From Jon Tan's Blog.
Monday, January 16, 2006
If you're "neutral" about gay marriage...
... you might be considering those "neutral" Conservative candidates. Take, for instance, Al Gretsky. Apparently, his feelings are ambivalent, if anything.
"Al is neither pro, nor anti, gay marriage because it does not affect him. Because of this, he feels no reason to deny the gay community the right to marriage. After all, why not? (In other words, "yes" to gay marriage.) However, he would prefer to see another name for it merely because it would simplify the matter greatly to extend exactly equal rights, but call it something different."
Fair enough.
Except...
Rosa Parks was on the same bus, and ended up in the same place as the white men on board. For her, sitting at the front wasn't a question of end results, but of dignity.
So what if...
"Al is neither pro, nor against Rosa sitting on the same bus as white people because it does not affect him. Because of this, he feels no reason to deny Rosa the right to taking the bus. After all, why not? (In other words, "yes" to mixing races.) However, he would prefer to see her sit at the back of the bus, away from white people, merely because it would simplify the matter greatly to extend exactly equal rights, but call it something different."
I'm a pro-women's rights without being a woman. I'm pro-Aboriginal rights without being native. You don't have to be gay to be pro-equality.
Is this case, neutrality is damning.
If you want to follow up on this post or check out Jon's blog, it's here: http://tanatomicallycorrect.blogspot.com/
If you're "neutral" about gay marriage...
... you might be considering those "neutral" Conservative candidates. Take, for instance, Al Gretsky. Apparently, his feelings are ambivalent, if anything.
"Al is neither pro, nor anti, gay marriage because it does not affect him. Because of this, he feels no reason to deny the gay community the right to marriage. After all, why not? (In other words, "yes" to gay marriage.) However, he would prefer to see another name for it merely because it would simplify the matter greatly to extend exactly equal rights, but call it something different."
Fair enough.
Except...
Rosa Parks was on the same bus, and ended up in the same place as the white men on board. For her, sitting at the front wasn't a question of end results, but of dignity.
So what if...
"Al is neither pro, nor against Rosa sitting on the same bus as white people because it does not affect him. Because of this, he feels no reason to deny Rosa the right to taking the bus. After all, why not? (In other words, "yes" to mixing races.) However, he would prefer to see her sit at the back of the bus, away from white people, merely because it would simplify the matter greatly to extend exactly equal rights, but call it something different."
I'm a pro-women's rights without being a woman. I'm pro-Aboriginal rights without being native. You don't have to be gay to be pro-equality.
Is this case, neutrality is damning.
If you want to follow up on this post or check out Jon's blog, it's here: http://tanatomicallycorrect.blogspot.com/