There has been a lot of recent buzz in the state of Washington. On the November ballot this year is the hot topic of gay rights. Here is the wording for Referendum 71, so there will be no confusion about what I am about to discuss.
This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Okay, I think that is quite clear! All same-sex partners are asking for is the equal rights of married couples. Call it a Civil Union, call it a Contract Agreement, call it the end of civilization as we know it...whatever! But I think the wording at the very end of the last sentence says it all: a domestic partnership is NOT a marriage. Have the people against gay marriage even read what Referendum 71 says??
You would think that opponents of gay marriage rights who have for years now been trying to "protect the sanctity of marriage" would be okay with this. Right? I mean we're not trying to pervert the highly successful marriage rate that is never ruined by the concept of divorce, cheating spouses or reality shows (I'm talking about you, John and Kate - because there is a perfect example of a happily sanctified marriage!).
Today as I was driving my bus route, I saw a sign in the back window of a car. It looked like it had been printed off a website, but the gist of it was to reject Referendum 71 to protect marriage and the following website was conveniently displayed in large bold letters so I could look it up when I got home.
http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/
Wow. Seriously? This is still an issue for people? One would think that people who are trying to protect the definition of a word would back off considering that the referendum CLEARLY states that domestic partnerships are NOT defined as a marriage. Exactly what leg do these people have left to stand on?
Seeing this defense still being used makes me wonder if this really is about their precious marriage definition. Perhaps this is really about fear. Lord knows the far right loves to spread hate through scare tactics. They fear what they do not understand so they rush to judgment and preach thinly veiled defenses for their agenda.
What other conclusion can I draw? It's right there on the front of their website:
Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and families?
Senator Val Stevens leads off her article on the front page of their website with that question. Well, Val - may I call you Val? -- the answer to your question is "NO!". Homosexuals, by asking for the same rights of married couples, are not trying to push our "depraved lifestyle" on your children and families. In fact, we promise we won't even invite you to the commitment ceremony, though we all know you'll be there anyway with pickets and cries of injustice. That's just your way.
If you want our tax money, then the least you can do is give us the same rights of married couples - a right we deserve no matter what your errant, fallible Bible says.
Senator Val Stevens continues: Amidst harassment and even death threats by the homosexual radicals pushing this into our faces, just enough signatures were gathered to give you the final say on the upcoming ballot.
I love when the far right takes their argument here. I jump up and down, giddy and clapping my hands. Is she seriously going to make this statement? Okay, clearly she is and has. I have yet to hear any of these claims proven in news reports. One would think that such claims, were they true, would be newsworthy. Last Spring police raided a gay bar and severely beat a gay man. We all know the story of Matthew Shepherd. Those stories were ALL over the news. Why have I not seen news reports backing up the claims of Senator Val?
There have been claims that people who signed the petition to get the issue of gay domestic partner rights on the 2009 November ballot are too scared to make themselves known because they worry about death threats and harassment. Well, there's that fear again! But seriously, are they that afraid that their own tactics will be used against them? I guess they are. I once heard someone say that people who stoop to criminal activity are often wary of having it done against them.
I had a conversation about this issue with a co-worker last week. I have been hearing an anti-referendum-71 commercial on local radio station Star 101.5 the past several weeks. The gist of the commercial is that Washington's politicians are "out of touch with the issues" and should be focusing on more important things like our wounded economy and the current war and the housing crisis. Frankly, this sounds like a recycled commercial script from past right-wing propaganda. It appears as though someone copied and pasted the script from previous editions and didn't really think to proofread his work. The commercial has no direction or purpose - well other than to promote fear and get people to reject Referendum 71. Oh, and by the way, it wasn't Washington state politicians who pushed to get this on the November ballot. It was, in fact, the right-wing conservatives. Senator Val herself admitted that.
Anyway, I was mentioning this commercial to my co-worker - a right-wing conservative Christian. He immediately shared with me something he heard on the radio -- a conservative DJ (I'm guessing Rush Limbaugh or that other idiot Glenn Beck) who said that the problem with Democrats is that they want everyone to not be concerned with the bedroom, but want to control every other room in the house. They want to suggest which light bulb we should use and which car we should drive.
I laughed and said to my coworker, "But can you see the difference between how Democrats face an issue and how Republicans do? If a Democrat doesn't like the light bulb you use, they aren't going to beat you within an inch of your life and leave you to die in the middle of nowhere tied to a fence. If a Democrat doesn't like that you drive an SUV or a Hummer, they're not going to declare for you eternal damnation because the Bible says so."
His response was to share with me reports of vandalism to SUV's and Hummers in the downtown area. Apparently, environmentalists have launched a campaign to inflict damage to vehicles parked in the Seattle area in the way of broken windshields, slashed tired and broken head and tail lights. My mouth must have dropped open because my co-worker stared at me and said, "What?"
I said, "Are you seriously comparing the beating of a human homosexual to the distruction of an SUV or a Hummer?" He tried to backpeddle, but still insisted that the distruction of private property is clearly wrong.
How about the distruction of the human spirit? How about the distruction of human rights? How about the distruction of souls? Well, I guess if they belong to perverted homosexuals, then they don't count.
No comments:
Post a Comment