Want to help support Obscanity.com?
Use my Shopping Portal to make your holiday purchases! It won't cost you an extra cent, but it'll help support this site. Doing all your shopping at Amazon.com? Go there now!

Netflix, Inc.


ProtectMarriage misses the point on women’s suffrage

January 28th, 2010 [Marriage Equality]


ProtectMarriage completely misses the point. I’m shocked. Or not.

Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails. Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting. By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation. Nice try.

I think that’s kind of the point. Before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, politicians and pundits argued that extending voting rights to women would de-legitimize the political process, destroy homes and families, lead to double-voting, create crime, injure women, result in military ruin, and generally destroy the world. It didn’t. And neither will same-sex marriage.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Bookmark and Share

2 Responses to “ProtectMarriage misses the point on women’s suffrage”

  1. PM misses the point on pretty much everything. All they have is bigotry and propaganda. They wouldn’t know a fact if it hit them upside the head.

  2. I’d say that about sums it up – although I would argue that they know a lot more than what they represent to the public. I also don’t think they believe half of what they argue, particularly as it relates to human dignity, civil rights, and the weighing of one “good” against another (i.e. the rights of LGBT citizens against the rights of children). They’re in favor of civil unions or domestic partnerships as long as it’s not called marriage? Bullshit. I think we all know they would eliminate domestic partnership benefits if they could. Hell, I think we all know they would overturn “Lawrence v. Texas” if they could.

    What amazes me is how tightly they are controlling the message distributed to their own followers. Comments? Disallowed. Pings? Disabled. Heaven forbid anybody should ever see a dissenting opinion!

Leave a Reply