Sunday, December 30, 2012

Goalposts of marriage equality will not be moved because of 'religious liberty' con

Watch the video then read my recap of the entire situation:

The semantics of the entire thing bothers the heck out of me. For the longest time, Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and the rest of that bunch at the National Organization for Marriage constantly sounded the clarion call of  "Let the people vote!"

So the people of Maryland did vote on election day in November. And they voted for allowing gay couples to marry.

That should be the end of it. But folks like Brown, Gallagher, and the rest of the folks of NOM don't want it to be. Apparently in response to the fact that their clarion call backfired in this case, they create new controversies and attempt to move the goalposts farther away from gay couples.

People have to make choices every day when it comes to what's best for them, be it their business or peace of mind. And the trolley owner decided to get out of the marriage business because marriage equality was against his personal religious beliefs. That was his right, but it is his only right. And even that right goes just so far because I have always felt that the "religious liberty" argument is a dangerous way to cloak discrimination with an aura of respectability.  Just how far will this argument be taken? Today it's gay couples and trollies. How do we know that tomorrow it won't be gay couples and apartment rentals? Or African-Americans and apartment rentals? Or Jewish people and apartment rentals?

Just how many acts of possible discrimination will be allowed because of the "religious liberty" argument?

I'm sure we are going to hear more about this as NOM and its folks plot new strategies of making gay couples seem like the oppressors when all they want is the simple right to marry.

And to do so is not fair and it's not right.

Gay couples worked hard to earn the right the marry in the correct fashion, i.e. through the ballot box. These rights were won fair and square. And no portion of these rights, nor the dignity of marriage equality, should be sacrificed via sneaky semantics or weaving the thread between the lines


Unknown said...

"Rights" should not have to be voted on. Why else would the Bill of Rights and the Constitution keep stating "all" when each point is listed there?

David said...

I'm still trying to figure out how "driving people around on a trolley is related to religious beliefs". A trolley isn't a church, and the bigoted owner isn't a pastor. You might as well argue that if a taxi or a public bus drives a gay couple to city hall, somehow they are participating in that couple's marriage. It's a nonsensical argument.

mykelb said...

The anachronistic extremist religious fascists in America are going to be so marginalized by their own rhetoric, they will look like the kooks from the WBC before long. Unfortunately, some of these kooks have their hooks in our legislators because they have boatloads of money. We need to ensure that their wallets become empty. That is the way we beat them.

Czarina Flo said...

No. Voting is not the correct way. As John Powell said earlier, rights do not get voted on.
Well, of course they 'are' being voted on regardless of how egregiously unconstitutional it is. And since they are, it's great to see that the tide is turning.
But NO! It is not the correct way to obtain rights that should have been automatic. It's NOM's way.
Now even they don't like it.

Anonymous said...

Pathetic. We did it NOM's way (voting on marriage), despite it being unconstitutional, and now that it's backfiring on them them, they're whining that they have to wait in line for their turn on the swing, while the gay kids get their fair share...might be a weird analogy, but you get my point.
This could actually get worse then it could be imagined. Now that SSM is legal in these states, as a last resort, NOM and company will desperately try to "prove" that gay couples getting married will make things worse. Even if anti-gay folks have to treat the smallest issue as "proof" SSM will ruin society, or even make up evidence.

Incidentally, Mr. McCoy (hope I got the name right) said, "These are the things that are going to happen when you change the natural definition of marriage. There are consequences to it." Is it just me, or is Mr. McCoy implying that Mr. Grubs closed up shop, not because it was his choice, but because the legality of SSM caused some supernatural-cosmological-like effect for the trolley business to close?

I don't think they mean the trolley directly. But since marriage is (somewhat) related to religion, notably Christianity, and the trolley is part of a marriage ceremony, then the trolley itself is connected to "religious beliefs". And you're right about the taxi/buses driving the couples to city hall; as far as bigots are concerned, you could simply tip your hat to a newly-wed couple, and bigots would say you're responsible for any "consequences" SSM brings.

Eric in Alameda said...

I'm so tired of these bigots claiming these other issues are related to the legalization of same sex marriage. Even before marriage equality came to Maryland, it was against the law to discriminate.