Tuesday, November 13, 2012

No Mr. Donohue - No, No, No

Leave it to Blowhard Bill to foster a dishonest debate. In a piece titled (originally in all caps) Beware Advice From Foes, the President of the Catholic League warns:
In the wake of the election, practicing Catholics and Protestants of a traditional orientation have been inundated with advice from their liberal brethren. The advice generally goes like this: to win future elections, conservative Christians need to moderate their views on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and other issues. In other words, they need to move left so that the liberal agenda can be fulfilled without resistance.
No Bill. No. The real debate is whether or not the Republican Party should continue to be Hezbollah ("the party of God"). Nobody is asking Mr. Donohue or his ilk to modify their religious views; Not at all. The real debate is over whether or not Mr. Donohue is entitled to impose those views on everyone else by force of law via the GOP. More than two centuries ago, some very wise men seem to have defined how things should be in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The result was freedom of religion without enacting laws in recognition of religion.

Bill goes on to write:
No serious Catholic or Protestant can ever sanction gay marriage. To do so is not only a breach of Christian teaching, it is a recipe for social instability. This issue remains divisive, but it is worth recalling that until millions of out-of-state dollars were poured into a few state initiatives, the pro-traditional marriage side was 32-0 in state elections.
No Bill. No. We neither request nor require your approval. What some religious institutions are willing to "sanction" is irrelevant to civil marriage and equal protection. This from a guy who is divorced. As for out-of-state dollars pouring into the contests, Bill should consult with National Organization for Marriage, the Knights of Columbus and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

27 of the 32 ballot contests that Bill refers to were enacted six or more years ago, most as a knee-jerk reaction to marriage equality in Massachusetts. 17 were passed more than eight years ago. Much has changed over that period of time. The Nevada amendment is already being challenged in federal court while amendments in Oregon and Hawaii are likely to be contested at the polls in the near future. One in 2009 (Maine) has been repealed by the people while another from 2008 in California has been overturned in federal court pending Supreme Court action (or inaction). The 2008 Florida amendment was essentially unopposed with equal marriage resources having been focused on Prop 8.

More importantly, these are irrelevant. Civil rights should not be subject to the whims of the electorate. Don't you get that, Bill?
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.