Witch Hunts Aren't Always a Bad Thing, Are They?

I read a lot of news. I'm kind of addicted to news like I'm addicted to coffee and cigarettes, which is not to say that I read the news because I enjoy it, but because it's a necessary part of my day. I start with news from the Northwest so I can keep up on the happenings back home. I then expand to cover a variety of mainstream national news stations, including Fox (I like to know my enemies), followed by more obscure news. 

This week, I payed close attention to "Everything but Marriage" and Wal-Mart. If you don't know, "Everything But Marriage" was a bill introduced in Washington that was supposed to expand rights for same-sex couples giving them basically equal rights compared to married heterosexuals, except no marriage certificate. I believe the logic went something like this: religious conservatives, believing non heterosexual relationships to be the epitomy of sin and moral collapse and certainly not worthy of acknowledgement in a kind, loving way, get quite stingy and selfish with the word "marriage", claiming it is a special religious "right" that only a man, a woman, and their government can participate in (personally, I think this makes all heterosexual marriages a little closer to polyamory than anyone is willing to admit, but that's another story). So Washington State said "fine, you religious conservatives can keep your word, but we'll extend the rights to same sex couples because after all, it's only marriage, not the benefits, that you are trying to protect, right? And besides, I'm sure same-sex couples won't miss the stupid unity candle ceremony anyway."

There are only a few arguments that religious conservatives use in claiming same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to happen: 1. Homosexuality is a sin and immoral and there should be lots of burning in hell over this immoral sin. 2. If people are allowed to marry the same gender, what next? Kids and animals? 3. It's not good for the children, 4. (one of my favorites, masking bigotry in pseudo intellectual argument, and always following failed religious babble, and generally including the phrase "gay agenda") Why do we need to grant homosexuals SPECIAL RIGHTS? If they want to marry, they can marry some one of the opposite sex too, and 5. But marriage is a sacred religious institution designed for a man and a woman. . . packaged specifically by Bride Magazine and DeBeers Jewlers, wrapped in a travel package, and copyrighted by GOD (I think the Pope may have a patent pending on the cumberbund). "Marriage is sacred" religious conservatives claim. Besides, why should same-sex couples get to enjoy being themselves, happy to enjoy the partner of their choice, when religious conservatives themselves must hide their own lust from GOD in bathroom stalls and behind spouses who they actually don't much care for? It just isn't fair.

These arguments are old and tired, and I won't bother with another rant on why they are illogical and plain stupid. You know the song and dance. 

What happened in Washington State is clear proof that what it boils down to is that those religious conservatives citing any number of the abpove reasons and many more against same-sex marriage just don't want to share, and certainly don't feel they should have to share with people they have deemed worthless of equal rights. 

The governor of Washington thought maybe she could appease both sides, granting rights but no "marriage" certificate. The most telling quote is as follows: "This isn't about benefits, it really isn't," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith and Freedom Network. "It's about redefining marriage." I want to go on, and on, and on about how wrong this is, but I don't have to, and I haven't even reached my point yet. Here goes. . .

R-71 seeks to overturn what was granted by the state. Petitioners petitioned, so according to law, they get to have their day at the ballot boxes. I see what happened with Prop 8 about to happen in my own home State. On October 14, lawmakers from Washington will be traveling to California to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to make the names of the petitioners public. One giant list of people trying to limit the rights of anyone who is not heterosexual. One giant list accessible to anyone. Opponents of making this list public claim there will be harassment by gays and lesbians towards the people who signed the petition. Hmmm. . . what does this potentially sound like? Could it be that opponents of providing equal rights to same-sex couples fear they will be victims of a . . . WITCH HUNT? Are they afraid they might be shunned or treated badly? Maybe people will say nasty things to them about being cold hearted, selfish ignorant pricks?

Personally, I don't care what they are worried about. Maybe it's about time that the conservative religious groups and individuals who signed this petition had a taste of what it feels like to live in fear, to be treated like a social pariah, to be shunned. I know that for me personally, if I had a child and saw for instance the name of my child's teacher on that list, I'd pull my kid from the class.

I'm sure none of this will happen. I'm pretty sure that the list won't be made public, but it sure is nice to know that there is already some fear from the potential fallout.  

I hope the list gets made public.

As for Wal-Mart. . . next time.