When intimidation and discrimination is okay

When intimidation and discrimination is okay

This is a small news item with large implications. The fellows at the pro-gay KnowThyNeighbor blog, which accompanies their web site listing the names and addresses of all Massachusetts residents who signed a petition supporting a vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, have posted the text of a news story from Cape Cod.

Leo Childs, who was up for reappointment to the board of fire engineers in the small town of Truro, was denied his bid by a town selectman, Paul Asher-Best, who declared that because Childs signed the petition, he should not be reappointed. It should be no surprise that Asher-Best is gay and recently “married” another dude. His tortured reasoning for denying Childs’ reappointment is that since marriage is a human right and Childs opposes Asher-Best’s “right” to marry another man, Childs must therefore deny Asher-Best’s humanity and thus would be biased against extending fire protection to gay and lesbian households in the town. Yeah, logic doesn’t appear to be Asher-Best’s strong suit. Here it is in his own words:

“If you think I’m not entitled to civil marriage, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t think I’m fully human, or that my humanity is not on par with yours,” he said. … “There are a lot of households in Truro headed by gay and lesbian people, and I just need to make sure that they’re going to have equal protection and not have people who are biased against them in charge of public safety situations,” he said.

This is called the “straw man” argument.

The intimidation they expected.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
12 comments
  • This is what comes of creating “victims’ groups” whether racial, ethnic, feminist, or sexually-related.  I am not sure how many gays are on the fascist bandwagon that has become very pronounced. 

    I suspect that a great many gau men and women simply want to live quiet, decent lives without asking for any special treatment.  But as a group, gays are the most pampered, self-indulgent, fatuous set of human beings on our beleagured planet.  Those gays who employ this kind of brown shirt, fascist activity are a danger to our society and its freedoms.  And all in the name of an erotic zone somewhere along their equatorial belt.
    Is freedom held this cheaply?

  • I signed the nomination papers for Muffy Healy the other day.  Does that mean I’ll vote for her?  No, I was just participating in the democratic process.

    Gays are getting stuck on stupid.

    It will backfire.

  • Well, he may have something there.  I suppose I’d answer the bell just as fast to put out a fire for them.  But if I was a plumber or paper hanger I might drag my feet a little.

  • Actually, I do not think that Paul Asher-Best is not entitled to “civil marriage” because he is not fully human, or that his humanity is not on par with mine.  I think he is not entitled to civil marriage becasue the law says he is not. 

    Same-sex marriage is not legal in Massachusetts!!!! 

    Governor Romney is violating the law by handing out certificates of marriage to people who do not meet the requirements of marriage under the statute, c. 207.  See the Goodridge case where the SJC said c.207 does not permit SSM and we will not strike the law.  The current statute continues NOT TO PERMIT SSM.  Thus Paul Asher-Best’s marriage certificate is VOID; notwithstanding its unique reference to the term Party A and Party B (yet another change Romney made to the official document without legal authority to do so).

    The SJC does not even think SSM is legal in Massachusetts.  Read their latest opinion (Cote) where none of the judges agree with Judge Ireland’s dissent (who thinks that the law has actually changed even though the legislature refused to take the SJC’s suggestion to change the law.  The legislature has not changed the law, nor has it ever been repealed.  The law remains as it was before the Goodridge opinion; not permitting SSM.

    Stuck on stupid for gays will only backfire if the many voiceless and decent citizens of Massachusetts get off of
    stuck on apathetic,
    stuck on lazy,
    stuck on politically correct,
    stuck on moral relativism, etc.

  • That’s funny because I’ve used that same list for the exact opposite type of background checking… Not that someone’s absense from the list necessarily says anything… but their presense on the list speaks volumes.

  • I guess the appointee will have to check the KnowThyNeighbour list to see if he should hurry to put out the fire or drag his feet.

  • G-Veg,

    To begin to answer your query: it seems to me the real question is why is the state interested in giving any benefits to the married at all? Why is it the state’s business whether two individuals decide to form an emotional relationship? If that’s all that marriage is then your question makes sense. But marriage is what it is, a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman geared toward stability for children.

