Am I wearing my feelings on my sleeve?  When Ann Romney addressed the Republican National Convention, she made much ado about her marriage, asking, rhetorically, if it was "an ideal marriage," then answering no, that it was a real marriage" (great emphasis on the "real," to huge applause).  Now, you might say that I am taking this out of context when I suggest that there is a coded message to the anti-lgbt/queer evangelical and Tea Party types in the audience.  But think, anti-abortion advocates call themselves "pro-life," implying that pro choice people are anti-life. These people have well-paid specialists at linguistic torture, men like Frank Luntz, standing in the wings. Isn't it a wee bit possible "real marriage" translates to straight, as opposed to  "gay" or "lesbian" marriage?

Pointedly, her comments after the statement included the observation that when she had her children, Mitt was right there with her at the hospital.  Think: gays and lesbians are often excluded from hospital visits when the policy of the hospital is that under some circumstances (e.g. critical care unit recuperation) ONLY family members are permitted to exercise visitation.  "I'm sorry, no one but family members are admitted at this time."  This is one of those rights straights enjoy that are forbidden to same-sex couples except in states where their marriages -- or unions -- are permitted. 

Even in this A|N group I feel I have to justify my comments on such matters because, after all, this website is all about atheism.  Well, it isn't difficult to explain the importance of this issue on an atheist website.  The only possible justification anyone could have for being homophobic is dogma: all the monotheistic religions base their anti-gay positions on scriptural prohibitions.  Of course, many of the family visitors at the hospital shave themselves before they go, or eat a big shrimp dinner, or go the church on Sunday when the O.T. commands honoring the Sabbath on Friday nights at sundown.  That the believers cling to a few select religious laws and forsake the others makes the argument for same sex marriage all the stronger.  That is, believers have long ago abandoned some Biblical and Shariah laws because they are seen as archaic and inapplicable to the way we are today.  Why not anti-gay as well?

Views: 240

Replies to This Discussion

There was much coded language at the RNC which was anti-gay and anti-minority.  Besides the multiple lies and half-truths, they made it very obvious of who they were trying to attract.  While Ann Romney Told women that she loved them, their anti-female policies speak volumes.  When Romney mentioned taking care of the poor and the sick there was no applause.

Polls show that they have little support from gays, racial minorities, and women. So what they are doing is actually appealing to straight white males who base their decisions on prejudice.  When Ann Romney said that she loved wives and mothers, she was appealing to males who want to return to the 1950's.

Also, parading a bunch of minorities before the RNC only serves to fuel those same white males by saying that they have their fair share of minorities.  Of course, most people of racial minorities, and gay people, know that it is not who you parade on stage, but the issues you support.

As to your second paragraph, I must assume you mean that the average Republican today would fit right with the characters on AMC'S hit show, Mad Men.  Touche'.

Those two zombies, the Romneys, would would run away screaming from the threat of being in a real marriage. I'm sure they do iron out foibles, but I think they just exchange pre-scripted lines that fall within the mormon rule of extreme patriarchal authority they must obey strictly if they want to be good enough mormons to be granted their own planet where they will literally rule as gods making the rules inhabitants of their planet must follow.
Meanwhile some non-zombies, including lots of straights as well as those of us in LGBTQI communities either fortunate enough to be legally married or wrongly denied that right ---some folks other than the Romeys--- engage in real marriages with all of their hearts, minds & wills developing and using skills to notice their own unconscious stuff, compassion for their partner's stuff, willingness to really listen-really, and the integrity to fight fair with their loved one even if it means accepting that they might have been wrong.

(Is that sentence in the running for the Grand Champion Tortured Sentence Award? lol

I write tortured sentences, too, and although I never thought about it this way, I realize you're right.  The comparison might be made to TV'S Mad Men.  Mormon style.  Uh, wait, is that the Angel Moroni I hear calling me?  No, that's just Ann.

James, while it is true that we ordinary writers who torture helpless "sentences" go largely unpunished, the Cheneys et. al. torture humans and go unpunished. Except that we're talking about horrible evil we wouldn't want to do, this still infiltrates my mind as a twisted analogy I could imagine they would make. You know, if we get away scot-free with torturing sentences that's really no different than their getting a way with torturing humans. Sort of like they get legally recognized marriages with all of the $$ and other privileges but that equal treatment for us is satisfied by legal marriages without tax and other federal benefits, civil unions, domestic partnerships or, you oughta just be glad we don't beat the shit out of you for living together.

Okay, that's a real reach, torture compared to marriage rights. Just trying to wiggle my way back to being on topic. ;) And yet... to use a "thought" pattern from the more rabid religious right but substituting my left content: the federal government war criminals who authorized torturing human beings in violation of law and and human decency go unpunished, and the traditional marriage privilege claptrap both make me really, really mad. Therefore, they are really the same thing. (With apologies to anyone for whom their marriage = torture is no joke.)
She said they had a real marriage which is a subtle way of saying other marriages are not real.
A bigot!

That's what I was thinking, too.  Because of the analogy to anti-abortionists.  They call themselves pro-life because it implies anyone pro-abortion is pro death.

The Republican party has long used dog-whistle politics.  As such, even if Mrs. MoneyRomney is not using dog whistle language in her speech, it's still to be expected that we think she is.  Oh what a tangled web we weave.....  we can't tell who is saying what.  If she says "real marriage" and she is speaking for the anti-LGBT party, comes from an active, successful, and well funded anti-LGBT church, then the only reasonable conclusion is that she's using "real marriage" as her dog whistle too.  "Here fido.  Special treat for you!  Here doggie doggie".

"If it Quacks like a Racist".... 


Also an interesting essay on the topic from DKospedia.  

The above is included in the definition of Orwellian Newspeak, as described in the novel 1984.  I hate how the Republicans thing 1984 was a guideline for the future.  It's so doubleplusungood.


Only, she wouldn't be feeding Fido a special treat.  Remember, he's up on the roof of the car.

I think sentient biped got right. As to Romney's dog, Riley, he had enough of riding on the roof. I read somewhere, and choose to believe, a Romney son said Riley ran away on that trip after they arrived in Canada.
Now there is a bumper sticker that reads "Trust Riley".


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service