Opponents of gay marriage object to allowing local governments to extend employment benefits to the families of gay employees:
"The sponsors of this bill are attempting to give homosexuals special rights by granting them marital privileges without the responsibilities of a marital contract," said Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage.
I, for one, applaud Jeff Davis for being pro-active and solution-focused on this issue. Yes, let's allow homosexuals to take on the responsibilities of a marriage contract. What an elegant solution.
'Cause, you know, it would be awfully hypocritical of someone to oppose extending domestic partnership benefits to a homosexual couple on the grounds that they weren't married if one simultaneously opposed the right of that couple to get married.
Labels: gay rights
I don't think 'hypocritical' is the right word. Their position is consistent: It is wrong to be gay. Therefore gay people should not be allowed to marry. And the government should not treat them as if they were married. You could use many adjectives to describe this position, but, unless they are having gay sex themselves, hypocritical isn't the right one.
By 11:09 AM, at
I agree that the position is consistent -- no rights for gay couples, because they are gay couples. But that's not what Davis is claiming. He's saying no marriage means no benefits, without acknowledging the fact that he opposes the right to marry.
Based on my theory from yesterday Jeff Davis is renewing his subscription to "Honcho" magazine even as we speak.<< Home