Inversions
I find it interesting how the debate over same-sex marriage seems to turn everything inside out.
Social conservatives, who have been traditional defenders of states rights, have become champions of federal rights. Catholics, who have drawn clear and distinct lines between sacramental marriage and civil marriage with respect to divorce, have erased those lines with respect to marriage. Gays and lesbians, who were at the forefront of finding alternatives to traditional marriage a decade ago, have become the last people in the country who want to enter into marriage. Bob Barr, who has loathed the ACLU in the past (and vice versa) recently joined the ACLU in a statement opposing the whatever-it-is-now-labeled Federal Marriage Amendment.
The latest inversion might be on the pro-choice/pro-life front.
Maine's Republican Representative Brian Duprey submitted a bill to the State Legislature to shield potentially homosexual fetuses from discrimination. LD 908, "An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination," attempts to protect homosexuals from death because they might carry the gene that could lead to homosexuality.
This bill as drafted would make it a crime to abort an unborn child if that child is determined to be carrying the "homosexual gene." Although Duprey conceded that no such genetic marker has yet been discovered, considering rapid advancements in genetic mapping research, he wants legislation in place should such a breakthrough occur. "If the homosexual gene is ever determined to exist, I want to ensure that a woman could not abort an unborn child simply because that child is determined to be carrying this gene."
Duprey received the idea for this bill when listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Duprey "heard Rush saying that the day the "gay gene" is determined to be real, that overnight gays would become pro-life," but reached the opposite conclusion -- that social conservatives might well become pro-choice. "I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected."
Odd.
Social conservatives, who have been traditional defenders of states rights, have become champions of federal rights. Catholics, who have drawn clear and distinct lines between sacramental marriage and civil marriage with respect to divorce, have erased those lines with respect to marriage. Gays and lesbians, who were at the forefront of finding alternatives to traditional marriage a decade ago, have become the last people in the country who want to enter into marriage. Bob Barr, who has loathed the ACLU in the past (and vice versa) recently joined the ACLU in a statement opposing the whatever-it-is-now-labeled Federal Marriage Amendment.
The latest inversion might be on the pro-choice/pro-life front.
Maine's Republican Representative Brian Duprey submitted a bill to the State Legislature to shield potentially homosexual fetuses from discrimination. LD 908, "An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination," attempts to protect homosexuals from death because they might carry the gene that could lead to homosexuality.
This bill as drafted would make it a crime to abort an unborn child if that child is determined to be carrying the "homosexual gene." Although Duprey conceded that no such genetic marker has yet been discovered, considering rapid advancements in genetic mapping research, he wants legislation in place should such a breakthrough occur. "If the homosexual gene is ever determined to exist, I want to ensure that a woman could not abort an unborn child simply because that child is determined to be carrying this gene."
Duprey received the idea for this bill when listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Duprey "heard Rush saying that the day the "gay gene" is determined to be real, that overnight gays would become pro-life," but reached the opposite conclusion -- that social conservatives might well become pro-choice. "I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected."
Odd.
posted by Tom Scharbach @ 7:56 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
I am reminded of the sad statistics that indicate that access to abortion in some heavily patriarchal cultures has led to aborting female fetuses so that a male can be conceived. I hope that we can turn our energies to protecting the lives of the straight and gay children and adults who are already born, too, if possible.
Post a Comment