irony if the Supremes issue their decision on marriage equality today, the anniversary of Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, June 18, 1815
2 replies
Jun '15
"Yet one justice seemed very receptive to the argument that gay marriage bans were not the result of animus toward gays, pointing to ancient Greece and suggesting that the Greeks were open to gay relations while not not allowing gay marriage."
Justice Alito seems in the dark about how the ancient Greeks viewed "gay relations." Research suggests:
--Men were assumed to be attracted to both males and females. They weren't expected to choose.
--It was far more acceptable for adult men to have sex with boys than other adult males.
--Adult men who were penetrated were often viewed to have the status of women, especially if penetrated by a younger man.
--Anal sex between a man and a woman was basically a form of birth control.
Unaware, ugly and stupid is no way to go through life, Justice.
1 reply
