Subscribe
Follow Us
I Wish I Had Written This #11: Gay Marriage and Civil Rights
Jan 19Steve Crescenzo wrote “Trying to answer the civil rights question of our time.” I wish I had written this.
Here is a short list of people who ARE allowed to marry:
Wife beaters, pedophiles, child molesters, husband beaters, rapists, child beaters, pornography peddlers, pornography addicts, pornography stars, Pat Robertson (who probably falls into several of the categories already mentioned).
Men who are wanted by the law for not paying child support, convicted felons, Dr. Phil, the Goeslings, White Sox fans, Tiger Woods, serial killers, retarded people, Sarah Palin (who falls into at least the previous category), asshole yuppies, Timothy Geithner, terrorists, bank robbers, Peeping Toms, serial masturbators, drunks, drug dealers, drug addicts, repeat DUI offenders, tax cheats, cross dressers, bullies, frat boys, and Oprah.
And here is the list of people who can NOT marry:
Gay people.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
You know, I mentioned a few writers that I read all the time. Steve’s Corporate Hallucinations is one of those. Now you know why.
About the Author
Frank Roche
Frank started IFRACTAL over 7 years ago with Sarah Chambers. Together, they've created HR communications and HR software for some of the world's leading companies. Frank is also studying Flamenco guitar and origami.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Featured Product
Social Media
Flickr
I wish I had written it too. Thanks for sharing.
i laughed and cried as i read this piece earlier this morn. in the parts you pulled, he was channeling you.
f
Sharlyn and Fran…i have re-read that one several times.
Fran…I’ve been on equivalent rants about the same topic, that’s for sure.
Good stuff Frank. Thanks for bringing this blog to my attention.
Paul, he’s really good. And that article…yeah. It’s great. So true.
Future generations will look back at this the way we remember segregation and our ancestors remember women’s suffrage.” The consequence of not allowing gay marriage is violating the civil rights of those who would enter into it. Despite all the pomp & circumstance that surrounds church weddings, marriage is a contract that affords a host of rights.
Our ancestors fought a war and built this country to protect our rights and freedoms. Congress has expanded those rights over the years because it’s their duty to guarantee everyone equal protection under the law. Fact: gay men and women don’t get equal protection. It seems like a no brainer from there. We should replace the Defense of Marriage Act with the Defense of the Civil Rights Act.
Sarah…”The Defense of Civil Rights Act.” Someone should run with that…brilliant turn of a phrase. Frank Luntz isn’t the only one who can come up with distilled political phrasing.
What does this writing accomplish? It’s a taunt that only reinforces the resolve that one already has on the topic.
Seems to me that this type of writing takes you backward, not forward.
John, first, I agree with what Steve wrote. It’s a civil rights issue to me. And sometimes it takes more than the appearance of cooperation, it takes a big club. This is, to me, a defining moment of my generation. I do think we’ll look back years from now and wonder how separate but equal was considered okay on any front.
I wish I had written this, but I’m just as happy to have read it.
Big thanks to all of you who are defending my right to marry the person I love. Your support on this issue and the way you speak to others about it whether you are straight or gay means the world to a lot more people than you know.