field trips

People Who Won’t Be Impacted By Gay Marriage Waste Entire Day Bitching To RI Lawmakers About It

Oh, so you heard? Rhode Island’s State House yesterday heard testimony on a same-sex marriage bill? And hundreds of you showed up? Yup, even the folks the National Organization for Marriage enlisted to testify on behalf of bigots. And while I’m all for citizens seeing the importance of being heard by their lawmakers, don’t you people have jobs to be at? Or is everyone here among the unemployed? And, in that case: The only way you’ll be impacted by gay marriage is when the state receives $1M+ from a new industry. Which means: jobs. Related: What’s this about swapping out the word “marriage” for “civil unions” that Rep. Karen MacBeth, the self-described conservative Democrat, is proposing?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #marriage #rhodeisland stories and more


  • kernelt

    How could anyone redefine marriage to anyone else? the definition of marriage is a personal interpretation. Saying that the gay are redefining marriage and forcing our own ideology down the rest of the population is just ridicules; while it is quite the opposite.

    stop pretending that marriage is so sacred and holly when most enter a marriage (sometime without much consideration) and divorce later that would destroy family created. Part of marriage is commitment and love. Just because those punk ass who’s marriage often fall apart and who’s live is meaningless have nothing valid other than their claim on marriage; discriminate so they can feel better about themselves compare to the talented and artistic gay (GLBT)..

  • kernelt

    @kernelt: doesn’t mean they can post their ill ways on the rest of society…

  • greenmanTN

    Ugh. Earlier in the week I found myself arguing with someone who wanted to “protect marriage” in the comments section of a Salon article. Salon is a pretty liberal crowd but there was one woman spouting what seemed to be NOM’s talking points. Shoot them down and she’d ignore it then scurry over to another silly, specious argument. Their hysteria would be comical except for the damage it does. It also makes me wonder how many of them are married to men in the middle of the Kinsey scale.

    I think this might be my favorite of the arguments I used:

    “OK. Let’s say for the sake of argument that gay marriage somehow destroys straight marriages. So your marriage must really suck now, be a pale shadow of what it was just a few years ago, right? I mean that goes without saying. After all, gay marriage is legal in several countries and several states, to the degree that a gay marriage must be performed nearly every day now, sucking the life and joy out of your own marital union drop by drop. So either your marriage is worth less, if not worthless, or that’s proof that statement and the arguments behind it aren’t true. Isn’t that right? It’s your own logic, if it can be called that, after all.”

  • Ian

    Once again people feed into right-wing talking points by accepting on THEIR terms to coin Marriage Equality for Gay Americans as “gay” marriage or “same-sex” marriage. This is a trick used in argumentation & debate 101 to try to separate the group you are speaking of as the “other” and NOT part of the greater majority. DON’T feed into this conservative talking points memo! It is about marriage equality, PERIOD.

  • Joetx

    @ Greenman TN – Great argument. I hadn’t thought about it that way. Mind if I use it too?

  • the crustybastard


    Indeed. The argument should be framed in terms of “marriage equality” and “marriage segregation.”

  • GregorVonK

    @Joetx: It IS a good argument (in the sense of being a PUNGENT one), but when you’re dealing with knee jerk right wingers, they’re probably just going to counter it with a “I Can’t Control What They Do In Other Countries” argument. After all, dyed-in-the-wool rightwingers in this country probably don’t lose sleep over the fact that, say, socialized medicine exists SOMEWHERE in the world.

    And of course, the right wingers would LOVE to see marriage equality eliminated in Mass/Vermont/CT and feel that they have a real shot in NH and Iowa. They no doubt feel that once they’ve created a Red State Utopia, they’ll be able to do just that.

    That won’t stop me from quoting this argument myself though. It’s gonna give at least SOME of them pause…and just maybe shut a few of ’em up.

    Oh, and Ian, your point is well taken too. I do prefer the term “marriage equality.” On the other hand, I do use the term “same sex marriage” too–mainly so I can contrast it to that great social critic Carrie Prejean’s concept, “opposite marriage.”

  • greenmanTN

    @Joetx: Feel free to use it. It’s true that you might get the rebuttal “What other countries or states do isn’t the same thing” but then the obvious follow-up question is “Then just how close does it have to be before it destroys your marriage? The same state? 100 miles? 10? The next street over?”

    Another argument I used was:
    “It’s you who seems to believe that marriage is such a fragile thing, a delicate and finite resource that’s weakened by more people having access to it, not strengthened by more people seeing it as a desired ideal. The gay people who want to be married seem to have far more faith in the institution than you do, despite your claim you want to protect it. Now isn’t that odd?”

    @Ian: I get your point but it’s not always possible to control the terms of debate. Sometimes you have to get down to the nitty-gritty and address specific arguments in order to dismantle them. “Exactly HOW does a gay couple getting married effect you?” That’s a question the best minds at NOM, faint praise indeed, have been unable to answer.

  • Schteve

    @the crustybastard: If you use the phrase “marriage segregation” you are sure to lose a significant amount of support from the movable middle. You should avoid alienating and harsh rhetoric like that just as you think the opposition should avoid phrases like “gay marriage”.

  • aalan brickman

    Typical Female predators!! out the female polticians too!

Comments are closed.