Nothing to do with Transformers. I'll explain the headline at the end.
I went and forced myself to click on the "Reject R-71" web page, just to see what the gay-bashers are up to. All right, look, I'm sorry. But I did not visit said site in an effort to increase site traffic and enhance legitimacy of said site. I will not even link to it. That would make my fingers explode with shame, which is a nonsensical image, but hey, it's my blog.
(Quick recap: To reject R-71 would remove civil rights from senior domestic partners and gay couples. Approving R-71 is the way to affirm the WA Legislature did the right thing earlier this year when it extended privileges like business succession rights, workers' compensation coverage, visitation rights, custody rights and insurance rights to ALL its citizens in committed relationships, not just the married ones.)
So anyway, over at the site that makes my soul feel unclean, there's a page dedicated to "Talking Points." Apparently, if you want to rationalize and defend your bashing of gays, these talking points are designed to be useful tools in that struggle. Or if you've been ordered to reject R-71 but you don't know why, you could just read the talking points, memorize them, and leave your brain in park, as you've been doing for your whole life.
I know this will come as a heart-stopping surprise, faithful readers, but each talking point is deceptive and/or misleading.
(And by the way, what does it say about your organization when its officially sanctioned talking points contain layers of deception?)
So I thought it would make me feel better to list each talking point and identify the deceptive or misleading content. It's more mature than yelling "YOU LIE!" in a public gathering. Although I've heard that also makes people feel better. But still, on with the show.
Talking Point 1) "Senate Bill 5688 includes the phrase, 'marriage shall apply equally to state registered Domestic Partnerships' over a hundred times."
All righty then. To verify this claim, I went and read the bill. (What a concept.) Turns out, that phrase is indeed all over the text, yes, dozens of times. Only EVERY time it appears, it's as a part of the following: "references to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved or invalidated." Every time. Which is clearly not at all what the anti-gay crowd is implying with TP 1).
Oh, and two can play at this game. Let's take a little something Jesus said. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you." That's Matthew 18:34-35, New International Version, with all the words in perfect sequence, I didn't even have to mess with them or begin mid-sentence. Context sure can be a real bitch, huh.
TP 2) "Senate Bill 5688 will redefine terms such as 'husband' and 'wife' to be interpreted as gender neutral. The wording in the bill says, "Where necessary to implement this act, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships."
All right. I have a hard time understanding why this talking point makes the cut, although I'm not completely dense, and I do suspect it has something to do with officially replacing gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Still, someone is going to have to explain to me what makes this such a great TP. Obviously, if the bill's intent is to allow for unmarried cohabitating straight seniors or gay partners to have their domestic partnerships, then the language of "husband" and "wife" is no longer super-useful to describe the partners. You need those terms to be more flexible, so making them neutral is just good legislation. I may not be very misled or deceived here, but I sure am cornfused. Should I be angry? Relieved? What?
TP 3) "If Senate Bill 5688 is allowed to stand, Washington will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding the courts overturn our state's Defense of Marriage Act and impose 'same-sex marriage' (as happened in California prior to Proposition 8). Referendum 71 brings this society changing measure before the people of Washington State to let them make this monumental decision in November."
This litigation of DOMA you fear: It's going to happen regardless of the result next month on R-71. And the litigants will win a case someday, for the same legal reasons they won in California. You can't stop it. And even if you could, this referendum isn't the way to stop it, since even if you win this time around, the legislature will pass a SB 5688 clone next session.
Also, you're just guessing. Unless you plan to file the lawsuit yourself. (As Jon Stewart might say: "Duuuuu-bi-oussssssssssssssssss.")
TP 4) "Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. Thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family."
OK, let's skip past the circular logic of the first sentence and tackle the second sentence. I will bet my house, and maybe yours too, that the vast, vast, vast majority of these "thousands of studies" are focused on children raised in single-parent homes vs. those raised in two-parent homes. And I'm not going to pretend that a single parent can, IN GENERAL, do a better job of fulfilling the emotional, physical, and financial needs of a child or children than two parents can. That's just common sense. (Did I say, "In general" loud enough?) Which is what a study will invariably conclude, time after time after thousandth time.
But how many studies compare the emotional/physical health of kids raised in same-sex marriages with that of kids raised in straight marriages? That's the info that might be pertinent here; not the "non-traditional family" mountain of evidence. Very impressive bit of misleading there, gay-haters.
TP 5) "Criminalization of free speech and 'anti-bullying' laws follow the legalization of same-sex 'marriage'. In a few short months after legalizing same-sex 'marriage' in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison!"
First of all, next time, lose the exclamation point. It's juvenile. Second of all, don't use the example of a foreign country's free speech legislation to illustrate what might happen here. Canada's free speech laws don't apply south of their border... OR DO THEY??!! Come on. Misleading, with a side serving of scare tactics thrown in.
(Oh, I GET to use exclamation points. In an ironic way.)
TP 6) "If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex 'marriage' and homosexuality are perfectly normal."
They may well be "forced" to teach that being gay no longer automatically exempts you from certain rights, especially in civics classes or American politics or social studies or something along those lines. But as long as same-sex marriage remains illegal in Washington, and it still will be against the law a month from now after the election, I doubt the public school system will deem SSM normal. The schools don't make a habit of endorsing illegal behavior. Except for that smoke-in last week in my first-grader's classroom. That was fun. Good weed, too.
But the real deception here is the none-too-subtle implication that kindergartners or early elementary students are going to be discussing those topics. Not really in the curriculum for that age group, people. But thanks for the "Our teachers are going to turn all our 5-year-olds into gay America-haters" scare tactic.
TP 7) "Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!"
Again with the punctuation thing? Whatever. But if you're going to fight against the right of homosexuals to live as they choose, to attain the same set of rights straight people have access to, you should not begin your final talking point with the opposite of what you believe.
In that case, you're just engaging in some pretty heavy self-deception.
Done with that. I DO feel better. Oh wait, yeah, I promised an explanation of the headline. Well, the Reject R-71 crowd is made up of mainly conservatives. Or "cons" for short. The talking points are deceptive. Surely you get it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment