[quote]forlife wrote:
Gays couldn’t give a fuck about changing your culture. All we care about is the right to visit our partners in the hospital, social security benefits, filing jointly on our tax returns, immigration rights, etc. Believe whatever you want about us, but treat us equally in the civil arena.[/quote]
If only that were the case. Witness:
"But an emphasis on obligation is not readily accepted by leaders of many major gay-rights groups.
"We're not interested in moral judgements about the way in which people have sex ... [in part, because] it would be the antithesis of our movement's origins ... [and] we still have very strong roots in gay liberation," said [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force director Matt] Foreman.
Moreover, gays give no ground on the conservatives' insistence that allowing gays to marry inherently weakens heterosexual marriage as an institution. Marriage as an institution will be strengthened, Foreman said, especially if people can choose from among a wide variety of partnerships, each with its own obligations. A greater variety of arrangements is needed, he said, because "marriage is a profoundly conservative institution, and in many states it works against women in a very significant way."
Added [Human Rights Campaign president Joe] Solomonese, "This is America, and everyone's personal realtionship and marriage is a different one ... [not] some sort of lifestyle that meets the [conservatives'] definition of what is Happy Ever After."
Right-wingers did not make those quotes up, and National Journal is not an ideological magazine. These are two of the top gay leaders in the country, saying that they are not interested in making marriage open to gays, but in redefining the entire institution to allow for sexual liberty and institutionalizing polymorphous perversity. If the concept of marriage should apply to any and all kinds of relationships, then marriage cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense.
There’s more:
On 2/14/09, Munro reported on the fallout from the Prop 8 vote. Excerpt:
Sara Beth Brooks was the lead organizer of a march in San Diego on November 15 that drew 20,000 people to protest the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote. "A marriage is two people committing to loving each other and is defined differently by every single person," she said. "That's the core difference between us and our religious opponents."
That is an incoherent statement, obviously, but what she means, I think, is that there is no fixed definition of marriage."
…
"In that same piece, there’s this important passage:
"The word 'marriage' needs to be used to describe all relationships of two people who are loving and committed to each other, countered Brooks. "To deny that semantic attachment to our relationships is the exact same thing as denying an African-American person thet right to attend the same schools as a white person."
Actually, that’s not true at all. Gender is not the same thing as race. But if people come to believe that, it conveniently allows them to ignore any substantive argument made against same-sex marriage as solely an expression of bigotry, and therefore safely ignored. More from the report:
"I could support some version of partnership benefits, but not if they're going to endanger marriage," Gallagher replied. "I don't know how you persuade young men and young women that children need a mother and a father if that idea is viewed as racist.""
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/changing-the-definition-of-mar.html
There is very much a slippery slope, and we will have legalized polygamy within, at most, a generation of legalized gay marriage.
