circa75 Home | About circa75 | Articles | Links | Contact Us

Posted by gustav at 08:00PM, Friday, November 01st, 2002

Imagine

(with apologies to Lennon). Let's play turn the tables on our detestable Mormon guvner, and see where he stands.

As you'll know if you've been reading this site at all, the SJC of Massachusetts this week ruled that the Department of Public Health's policy of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. On the Today Show yesterday (Wednesday, November 19th), Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said of the ruling that he felt the state needed a constitutional amendment denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples. He said that Hawaii and Alaska "made these kind of constitutional amendments, and I think we have to do the same thing to preserve the institution."



Leaving aside for the moment the absurdity of this kind of thinking -- after all, heterosexuals have been doing a perfectly adequate job of fucking up marriage all on their own for decades, and Romney, a Utah resident and a Mormon, comes from a faith with a less than illustrious history of supporting marital monogomy -- there is a great deal of hypocrisy underlying Romney's statement. There's a great deal of hatred, as well.



Imagine that the situation were, effectively, reversed. Imagine that the United States Constitution, in its first Amendment, stated that all persons were equal and deserving of the same rights, regardless of skin color, sex, age, or sexual orientation. Imagine, also, that the Bill of Rights had no provision for free practice of religion. In this alternate world, Massachusetts, a relatively progressive state (at least compared to the backwards hick politics of the rest of the land), has a constitution which protects religious freedom. Seven Mormon couples in this reality recently sued the state because it would not allow them to have Mormon wedding services. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that disallowing such religious expression violated the Massachusetts constitution. In response, flamingly gay governor Ashton Kutcher issued a wrathful, spittle-filled statement calling for a constitutional amendment that, while it wouldn't strike down the protections for religious freedom, would specifically ban religious weddings. After all, no one actually dislikes religious people -- we just need to protect our secular institutions from their morally debilitating ways.



Somehow, I can't see our governor in this reality supporting such an amendment. Alas, ideological consistency has never been a strong suit of Republicans, or Mormons. So what do you say, Mitt? Are you a flaming bigot, whipping up hatred for the one group you can still publicly spit upon, all the while saying no, of course you aren't bigotted, you just don't think gay people should have the same rights as you? Are you a tremendous hypocrite, maintaining that religious freedom is important when it protects Mormon interests, but that whole bit about separating your religious beliefs from public policy is a sham? Or are you just wrong? Please let us know.

circa75 Home | About circa75 | Articles | Links | Contact Us

All content copyright © 2001-2009 the owners of http://www.circa75.com/