Wednesday, May 28, 2008

The Homobigot Hypocrisies #1

In my frequent internet encounters and perusings of other blogs, I often come into contact with anti-gay bloggers/commenters/personas/charicatures.

While on one hand denouncing everything pro-gay (be it hate crime legislation or marriage equality, for example), they often at the same time hold gay people/couples to higher standards than they would ever hold themselves and exhibit the very characteristics they abhor and critique about gay people or gay rights supporters. Psychologists may call it "projection." I, however, am not a psychologist. Therefore I will call them hypocrites.

Thus, welcome to installment #1 of Homobigot Hypocrisies.

Exhibit #1

Observe specimen A, On Lawn, a regular character of an anti-gay blog, when he says this:

"Moral law being taught the experience of their own actions, they are held accountable to know for themselves what brings happiness or sorrow. Nature is not merciful to ignorance, whether through naivety or even the intellectual arrogance of "how things really should be". [emphasis added, discussing the CA judges use of "emotion" in their decision striking down the anti gay marriage ban]

Yet, observe how On Lawn deigns to know the "true" purpose of childbirth and marriage:

"Marriage equality means, in part for men, supporting women through their truly unique challenges. And then each gender supporting each other in raising the children."

Oh, is this the reason he is against gay marriage? A-wha? Because men are men and women are women, they should support each other in marriage, and gay people shouldn't get married. That's his argument here. While I don't think anyone would disagree with one gender supporting the other in marriage, can the same not be said for same-sex couples? The arrogance with which he continuously connects irrelevant sidebar articles to his ever-increasingly pathetic arguments is a bit hypocritical.

In other news, Concerned Woman for America, Jose Solano apparently believes he should also start an aptly-named group of like-bodied men, perhaps titled Concerned Little Men for America. Maybe one day, he will fight for equal rights for short men alongside his valiant battle in obtaining equal rights for heterosexuals and Christians...(and women, of course).

Whines Jose about discrimination against short men, "Where the height discrimination is truly strongest is in employment. In the US you will rarely find a short man in an executive positive. If you do he must be quite an extraordinary individual."

Hmm...Because if a short man does not succeed, it is due to no other shortcomings than his small stature... Nice try, Jose.

They are a very deep bunch over there... deep in their own pile of cow sh*t.

Friday, May 16, 2008

The CA case: A true lesson in respect for human dignity

I think we all have read the numerous news and blog articles about this case by now.

Let's take a moment to focus on some of the Court's rationale in striking down the unconstitutional ban on gay marriage in CA:

"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized familes, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect." [emphasis added]

The CA Supreme Court has truly embodied respect for human dignity in this historic case.

Thank you.

Also of note:

"First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same sex couple access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couple of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite sex couples."

The Court goes on to say that the children/familes of same-sex couples will also suffer "appreciable harm" by denying the couples access to the "familiar and highly-favored designation of marriage." And this denial of the designation casts doubt over whether a same-sex couple could ever enjoy "equal dignity" with opposite-sex couples.

I have seen numerous personal blogs (ahem, we all know who some of them are, but I refuse to post links to them here anymore) re-defining words like "equality" and "discrimination" and most notably "human dignity" and "respect." But such propaganda tactics only work within their meager following. They should be ashamed. They will be defeated. This landmark case proves that.

As most pro-marriage equality supporters have been saying throughout this struggle, the tide is turning, and bigotry never wins in the long run.