Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, June 27, 2011

Exposing Hypocrisy in New York's Gay Marriage Law

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has compared the fight for gay-marriage rights to the civil-rights battles of the 1960s, visited the state's capital, Albany, twice in the past six weeks to help (Governor, Andrew) Cuomo in his lobbying efforts.

"It really is a historic triumph for equality and freedom," Bloomberg said after the vote.

"This really is a great day for New York and America.
" Link






The complete stupidity of morons who unflinchingly accept the blatant bait and switch of comparing skin color to sexual behavior is laid bare by Michael Medved who writes...




"Advocates for so-called “marriage equality” define their cause as a “civil rights” issue – equivalent to overturning bans on interracial weddings in the 1960’s. Then how could the New York law permit churches and other religious organizations to reject gay unions? Any church that discriminated against interracial marriages would violate civil rights laws. Preventing a white man from marrying a black woman is unacceptable, because there’s no legal difference between races. But saying a man can’t marry another man is a distinction based on gender, and the law allows different treatment –like separate restrooms, or draft status – based on gender. If gay advocates really believed discriminating against gay unions compared to discrimination against inter-racial unions, how could they possibly permit the religious exemption?"


And I doubt that we'll hear anything close to a coherent answer to this question from gay marriage supporters. Unless of course the end result of such legislation causes the state to compel churches to perform marriage ceremonies to whoever asks for it. This is a worry that is already being discussed by New York's Catholic bishops.

12 comments:

Jquip said...

I've never been a fan of any argument bringing up the 14th in this regard; no matter what side is putting it forth. Medved errs here, but not nearly as hard as Bloomberg. For if the good mayor actually believed that pablum he'd be pushing for coed prison cells. Since we're not allowed to divide those about on the basis of class distinctions either.

You, Medved, and the Long Island set aren't wrong either. It's without question that at least a few people will attempt to violate the 1st and utilize the State to coerce sanctioned positive action out of the churches in New York. But is the worry that they'll succeed or that the church lacks the stones of its convictions?

Justin Vacula said...

JD, I'm not one for name-calling like some others may be. I want to note this in the nicest way possible. Above, you note that the mayor compared the civil rights struggles of blacks to today's struggle of homosexuals to get married. Nothing was said here about sex. Below, though, you note that comparing SKIN COLOR to SEXUAL BEHAVIOR is problematic.

When you think of gay people, do you think of them as people who are having sex instead of just as people/you would think of a straight person? Why is this? Gay marriage isn't a sex issue, but rather something else. Gays already can have sex, of course.

JD Curtis said...

Medved errs here, but not nearly as hard as Bloomberg

Apparently Cuomo likes to make this comparison as well. There seem to be some clear-thinking gays who are uneasy with the comparison as well.

JD Curtis said...

Nothing was said here about sex. Below, though, you note that comparing SKIN COLOR to SEXUAL BEHAVIOR is problematic

How else could one define those who are "gay" if, by their very definition, sexual orientation is part of the meaning of the adjective in this case?

GentleSkeptic said...

Gee. If Medved was right, he'd have a point.

Jquip said...

JV: "Gays already can have sex, of course."

Of course, they can already get married as well. And I say that considering pooftas to be just people. Who simply happen to do particular things with their tender bits. Just as I consider men into boy bangs to just be people who happen to do particular things with their tender bits. (Admit it, your first thought was the NY Diocese rather than Nambla. :P )

The only way to really bodger this up is to be a bit confused about love and sex. I love JD, a good man, fellow human, and a brother in Christ. And I love you as well no matter that your ragin' 70s stache treads you too close to Otters to avoid a cold shiver. But the reason I'm a Breeder is simply that I'm not trying to engage either of you in patriarchal dominance rituals, roundly decried by all right-thinking gender scientists, by parking my phallus in any orifices you may have available either naturally or surgically.

JD: "There seem to be some clear-thinking gays who are uneasy with the comparison as well."

Ah jeez. Really? "A lot of people in the gay community have been condemned for their lifestyle and promiscuity and drugs and sex, so it's odd that when they want to conform and model themselves after straight people and have the same rights for marriage and domestic partnership and adoption, they're being blocked." -- Gay spokesdude.

So the correct manner to self actualize away from poor choices and dragging as Lucille Ball is to start dragging as Desi too? If drugs, sex, and promiscuity are emblematic of poor decision making skills then what do we call this proposed cure then?

On a related anecdotal note I've never known a stable gay couple that considered their notions a Sovereign Right that found good comfort with the notion that they should be begging the State for permission via licensing. Not that I've known many of these mythical monogamous creatures; but a few nonetheless.

Justin Vacula said...

I don't describe anyone by referring to their sexual behavior. Sexual orientation isn't sexual behavior, either, it's simply who a person is attracted to. There are gays who don't have sex, you know.

JD Curtis said...

There are gays who don't have sex, you know

Yes, I know. This reminds me of something Victoria Jackson wrote not long ago..

"Gays propagate the opinion that they were born this way and have no choice. They say they did not ask for their same-sex attraction. Everyone I know was born with sexual attraction they did not ask for. Should they act on it? Should my husband commit adultery because he has an attraction to another woman? Should my teenager fornicate because she was born with a strong urge to have sex with her boyfriend? Should I have sex with anyone I am attracted to?" Link

GentleSkeptic said...

Yes. All this is fine and well. And irrelevant to the OP. The point, of course, is the charge of hypocrisy, via Michael Medved.

"Any church that discriminated against interracial marriages would violate civil rights laws."

This is false. Churches are under no obligation to perform any marriage ceremony they do not wish to, be it Inter-racial, inter-faith, or gay. I'm pretty sure they don't even have to give a reason for refusal. Civil rights laws apply to the state, and to things regulated by the state, such as commerce (lunch counters, wedding photographers, property rental.)

Churches are free to discriminate—and you can bet money that some do—and still retain their tax-exempt status. It would behoove good brothers in Christ to be more aware of the spectacular deference accorded them by the state under the principle of separation of church and state.

GentleSkeptic said...

…something Victoria Jackson wrote not long ago…

…in which celebrated intellect Victoria Jackson equates "having sex" with "adultery"…

GentleSkeptic said...

Like I said.

Jquip said...

GS: "It would behoove good brothers in Christ to be more aware of the spectacular deference accorded them by the state under the principle of separation of church and state."

If you're talking about Quakers and the Draft or Muslims and Obamacare or the TSA then, yes, I agree. (Haven't personally sourced the Obamacare exception. Take it at that worth.)

But I think you are laboring under the misperception that a standard 501c3 tax-exemption is anything other than a point of leverage when it comes to religious institutions. Be they Christian, Buddhist, etc. That religious institutions may construct themselves as 501c3 corps is not a violation of the 'wall' as this is available to all industry that constructs themselves in that manner. Notionally it's far easier to denote 501c3's as common carriers than it is for a standard business; and such attempts have been made several times in the past regarding churches of various stripes. That whole end of thing descends into tax policy and the power to destroy however.

For now let's just agree that there's a bit of humor in declaring churches common carriers and then getting yourself hitched at a Brahmin hang out. If they don't serve steak? Then have the State carve 'em up and sear 'em.