Folk who have various moral, ethical and religious / theological problems with ‘gay marriage’ have long been lampooned and lambasted for suggesting that there’s no such thing as a ‘gay agenda’. After all, what better way to prove your case than to caricature your opponents? Such caricaturing achieves its goal by demonizing and damning under the umbrella of ‘the truth’.
It may surprise some, then, to discover that there is in fact a ‘gay agenda’ and it’s been written down for one and all to see. And you can see it for yourself here. It was signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). Some of the highlights include, but are not limited to, the following.
“The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting marriage through state courts (to show that fairness requires it) and state legislatures (to show that people support it). … We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning. When we’ve won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that point, we’ll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we’ll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states.”
And
“As society gets more used to gay and lesbian couples being married, it will be easier to win cases in states that look iffy now. In a few years, the cases just won’t seem like such a big jump. If we plunge ahead and lose cases in those states now, the courts will have to overrule themselves later to go our way. That usually takes a few years at least, and often much longer. That means it is likely to take longer to get a good decision than it would have taken if we hadn’t brought a case early on and lost it.”
Sounds like an agenda to me…
3 responses so far ↓
James McGrath // June 18, 2008 at 1:38 pm
If having the right to do things that other Americans can do is an ‘agenda’, then isn’t this an agenda that Americans should have?
It is one thing to stand for churches’ right to not marry people if they choose, whether because they are divorced, or because they are the same gender, or whatever else. But it is quite another to oppose equal civil rights for those who are divorced, or gay, on the basis of religion. The first amendment seems to make such an approach rather obviously unconstitutional.
Drew // June 18, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Right. It is an agenda. It is an agenda to have equal protection under the law regarding the civil contract of what marriage guarantees. the problem is that this agenda is cast in conspiratorial terms that somehow gays want to rule to country which is a far cry from the case.
Jim, you and I will probably never agree on the theological issue. However, with regard to the responsibility of the state, there is not a single legal argument to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman unless you rely on extra-legal foundations such as religion or outmoded understandings of tradition. Note that I am not talking about how votes have been cast in the past. Just because you vote for something does not mean that it is constitutional or correct. I think the current administration in the White House is evidence of this (something which I know you do agree with me on
.
Jim // June 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Probably not Drew, but I admire your willingness to say what you think. An attribute sorely lacking in these trying times.
Like gas stations in rural Texas after 10 pm, comments are closed.