Thursday, March 23, 2006

Unclear on the Concept

“Homosexual activist groups like GLN and Rick Garcia’s Equality Illinois call Jim Oberweis a ‘bigot’ merely for supporting the [sic] Protect Marriage Illinois,” [Peter] LaBarbera said. “What is hateful about giving Illinois voters a chance to cast a vote for marriage as one-man, one-woman this November?”

Well, Peter, from your own FAQ (or "FAQS" as it is called on your site -- what does the "S" stand for, I wonder):

Q: Is the definition of marriage an appropriate topic for a constitution?

A: Yes, absolutely. The constitution is a place to enshrine fundamental rights, basic liberties and the limitations of government.

You're absolutely right about what the constitution is for. Unfortunately, a marriage amendment corrupts all three facets you listed. Instead of enshrining fundamental rights and liberties, it restricts rights, effectively stripping liberty from some; instead of limiting government, it would give power to government, enshrining discrimination based on nothing more than a sense of moral disapproval. Legalizing bigotry.

Get it, bigot?


Update: Ex-Gay Watch is reporting on how LaBarbera is so disenchanted with the gay-friendly Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Barr Topinka that he says he "may vote for the Constitution Party candidate or simply not vote for governor at all."

The Constitution Party candidate is Randall C. Stufflebeam (presumably having a part in an upcoming J.K. Rowling book), who exclaims in a Freudian slip on his site, "I don't not fear the homosexual!"

The Constitution Party is opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage. That's because they would simply make it illegal to be gay. Ex-Gay Watch notes that "the Party counts white supremacists among its candidates, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."


Red Tory said...

Uh, Lifesite… what a sinkhole.

You know, I have to admit, the whole argument about gay marriage is completely lost on me. After all, isn’t it a matter of personal choice? Personally, I think the institution is somewhat absurd in the first place irrespective of sexual orientation, but maybe that’s just me. But I’m not alone in that viewpoint. For example, my brother-in-law and his… gosh, now I don’t know what to call her in this context… significant other? They’ve lived together in “common law” I guess you’d call it, for 20+ years. She is “Auntie Janet” to all of my kids and their boy is my nephew as far as I’m concerned. Why they never got formally married, I haven’t the foggiest. It never concerned me and quite frankly, it was none of my business.

Why folks like Peter LaBarbera feel a need to “defend” the institution of marriage is completely baffling. As if it were under some sort of relentless siege or something…

People will always get married, come hell or high water. Goodness knows why, but they will. And yes, some will not for any number of reasons. And still other folks who are gay may also decide to get married. SO WHAT? (To be honest, I always just chuckle and think, “Well, good luck with that.” But then I’m quite the socialist when it comes to a fair and equitable distribution of misery across the land.)

Are these people like LaBarbera so insecure in themselves that they need to resort to these ridiculous legislative stunts to affirm the validity of their “traditional” lifestyle? What is it with so-called conservatives that they feel they are being constantly attacked by hostile forces from all sides who seek to undermine their precious moral and spiritual values at every turn? It’s a strange, freakishly paranoid world they live in.

I digress however… You’re absolutely right that it’s bigotry and not so much a confirmation of rights and liberties, but in fact, the complete opposite. Insert the term “private club” for marriage and “nigger” or “Jew” for “gay” and you get the picture. It’s pretty simple really. But then, bigotry always is.

not_over_it said...

“extremist rhetoric among homosexual activists seeking to demonize Jim Oberweis and others who support the Marriage Protection Referendum”.

There they go, trying to frame the argument to fit their agenda...again!

How dare the people being attacked with their biggotry voice an opinion and stand up for their right to be left the hell alone? Buncha' extremists!

KEvronius said...

"one-man, one-woman"

"hermaphrodites need not apply"


Fantod said...

Red Tory said...

You know, I have to admit, the whole argument about gay marriage is completely lost on me. ...I think the institution is somewhat absurd in the first place irrespective of sexual orientation...


I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but speaking for myself all I'm concerned with is equal protection under the law. I could go to the church literally around the corner from where I live and get "married" to another man tomorrow. So on that point, I agree with your "so what?" The problem is that there is a legal document called a marriage licence that I am denied -- a legal contract, if you will, which becomes a factor in some 1,049 federal laws -- and I see no reason why (and I'm sure you agree with me here) that document shouldn't be available to any two adults. Even your BIL who has not "formalized" his relationship (at least with the state) derives benefits (and responsibilities) not afforded to me and my partner of ten years. Most likely, the BIL would not have to think twice about something as simple as hospital visitation, for example. The problem stems from the name of the document, so we can call it a marklar licence for all I care so the fundies don't get their panties in a whirl. And seperate but equal won't cut it either (i.e. civil unions). Witness the vindictive, nasty clause that has been inserted into several of the new marriage protection amendments for states (from the Texas amendment: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.").

What is it with so-called conservatives that they feel they are being constantly attacked ...?

It's amazing, isn't it? They control the White House, and both houses of Congress... and yet they're the victims. I think it all comes back to the persecution syndrome. They just aren't happy unless they're being persecuted by someone. As NOI correctly observes, they must frame the argument to fit their agenda. Simply disagreeing with them leads to acusations of persecution. DL Fister is exibit A in that rogues gallery.

Finally, your word substitution exercise is apt. The religious kooks make themselves feel better by making others second class citizens when they don't meet their arbitrary and stupid "moral" standards.

Fantod said...

"hermaphrodites need not apply"

Two might, though. If it was interpreted as "one man, one woman . . . total"

not_over_it said...

Fuzzy math, fantod. ;)

Carl said...

These were the same arguments racists used to try to curtail misogyny laws in the 60s: marriage should be between whites or blacks, but not both.

They weren't right then. They aren't right now.

Red Tory said...

Yes, I didn't express myself well there. In fact, for the exact same reasons you stated, that is why I support the concept of civil unions and an across the board equation of such with the definition of "marriage" as it presently exists on the books.

Blogger said...

I have just downloaded iStripper, so I can have the best virtual strippers on my taskbar.