We Dance Round In A Ring And Suppose

When are conservatives going to spell out what common good is accomplished by prohibiting gay families from access to the same civil recognition, responsibilities, and benefits afforded to heterosexual citizens in the state?

“We dance round in a ring and suppose, but the secret sits in the middle and knows”.

And the secret here is a rather dark and ugly one. It is the irrational fear of homosexuality and the refusal to accept the reality and science on the subject. Have any of the anti-gay marriage advocates read any peer reviewed material such as this amicus brief by the American Psychological Association? http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/briefs/05/11/amicus/052604_14b.pdf

And the secret here is that Christian zealots (not so much unlike Muslim zealots) have crossed the bright line between church and state and are intent on forcing their religious beliefs through legislation.

And the truth is that the Republican Party is beholden to the approximately 27 percent of the population who are drawn to authoritarian leaders and who are energized by divisive social issues such as gay marriage. My parents taught me that this is hypocrisy.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The people who believe these things are not reachable by logic and rationality. I highly recommend a new book by Michelle Goldberg, "Kingdom Coming." This is the best exposition I've seen on the Christian Nationalist movement and its symbiotic relationship with opportunists in the Republican party.

She thinks it will get worse before it gets better.
Monday, July 31, 2006 9:54:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Consequences Of Voting Yes On The Virginia Marriage Amendment

The following is offered as there are opposing lists being circulated by the religious right. So, here are my Top 10 Consequences of Voting Yes on the Virginia Marriage Amendment. 1. Voting Yes is unnecessary, as marriage is already defined in Virginia by statute. 2. Voting Yes ignores the facts – ignores the accepted medicine and science on this subject. 3. Voting Yes to constitutionalize such a socially charged issue, in flux, is clearly in opposition to Jeffersonian Democracy. 4. Voting Yes is an unabashed ploy by cynical Republicans to get out their base. 5. Voting Yes is in opposition to the maintaining of a bright line between church and state. 6. Voting Yes could bring about a myriad of unintended consequences to unmarried heterosexual couples. 7. Voting Yes will continue to paint Virginia as a cultural backwater and an unfriendly place for the location of new high tech businesses. 8. Voting Yes will hardly benefit the thousands of children in gay families nor give hope to many...
Read more

I Am Ashamed That Eric Cantor Is My Congressman

I understand that most don’t have the leisure I have, as a retiree, to follow issues, to stay tuned to political debates, to spend time and become involved in local politics. However, it is appalling that those fellow citizens of my 7th District in Virginia have such a knee jerk reaction to this current financial crisis such as to swallow the political rhetoric of Congressman Cantor and to not see this partisan politician for who he is. To see Congressman Cantor spotlighted on national news holding up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor remarks and using this as the reason that Republicans failed to pass their administration’s backed financial crisis bill was nauseating. Cantor was playing politics. Cantor was petty. Cantor was being used by his party handlers to try and shift this failure to reach accord onto the Democrats for political gain. Cantor was seen as a safe spokesman who is from the brightest red district of a red state with little formidable opposition to push this mal...
Read more

Yes Virginia, There Are Homosexuals – In Spite Of Mean-Spirited Marriage Amendments

You don't need to be a lawyer to write a marriage amendment apparently, but you could use some common sense. A high school student could have written a better amendment than the proposed Virginia marriage amendment. And if it weren't so poorly written, this topic wouldn't be the subject of debate and discussion all across the Commonwealth. Just using words like "approximate" and "qualities . . . of marriage" for example --- these words mean something different to every one who reads them. At least, you will have to admit that for a constitutional amendment to our Bill of Rights, this language is far from ideal. And more importantly is not easily and consistently communicated to the general populace. But why tiptoe around this. Delegate Robert Marshall has admitted in interviews and debates that he seized onto this quest after Lawrence v. Texas and his homophobia and obsession with sodomy (overlooking that oral sex within heterosexual couples is sodom...
Read more