.
D
.
Departments
Splice Archive
.
.
Katie, I think you need to go back to a kissing booth. Your advice, although it may satisfy the gay pride gene, is terrible. 1. If followed your advice would continue the issue being seen as a gay rights message and not a government intrusion message. The latter is far more popular with the conservatives who are typically against anything that would help "the gays" 2. Gays are already on board with this movement, courting them brings no new dollars or strategy to the effort. 3. Your framing of the issue as "It is not about you. It is about us...." is just as offensive and wrong-headed as the bigots who oppose such measures. Furthermore, your suggestion that hets can work around this if they must not only reinforces your bigotry (it is O.K. if hets are inconveineced but gay freedom is what is really important) but undermines the whole issue of freedom for all and equality of all
how would heterosexuals be inconvenienced?
Any couple who does not engage in the religous practice of marriage is harmed. Which is really the point here. The government is involved in a religous practice. Anyone who beleives in a separation of religion and state should be against any government role in marriage het or gay. Since this is unlikely to happen, everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, orientation, or religion.
