Derbyshire: Conservatives Should Go Full On Racist »« The Garrow Grift Reveals Itself

Fournier: Marriage Equality = China’s Cultural Revolution

Keith Fournier used to be an attorney with Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, but he went off and formed a couple of his own non-profits. Now he’s writing for Matt Barber’s new website, saying incredibly stupid and offensive things like this:

Marriage ‘is what it is’, to use a popular expression. The effort to redefine the word and then use the mechanisms of the State to entirely restructure this institution inscribed in the Natural Law – and replace it – is what is at stake here. Those who advocate giving moral and legal equivalency to homosexual and lesbian relationships are the people who oppose marriage. Their intention is to entirely reorder civil society. They use the phrase ‘marriage equality’ in an Orwellian act of verbal engineering.

They want to use the police power of the State against those who defend marriage. They seek to make what can never be a marriage – a homosexual or lesbian partnership – to be a marriage, by pronouncement of a Court or a legislature. Such partnerships can never achieve the ends of marriage. They accuse those who defend a authentic marriage of somehow being against marriage because we will not redefine the word to include homosexual or lesbian partnerships.

This is a propaganda ploy and a tactic aimed at nothing less than a Cultural Revolution. I know that some of my readers do not like it when I use the term Cultural Revolution. They object because the term was identified with the reassertion of Maoism in China. That movement, which turned violent, caused extraordinary social turmoil. That is PRECISELY why the analogy is apropos.

The Chinese cultural revolution killed more than a million people. How exactly does he propose to argue that letting gay people get married is in any way analogous to that? The only ones who could possibly be doing the killing are bigots like him who keep telling one another that gay people are so evil that they’re trying to destroy society itself and thus must be stopped.

Comments

  1. matty1 says

    This institution inscribed in the Natural Law

    I want to see this inscription called Natural Law, is there a book or website available giving it’s full text?

  2. Larry says

    is there a book or website available giving it’s full text?

    It’s all in the bible, donchaknow. You just have to read between the lines.

  3. Pen says

    Next up: marriage equality oppresses Christians just like several centuries of legal repression of homosexuality.

  4. matty1 says

    While I’m at it, what are these ends of marriage?

    The ends of marriage as a legal institution are clearly to recognise an existing relationship, something that could in principle be done with any relationship. The ends of any individual relationship that uses the institution are down to the people involved and not for outsiders to impose.

  5. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    This is a propaganda ploy and a tactic aimed at nothing less than a Cultural Revolution.

    Well I guess that part’s honest – he’s admitting he is spewing hateful homophobic propaganda and trying to make a revolution in culture that’s equivalent to a Great Leap backwards, right?

    Too late though asswipe.

    Culture has changed and the revolution in most people’s thinking has come and left you wa-aaay behind.. you could try to catch up. It’ll make you happier in the long run because you’ve lost badly and soon compelely.

    Just like those who fought against civil rights, fought to keep slavery and fought against interracial marriage.

    The hateful old way is over, love will win, has won already but there’s some who just don;t know it yet. men marrying men, women marrying women, people marrying people. its here and we are all better for it. get over it. Let it be. Be happy.

  6. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Um.. first line quote, rest mine. Damn non-editability,

  7. cry4turtles says

    Gotta agree with this ignoramus; it is a cultural revolution, and just like SteveO said, the asshats will be left out.

  8. John Pieret says

    Marriage ‘is what it is’, to use a popular expression.

    Whut?

    They use the phrase ‘marriage equality’ in an Orwellian act of verbal engineering.

    Coming from people who want to label ‘the right to discriminate against others’ as ‘civil rights’? No wonder my irony meter just exited through my roof!

    They seek to make what can never be a marriage – a homosexual or lesbian partnership – to be a marriage, by pronouncement of a Court or a legislature.

    From the same people who passed legislation of constitutional amendments in ~36 states that sought to define marriage they way they liked? There goes my backup meter.

    This is a propaganda ploy and a tactic aimed at nothing less than a Cultural Revolution.

    Is it as big a “Cultural Revolution” as when we ended slavery? Heck, is it as big a “Cultural Revolution” as when women got to vote or we (mostly) ended segregation?

    If the wingnuts didn’t have hyperbole, they wouldn’t have any bole at all.

  9. caseloweraz says

    Keith, corrected: Those who advocate giving moral and legal equivalency to homosexual and lesbian relationships are the people who oppose marriage. Their intention is to entirely reorder civil society. [Whereas we merely seek to restore civil society to the Biblical basis the founders intended.]

  10. Chiroptera says

    They want to use the police power of the State against those who defend marriage.

    Actually, it’s the homophobes trying to use the authority of the state against other peoples’ marriages.

    Just sayin’, is all.

    Such partnerships can never achieve the ends of marriage.

    I dunno. I think that political, commercial, and tribal alliances can be cemented as well by trading same sex children as different sex children. If dynastic heirs are a concern, then same sex marriages can rely on the same thing that infertile heterosexual marriages have relied on in the past: adopting the children from the cadet branches of the dynasty.

    Oh, we’re talking about traditional marriage, right?

  11. Trebuchet says

    What’s with all the right-wing Xians citing “Natural Law”? Every presidential election, we have a candidate for the “Natural Law Party” on the ballet. They’re Transcendental Meditation nuts. So Republicans are promoting the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi!

  12. scienceavenger says

    Marriage ‘is what it is’, to use a popular expression.

    Ah yes, it is what it is, and it was what it was, and it will be what it will be. And you know what that all tells us? Squat.[this actual outburst in Vegas had me sitting out a few poker hands]

    Truth is, yes, it is what it is, but it isn’t necessarily what YOU say it is, which is the assumption people try to sneak in with this. It’s Ayn Rand’s “A is A” translated to popular parlance.

  13. busterggi says

    Anyone who think 1 male + 1 female = natural law has no idea about the sex life of ducks.

  14. matty1 says

    Ah, so same sex marriage is prevented by the electroweak force. Now it makes sense.

  15. tfkreference says

    “Marriage ‘is what it is’, to use a popular expression.”

    And what it is is a legal institution – you can skip the blessing from the church, but you can’t skip the certification by the government.

  16. leonardschneider says

    They seek to make what can never be a marriage – a homosexual or lesbian partnership – to be a marriage, by pronouncement of a Court or a legislature.

    Great. Peachy. Another fundie dicknose insulting members of my family.
    Another man I want to meet in person.

    Such partnerships can never achieve the ends of marriage.

    And those ends are what, exactly? Raising a family? My uncle Billy and his husband got you covered, Fournier: they’re raising six adoptive kids, all of whom came from some really fucked-up homes. For all intents and purposes, Billy and Gail rescued those kids from lives of pain and misery.

    To quote Minor Threat, What the fuck have you done?
    Well, Keith?

  17. anne mariehovgaard says

    Anyone who think 1 male + 1 female = natural law has no idea about the sex life of ducks.

    I think that’s more “1 male duck + 1 or more anything whatsoever, as long as it fails to defend itself well enough (possibly because it’s dead)”

Leave a Reply