Monday, October 30, 2006

'WingNutDaily' Strikes Again

Some mornings when I sit down and begin to sift through email, blog posts and my newsgator feeds, I find myself struggling to decide which issue will get my attention. This, however, was not one of those mornings, as I came face to face with the latest, fascist drivel that managed to pour out of WorldNetDaily.

It's always a treat to read what those lovable little nutcases have to say, but today's little gem of journalism was, well...a barn-burner! Let's just take a look at what Matt Barber has to say...

You can put a pig in a mini-skirt, high heals and lipstick
and call him Angelina Jolie, but he's still a pig just the same. That's just
what pro-homosexual activists are trying to do this election season in Colorado.
No, they haven't partnered with PETA to raise awareness about the systematic
discrimination of "transgendered" farm animals; but what they have done is enter
into a clever and disingenuous game of political semantics relative to the
so-called "gay-marriage" debate

Since when did the discussion of gay-marriage become something 'supposed?' Is there or is there not an actual debate occuring on this very issue? Perhaps Mr. Barber, lost somewhere in his astute Angelina Jolie-pig analogy, deluded himself into thinking that this wasn't a real issue.

On Nov. 7, Coloradans will vote on Referendum I.

What is Referendum I? Well, opponents say that it's a clear attempt by
homosexual activists to circumvent Colorado's marriage protection laws and
legalize "gay marriage" through sleight of hand, while calling it something
else. They assert that it's a not so thinly veiled attempt to pass off
counterfeit marriage beneath that innocuous pseudonym we've all come to know –
"Domestic Partnerships." (The bill associated with the referendum is the
"Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act.")

Proponents claim that the referendum doesn't codify "gay marriage," but
rather, simply grants certain legal protections to homosexual couples that they
cannot otherwise obtain.

So, who's lying?

First and foremost, take a look at what the Referendum is all about. Nothing in the language of this legislation suggests that same-sex couples would be able to 'marry,' but, rather allows for the 'common sense' rights and obligations that would be expected for any committed couple. Some excellent 'real life' examples are included in a Denver Post article.

One can derive the answer by looking at the unequivocal
language of the referendum itself: The Colorado Legislative Council's "Blue
Book" analysis of the ballot initiative states that Referendum I "creates a new
legal relationship, called a domestic partnership, providing same-sex couples
the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to
married couples by Colorado law." The text of the Referendum indicates the
bill's intent "to extend to same-sex couples in a Domestic Partnership the
benefits, protections and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to

So the verdict's in, and the jury wasn't out long –
guilty as charged. "Domestic Partnerships" as defined under Referendum I, are
very simply "gay marriages" by another name.

Funny that Mr. Barber left out that the "Blue Book" anaylsis is actually more or less a projection of the fiscal impact if this bill were to pass. But what I find even more unreal is this constant likening of domestic partnerships to marriages. They absolutely are not the same thing...just try going to your local bakery and ordering a 'domestic partnership' cake!

We've all heard the old adage "give 'em an inch and
they'll take a mile." Well, in this case, If Coloradans pass Referendum I, it
will be the first time that "domestic partnerships" will have been approved by
the voters of a state, and it will require thousands of changes to existing
Colorado state law, at a high cost to the taxpayer.

Under these circumstances, that old "give 'em an
inch" adage will be inverted. Colorado voters will have essentially given 'em a
mile – and with little effort, homosexual activists will take the last inch.

We've seen it time and time again. Liberal activist
courts are all too happy to accommodate the very vocal and very motivated
homosexual lobby. If Referendum I passes, then in very short order the courts,
under the guise of equal protection under the law, will require that the term
"marriage" be included among the "benefits, protections, and responsibilities"
now afforded to "domestic partners." And what difference does it really make?
What's in a word, when one already enjoys the substance of what that word

Referring to the anecdotes provided by the Denver Post, can Mr. Barber honestly say that it's not worth the state's trouble to enable committed couples in obtaining what should be considered basic rights? If I were to engage in the same slippery-slope argument made here, then I would find myself needing to point out that allowing writers who are obviously bigoted to comment publicly on this issue would inevitably lead to the downfall of journalism as we know it.

Mr. Barber's commentary gets more and more angry, as he continues to assert what he believes are the goals and motives of every homosexual who wants the privilege to marry. Of the many things I still shake my head and wonder about, this is still the one that makes me want to slap people the most...why should it be difficult for two people who love each other and who are committed to one another to obtain the basic rights that heterosexual couples enjoy? More than that, does having those basic rights pose a threat (real or perceived) to anyone else?

If the debate is starting to seem familiar to you, it should! The arguments made by Matt Barber and the other wingnuts are very similar to those put forth by such prestigious groups as the KKK and by equally intelligent world leaders like Adolf Hitler. Fortunately, civil rights managed to become the rule rather than the exception in this country...perhaps equal rights for same-sex couples isn't far behind.

No comments: