That didn't take as long as I thought it would.
Remember all of that good stuff conservatives were popping about Phil Robertson's "rights" last week? Apparently we are now learning that some conservatives think that what should be true for Robertson shouldn't be true for gay couples wanting to be married.
From the Advocate:
I fail to see what seems to be the problem. Granted, neither case (regarding Phil Robertson and the one involving the gay couple) is about the free speech, but if conservatives can defend Robertson's anti-gay and racist comments, what's the problem with this couple? Gay marriage is legal in California and obviously Loots and Leclair went through the proper channels so have been given permission. So if Robertson can be made into a hero for his vulgar anti-gay and racist comments because of his "rights," then why can't this couple be publicly married for the same reason, i.e. their "rights."
Remember all of that good stuff conservatives were popping about Phil Robertson's "rights" last week? Apparently we are now learning that some conservatives think that what should be true for Robertson shouldn't be true for gay couples wanting to be married.
From the Advocate:
The Los Angeles Times reports that a Facebook group calling for skipping the parade has more than 1,600 backers. And antigay comments are being posted to the Rose Parade's own Facebook page, according to the Times:
“I am a 79 year old Los Angeles native and have not missed a parade since I was about 4 years old. I have watched my LAST one due to your decision to allow this unbiblical, gay marriage to take place on one of your floats,” one man wrote.
“2 gay men in a ‘wedding’ ceremony is highly offensive to me and millions of Americans,” one wrote. “I can't think of many things LESS appropriate for families and especially children. It's completely the wrong venue for a stunt like this.”
. . .The complaints started because a float from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation will feature the wedding of Aubrey Loots and Danny Leclair, who will be real-life wedding cake toppers. The theme of this year's parade is “Dreams Come True,” and this is the year that Proposition 8 was struck down by the Supreme Court and couples in California — where the Rose Parade is held — are once again legally able to wed.
I fail to see what seems to be the problem. Granted, neither case (regarding Phil Robertson and the one involving the gay couple) is about the free speech, but if conservatives can defend Robertson's anti-gay and racist comments, what's the problem with this couple? Gay marriage is legal in California and obviously Loots and Leclair went through the proper channels so have been given permission. So if Robertson can be made into a hero for his vulgar anti-gay and racist comments because of his "rights," then why can't this couple be publicly married for the same reason, i.e. their "rights."
It's astounding that some folks - such as our favorite anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera - can make a reverse turn from defending Robertson's supposed rights to defaming this couple's right to have their wedding at a public venue. To Loots and Leclair, this is not a stunt. And so what if children are watching. Children are already aware of gay marriage and many live in same-sex households. It's not as scary for children to witness this as some folks like to think.
But what really galls me is this remark:
2 gay men in a ‘wedding’ ceremony is highly offensive to me and millions of Americans,”Big fat #%@! deal. I'm going to put it like some folks did when they defended Robertson:
Not everyone agrees with you on this issue. And maybe you should show some true tolerance instead of trying to use force to get your way. And stop shoving your beliefs down our throats.
1 comment:
I understand you see yourself as a christian, so I need to say I mean no offense to you, but of cores they believe their guy has the right to speak when we don't. They are this is why I say we have no true religious freedom in the US. Speaking out about christian based hate = all the latitude possible, we must not step on anyone's toes here.
A person expressing any idea counter to Christianities most extreme conservative ideas = must be stopped at all cost, we don't want children knowing that other people's views exist.
People use the concept of a biblical marriage as if the bible was a dictionary helping people define terms. Everyone treats it like it is a valid point, even those arguing against it. How about I talk about a traditional handfasting ceremony, and see how far that goes. Do you think anyone would even entertain it long enough to argue against it? Of cores not, it's pagan and therefor not valid, the fact that it has been around for thousands of years before Christian marriage is beside the point. Not even those fighting for gay rights bring it up, its considered that invalid.
Post a Comment