"But I understand that society changes in stages. So if it's just words that hang people up, then fine, let's find some new ones for this new territory. Fairness is the real issue here, not vocabulary. And that's where Proposition 2 goes wrong. This amendment goes far beyond defining marriage. In a case of overkill, it goes on to deny gay people 'any legal status identical to or similar to marriage.'"
It's not "just words" that hang up the people behind this amendment to the Texas Constitution. And fairness is irrelevant. To them, the issue is homosexuality itself. To them, it's a sin. They'd like it to be a crime. When sodomy laws are struck down, they make a tactical retreat and throw up the next line of defense, so-called marriage protection acts.
The "overkill" in the amendment's wording is not an accident. If the authors of the amendment had their way, gay people would be denied not only legal status similar to marriage, but legal status at all. They'd be made criminals for being homosexual.
1 comment:
Tina Benkiser's opinion piece (Does marriage need defending? Vote yes on Proposition 2) confirms my claim that backers of this amendment are really aiming at restoring anti-sodomy laws. It's not that they want to defend marriage. It's that they want to make criminals out of homosexuals.
Post a Comment