By Tim Peacock
I had the misfortune of being messaged out of the blue yesterday by none other than religious fundamentalist and NOM-supporter Lisa Graas. She responded to my posting on Twitter about Rick Santorum’s unfortunate inability to answer a simple legal question about marriage equality at John Hopkins, and the conversation devolved from there. Here are some of the initial highlights from the conversation:
The discussion went even further downhill from there when she attempted to argue that “100% of Americans are okay with one man, one woman marriage. It’s not “trumping” anyone.” and that any attempt to refute that would be tantamount to “banning” or being against heterosexual marriage.
I know, I know, the insane troll logic
baffled me too at the time. The crux of the debate arrived when she tweeted this though:
It’s actually rather refreshing to see a Bible-thumping fundamentalist admit they believe their religious beliefs should be above the law rather than obfuscate the argument. When confronted about her anti-Constitution, Anti-American argument, Graas predictably reverted back to the standard anti-gay talking points including invoking the “it’s for the children
!” argument (you know, because we require every person that legally marries in this country have the ability to procreate and raise children). Finally, when she couldn’t continue making circular arguments, she did what all online fundamentalists tend to do – issue a very Southern “bless-you” -esque salutation and bow out
That’s not the end of it, though.
She came back and began a rant about how government doesn’t marry people
(except, they can and do – a church is not required to get married going from engagement to reception or anywhere in between). She went on to argue that she’s fine with other churches marrying gay couples, but not fine with the government recognizing those marriages
because it means “government telling churches who they can “marry.”” (Again, because in the multiple states where same sex marriage is legal that’s happened so many times, right?)
When confronted on the fact that she couldn’t produce one case where churches have been forced to marry couples against their wishes, she went all Minority Report
and claimed to have future church cases in mind
as her reasoning for denying marriage equality. The argument fizzled out soon thereafter – most likely because she realized she was playing the part of persecuted Tom Cruise in the real life version of a movie where we convict people of crimes they haven’t yet committed.
These are the leaders of the religious movement aiming to deny marriage equality, folks. They want to deny equal rights because they believe their religion trump the government and the Constitution. They believe they the mere thought (on their part) that a church might someday have to marry a couple they don’t agree with is a valid reason to deny an entire group of people equal legal treatment. They erroneously believe that a legal marriage contract implies child-rearing (someone might want to alert all of those insta-chapels and Elvis impersonators in Vegas). This is (part of) the reason that for the first time ever, a majority of the people in the U.S. support marriage equality.
Look what the alternative to it is, after all.