fickle is the fear of gay marriage
Jake Morgan
Issue date: 12/4/08 Section: Opinion
The pleasures of gay sex.
While not designed to be an informative pamphlet for the exploratory Hillsdalean, that phrase sums up one issue with which those against same-sex marriage take offense - anal sex.
Although having very little to do with the push for marriage and representing a minute part of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual community, it is an "aberration" that drives the normative establishment into a frenzy. At the root, broadly defined anti-gay policy is not based on rational fact or any honest concern for the "family," but from a classification of gay sex as, in the words of one student, "icky." I used a papal quote in my last article in attempts to unhitch marriage from the purely physical.
It is ironic Mr. Freiburger rallies against physical "gratification" when, in fact, his (and Ms. Gabl's) definition of marriage (for procreation) rests exclusively with a certain type of sexual intercourse. While I personally believe such a narrow definition strips away the most important part of what marriage is, I would not be audacious enough to demand the law impress my views on the rest of the population.
If plain fact is "invective," then I concede my guilt straightaway. Otherwise, I would suggest Mr. Freiburger spend less time in a high school thesaurus and more time in the U.S. legal code. We have to assume last week's "resounding" assurance that homosexuals are guaranteed the exact same legal rights stems either from malicious misinformation or deep ignorance. As a case point, consider the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. The Act defines marriage between a man and a woman; de facto precluding same-sex couples from the civil rights granted through civil marriage. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts the number of federal rights based on marital status at 1,049, including many of the rights Mr. Freiburger specifically lists. If he wants to pass on a marriage license, forfeiting Social Security benefits, child custody guarantees and military benefits, among other things, that is his choice. That choice should not be forced on unwilling citizens. I could "disagree" with brunettes the same way Mr. Freiburger "disagrees" with homosexuals, but the Constitution is supposed stop me from enshrining that bigotry in law. A dedication to the Fourteenth Amendment is not "leftist" - it is American. There is a word for the usurpation of our constitutional republic as well-authoritarian.
While not designed to be an informative pamphlet for the exploratory Hillsdalean, that phrase sums up one issue with which those against same-sex marriage take offense - anal sex.
Although having very little to do with the push for marriage and representing a minute part of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual community, it is an "aberration" that drives the normative establishment into a frenzy. At the root, broadly defined anti-gay policy is not based on rational fact or any honest concern for the "family," but from a classification of gay sex as, in the words of one student, "icky." I used a papal quote in my last article in attempts to unhitch marriage from the purely physical.
It is ironic Mr. Freiburger rallies against physical "gratification" when, in fact, his (and Ms. Gabl's) definition of marriage (for procreation) rests exclusively with a certain type of sexual intercourse. While I personally believe such a narrow definition strips away the most important part of what marriage is, I would not be audacious enough to demand the law impress my views on the rest of the population.
If plain fact is "invective," then I concede my guilt straightaway. Otherwise, I would suggest Mr. Freiburger spend less time in a high school thesaurus and more time in the U.S. legal code. We have to assume last week's "resounding" assurance that homosexuals are guaranteed the exact same legal rights stems either from malicious misinformation or deep ignorance. As a case point, consider the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. The Act defines marriage between a man and a woman; de facto precluding same-sex couples from the civil rights granted through civil marriage. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts the number of federal rights based on marital status at 1,049, including many of the rights Mr. Freiburger specifically lists. If he wants to pass on a marriage license, forfeiting Social Security benefits, child custody guarantees and military benefits, among other things, that is his choice. That choice should not be forced on unwilling citizens. I could "disagree" with brunettes the same way Mr. Freiburger "disagrees" with homosexuals, but the Constitution is supposed stop me from enshrining that bigotry in law. A dedication to the Fourteenth Amendment is not "leftist" - it is American. There is a word for the usurpation of our constitutional republic as well-authoritarian.
Be the first to comment on this story