    All people are allowed to participate in this institution. What they are not allowed to do, nor should be allowed to do is to redefine what marriage is. Never in any society in human history has marriage ever been defined as anything other than a relationship between a man and a woman. Sometimes, true, it has been expanded to allow for more than one woman to be paired with a single man.

  • It is false to say that preventing two men from “marrying” each other is discriminatory.  Marriage is the union of one man to one woman and each of those men (or women) could choose to marry any female (or male) who would agree.  Nothing discriminatory about that. 

    Regarding property rights of “civil unions” . . . great idea if it is not discriminatorily applied to only gay unions.  What about the property rights of two brothers, two sisters, a brother and a sister, a son and his mother, or mother in law, a daughter and her grandfather, or grandmother?  Etc.  These same-sex (and opposite sex) couples are also being discriminated against.  WHY?  Because society has a rational basis to hold in high regard the union of one man to one woman . . .because that union perpetuates society.  It is a self-serving pupose . . . not to mention the most rational, legitimate purpose a society could promote.

    BUT RIGHT NOW, if you believe two men can get married, then that would allow two brothers to get married.  There is no law against two brothers getting married.  There is no law against two sisters getting married.  BUT there are laws against a brother marrying his sister, and vice versa.  THAT is discriminatory.  Why could, under the current law, a brother be able to marry his brother and not be able to marry his sister?  Doesn’t the Goodridge case end all rational bases for any consanguinity laws?  The Goodridge opinion says that procreation is not a rational basis on which to justify marriage being between one man and one woman.  If that is true, then it is likewise not a justification for the consanguinity and affinity laws.  Thus, either we have unequal protection of the laws, or the consanguinity and affinity laws are futile.  And if it can be two loving persons, what is the rational basis to prevent 3 persons, if procreation is not to be used as the rationale for limiting marriage to 2 people. 

    We are witnessing the slow, incremental destruction of society as we know it, while we sit around pondering whteher there are compelling arguments for civil unions without looking at all of the facts.  Many bad things have happened in history by the use of incremental propaganda.

  • One argument advanced for civil unions is that Equal Protection must apply to all persons if it is to be secured for any.  Since there are manifest benefits to marriage in terms of the purchase, possession, insurance, and transfer of property, denying a legal remedy to any adult otherwise entitled to it on the basis of a legal lifestyle choice endangers the rights of all in terms of property.

    Every one of those benefits is available today in every state to anyone who wants it. You can give inheritance rights, health proxy rights, and so on by simply having a lawyer draw up the necessary documents, such as power of attorney. In fact, the lawyer route is probably cheaper than a wedding.

  • Awww mannnnn!!! I know I signed that petition at my parish! How come my name isn’t on the list!!! I feel discriminated against!!! Waaahhhh! They are treating me as sub-human!!!!

  • On a somewhat more serious note – but it *is* weird that I’m not on the list – I *did* sign the petition – oh well…. I work on the local psychiatric Crisis Team, here in my Western Mass city – and I’ve had to deal with a few of these “marriages” and the fall-out when these people can’t stop living their promiscuous lifestyle. They get “married” because it’s the thing to do – “But we ‘love’ each other!!!” they protest for the media – but in their private lives they are simply dispicable. They engage in the same behaviors they did before – they are not faithful to their partner – STD’s and domestic violence is epidemic in these relationships, and the instances of serious psychological problems is much higher then the average. People talk about “rights” – they have no idea. They just don’t get it – we simply do NOT have the idea to do any stupid thing we happen to feel like doing – the person that does that is called, clinically speaking – a “sociopath” – a person who does what they want, when they want, and the good of society be damned. Sound familiar? Lord have mercy on us all!

  • What rational basis is there to apply the laws of consanguinity to two brothers.  What a joke.  The main purpose for those laws in a heterosexual situation is for a medical purpose to prevent incest and therefore strange offspring.

Archives

Categories

Categories