Let the bleating begin!
In response to the two bills introduced in the Washington State Legislature by Ed Murray, the right wing religious conservative group "Allies for Marriage and Children" responded in quick typical fashion with a press release.
The press release is the typical blathering about how same sex marriage will bring the destruction of Society. The really funny part that sent a side-splitting guffaw roaring our of me is this:
OK Aaron (who, by the way, is redefining marriage in his statement!) if you do not have the government recognition, the "package of government benefits" or the "piece of paper" that says you are married then are you in fact married? That would be a big fat in-your-face NO! You may be married in your mind but the reality is that you are not in fact legally married unless you have "a piece of paper" that is signed by a legal authority of the government. Nice try bozo.
They go on to say that "traditional marriage" must be preserved but offer no definition of "traditional marriage" other than it is between one man and one woman. They fail to acknowledge that only recently has marriage been anything other than a legally binding business arrangement between two families. Traditional marriage was the purchase of a woman from another family for a dowry, a man that could afford it could purchase as many women as he wished.
Each generation defines marriage in its own unique fashion. "Traditionally" the definition of marriage has been as fluid as the uniqueness of those who choose to marry. The government benefits package is the exact discrepancy between marriage discrimination and marriage equality.
The press release is the typical blathering about how same sex marriage will bring the destruction of Society. The really funny part that sent a side-splitting guffaw roaring our of me is this:
Another Allies Board member and co-chair, Aaron Haskins of the Coalition for Community Development and Renewal in Seattle, (and Cheryl Haskins’ husband of 25 years) said: “Marriage is not a package of government benefits. It is not a right. It is more than a piece of paper. It was not created by government, and it should not be redefined,” Aaron Haskins said.
OK Aaron (who, by the way, is redefining marriage in his statement!) if you do not have the government recognition, the "package of government benefits" or the "piece of paper" that says you are married then are you in fact married? That would be a big fat in-your-face NO! You may be married in your mind but the reality is that you are not in fact legally married unless you have "a piece of paper" that is signed by a legal authority of the government. Nice try bozo.
They go on to say that "traditional marriage" must be preserved but offer no definition of "traditional marriage" other than it is between one man and one woman. They fail to acknowledge that only recently has marriage been anything other than a legally binding business arrangement between two families. Traditional marriage was the purchase of a woman from another family for a dowry, a man that could afford it could purchase as many women as he wished.
Each generation defines marriage in its own unique fashion. "Traditionally" the definition of marriage has been as fluid as the uniqueness of those who choose to marry. The government benefits package is the exact discrepancy between marriage discrimination and marriage equality.
Labels: Gay history, Marriage, Wingnuts
posted by Unknown at 8:09 AM
<< Home