“Anti-gay amendments are the Happy Meal toy of Republican politics.” – A Meandering Post on Gay & Women’s Rights

“Anti-gay amendments are the Happy Meal toy of Republican politics.” So says Chris Kelly, who has a good piece in Huffington today about Florida introducing a new Marriage Protection Amendment on the 2008 ballot. Forgive the dripping sarcasm, he makes a good point.

So come on down! And while you’re in there, marking the magic X that proves you’re not a homo — and that your life wasn’t a squalid waste of everyone’s time, because at least you got yerself hitched — why not also vote for a Republican president?

Something for you. Something for the GOP. It’s a get-out-the-vote win/win.

The amendment is being pushed by John Stemberger head of Florida4Marriage, which according to Kelly is

a Republican front group, run by a personal injury lawyer, to lure gay-hating boobs into the voting booths next November.

Although the the Federal “Defense” of Marriage Act applies to Florida, this push for a change to the state constitution is a “just in case” measure to firm up wording that clever homosexuals may, at some point in the future, use to challenge the definition of marriage and ultimately subject children to the “vast, untested social experiment” that is same sex marriage.

They get much of their support material from “Focus on the Family” who, when not embroiled against the ignoble war on Christmas, is propagating the gay-is-evil Christian world view with gems like these -

• No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal.

• It is an affront to African-Americans to say having past generations being prevented from taking a drink from a public water fountain or being sprayed down by fire hoses in a public park was on par to laws preventing a man from marrying another man. The comparison is shameful.

• Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not just dream up the need for such an amendment. We have been forced into this battle because a very small few want to constitutionally redefine marriage for all of us. Same-sex activists brought this fight to all of us. (Er…”very small few?”)

A little more digging at family.org, and I discovered the predictably misogynistic take on heterosexual marriage. The best bits are “What I Didn’t Know About Men – Seven Revelations“. These include – men need respect, men are providers, men want more sex, and…

Men care about appearance.
What that means in practice: You don’t need to be a size 3, but your man does need to see you making the effort to take care of yourself — and he will take on significant cost or inconvenience in order to support you.

There’s plenty more, of course, including a the follow-up section “You Are Her Prince Charming“, but you can check it out yourself, if you’re so inclined.

Tags: Defense of Marriage, Gay Rights, Womens Rights