Related Stories: Michigan Denies Domestic Benefits
Even though the push for legal, same sex marriage got its start back in the early 1970's, it wasn't until 1993 that the battle began in full force. That was the year that the Hawaii Supreme Court suggested that a ban on same sex marriage may violate the state constitution.
Conservatives and the religious right gathered in full strength. Since then, their battle cry has boiled down to an argument of preserving the sacred institution of marriage and nothing about denying anyone rights.
In 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage, a firestorm swept the country. That code phrase for legalized discrimination, "protect the sanctity of marriage" mobilized 11 states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, only.
"It's not about denying rights," the voters were told. "Gays can enjoy all the rights they want in some form of legal civil union."
Voters bought that cheap slogan hook, line, and sinker. Some still do.
But now the truth of the Christian agenda is being exposed. The same sex marriage arguments are all about rights. No matter what you call a same sex relationship - marriage, civil union, a couple with some marriage rights - the fear of the Christian Right is that those people will become acceptable in society. No society can ever accept that - at any cost.
Now, the Christian Right isn't even bothering to hide their true agenda.
In Michigan last year, voters passed an amendment to the state constitution which read "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose."
Those last six words, or similar union for any purpose, were used to negate the domestic partnership benefits already set into law. While the judge as not yet ruled on the challenge to the legal opinion from the state's attorney general that negated the domestic benefits laws, one of the arguments presented was that the intent of the law had nothing to do with denying benefits to same sex couples. An attorney for the governor of Michigan even presented a brochure put out by backers of the amendment - primarily an offshoot of the group, Focus on the Family - that clearly said the amendment would maintain the status quo of Michigan, i.e. domestic benefit laws weren't in jeopardy.
Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan - a primary backer of the amendment, had another story to tell the reporters. The secondary intent of the amendment, and the purpose of those six words, were to ensure the traditional marriage would be honored "including the provision of taxpayer-financed spousal benefits," he claimed.
He just may be the first person to publically expose the real Christian agenda.
Jumping over to California, the state Supreme court just ruled that same sex couples have the same parental responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts, including child support and custody rights.
Now one would think this is a clear cut case of protecting the children and has nothing to do with same sex marriage.
Wrong.
After the ruling, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which opposes gay marriage, said the court's position "goes against nature."
"Despite junk science and frustrating rulings like this, children still need a mother and a father," Thomasson said. "A child does not have two mommies or two daddies; a child comes into this world because she has a mother who gave her egg and a father who gave his sperm."
The court's stand "ignores the self-evident truth that God designed a man and a woman to fit together and participate in the miracle of procreation," he said.
What's he saying? The children of same sex couples are less deserving of protection of the law than children born to a man and a woman.
Still think it's not about keeping homosexuals as second class citizens? Denying them equal footing in our society? Consider this. Opponents of same sex marriage in California are diligently trying to get several referendums on next year's ballot that would roll back many of the gains in domestic benefits.
The Christian agenda is clear. After more than twelve years of lying to the voters, their real goal on the same sex marriage issue has nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with sweeping homosexuals back into the closet.
And at least in Michigan and California, at the expense of the children if need be.
No comments:
Post a Comment