There it is.

Finally, someone has been honest about the intent behind the Marshall/Newman amendment:

No, we’ll kick you back under your rocks in November.

I guess they’re getting desperate.

Unable to sustain the fiction that the Marshall/Newman amendment “only defines marriage,” the wheels are coming off.

On this predictably anti-gay blog, the usual crew was confronted with the suggestion that if they are indifferent to the harm the amendment would do to real families, they must be failing to see GLBT people as fully human, a suggestion I have also made here, and here, and probably other places as well. It’s an unavoidable conclusion when we are told over and over that we don’t deserve the same safety, security and dignity as heterosexual people. An anonymous (naturally) commenter responded with this outburst:

Why should we start. Because it’s politically correct?

No, we’ll kick you back under your rocks in November.

And that, friends and neighbors, is what this amendment is really about, in a nutshell.

Expressed by a tiny coward, of course, but there you go.

All the bloviating in the world about how language that would further persecute some of the most vulnerable members of our community “only defines marriage” can’t possibly erase the truth of this simple sentence. Thanks for playing, anonymous.

This entry was posted in Observation and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to There it is.

  1. Jonathan says:

    I find NOvaTownHall blogger “Jack’s” defense of the jackboot (no pun intended) thug to be hilarious.

    there are always those who do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

    Jack doesn’t want to “kick us under the rocks”, he want to save our souls. Here is part of his back and forth with Bill Garnett:

    [BG] “Does that mean that being straight implies one has a vested interest in denying equal civil rights?”

    [Jack] Don’t be silly. We, as Christians, have a vested interest in saving souls.

    [BG] “How are these Christian religious zealots not unlike Muslim fundamentalist zealots…?”

    [Jack] We don’t lop your head off for disagreeing with us.

    [BG] “But I will not require these zealots to accept my faith….”

    [Jack] But that is EXACTLY what you want. You want us to accept your sins, and to teach our children that what you do is not sinful. That is a path to Hell.

    Jack needs to study his history. The Jewish community prospered during the “Golden Age of Spain”. While there was some persecution, that persecution paled when compared to the darkness of the Christian inquisition that swept Spain 300 years later. If we turn our constitution over to a mob that believes LGBT people are leading “our children” down “a path to Hell”, it’s reasonable to expect that they will find delight in the idea of kicking us “back under the rocks”. Sometimes the blogosphere gets pretty creepy.

  2. David says:

    I’m not sure what exactly Jack’s idea of “saving our souls” has to do with loving God and loving his neighbors as himself. I do know that he is not God’s representative here on earth, and to appoint himself so is a dangerous road for him to head down.

    History does indeed show us where it leads.

    There can be no question that hate is the motive in this comment. To defend it in any way whatsoever is not only shameful, but extremely revealing.

  3. Insider says:

    Noooooooooooooooooo. No hate on this blog? Just namecalling as usual.

    Anti-gay? sticks and stones, friends.

  4. Jonathan says:


    You’re going to have to explain this one. “Anti-gay” is a descriptive term for people/organizations who oppose gay-rights. It’s much the same as identifying people who support gun control legislation as “anti-gun”. Why do you see this as “namecalling”?

  5. David says:

    Very curious indeed. “Anti- ” is a ubiquitous way of describing policy positions that are in opposition to something. I’ve never heard this usage decried as “namecalling” except by anti-gay activists. Perhaps Insider could give us some examples of descriptors that s/he feels would better represent the views in question.

    We’ve tried to address this before, with this question:

    Why would those who devote all of their spare time to finding ways to interfere with the lives of gay people, and justify this activity by claiming that there is something wrong with gay people, then object to the observation that they are anti-gay? We think it must be because they understand that it’s wrong. If they didn’t understand that being anti-gay is morally wrong, they wouldn’t become defensive about it.

    By all means, have at it.

  6. Insider says:

    Marriage isn’t a right.

  7. David says:

    And this is germane to the above discussion because…?

  8. Jonathan says:

    It may not be germane except for and handful of questions.

    1. If marriage is not a right, why are amendment proponents attempting to add the sentence below to the VA Bill of Rights:

    That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

    While this may be written as a constraint on marriage, it is being added to the bill of rights. Does this make marriage between one man and one woman a fundamental right in virginia?

    2. There is legal precedent that marriage is a fundamental right as pointed out in this op-ed.

    The court is holding us to double standards. It acknowledged that the State doesn’t require heterosexual couples to be able to have children naturally. But it said that applying the standard to us is rational. It acknowledged that marriage is a fundamental civil right – for heterosexuals but not for gay people. It acknowledged that convicts serving time in prison have a fundamental right to marry – but a class of law-abiding citizens does not. It acknowledged that gender discrimination is illegal. But keeping us from marrying because of our gender is not.

    Also see Chai Feldblum’s excellent rebuttal matrix.

    3. Candidates like Marsha Feinland are running issues that include marriage-equality as a fundamental right.

    Gay Marriage: A question of Civil Rights

    Statement of Peace and Freedom Party Senate Candidate Marsha Feinland:

    In the United States, the institution of marriage controls our right to such matters as child custody, hospital visitation, and retirement income. It is also the most common and socially accepted form of a committed relationship between two adults. To deprive any couple of the right to marry is discrimination. We cannot allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, just as we no longer allow “miscegenation” laws to prohibit interracial marriage.

    As the U.S. Senate takes up a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in time for preelection posturing by the right wing, we should study the poses assumed by the two senators from California. Both Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were opposed to gay marriages in San Francisco when they were briefly legalized. This time, we will probably see them pointing out that the proposed amendment is “unnecessary,” “inappropriate,” or “not the business of the federal government.”

    My position is that a constitutional amendment or any law banning gay marriage is unjust, discriminatory and absolutely wrong. As long as the institution exists, everyone has the right to marry.


  9. Pingback: Equality Loudoun » Contradictions to ponder