Note to the world: even if one of my three children turns out to be a homosexual–and no I will not love or care for them any less if they do–I still would not publicly prostitute myself and my principles to the progressive agenda. NHGOP Area 3 Vice Chair J.P. Marzullo, on the other hand, does not have a problem with that. And it is not so much the topic that suggests a progressive thread in the fabric of his otherwise pro-liberty, family values life, as it is the way in he attempts to make his argument.
The vehicle is a November 1st editorial in the Concord monitor in which Marzullo pokes at our ‘Tiny Tim’ gland, pleading with New Hampshire Republican legislators to vote against any change in New Hampshire’s current homosexual marriage law. And like any seasoned social justice Democrat, we get both barrels from the empathy gun. How God was showing him his own personal need to be more understanding and tolerant nineteen years ago. He provides suicide estimates for gay teenagers (I have no idea why). He fingers divorce as a greater danger to the family than Gay marriage (without reminding you that similar left wing social engineering and meddling in ‘marriage’ is almost entirely responsible for the divorce problem). We even get the ‘Gay Americans are legal citizens and productive members of society who fight in the military" routine.
Democrat Chairman Ray Buckley could have wrote this. So has JP come out of the progressive closet?
To be fair he may be an outstanding Republican by every other measure, and that’s great, but he’s clearly got a blind spot when it comes to this issue and the idea of rights, and it invalidates his entire testimony. He is emotionally compromised. So much so that he ignores the real problem. The push for "Gay marriage," like most other Democrat campaigns, has nothing to do with the contractual union of two people who think they love each other. It is just the latest war machine in a centuries long siege on the language and any institution that could detract from the dominant role of government in our daily lives. As a Republican Area Vice Chair, he should know better.
But even if we ignore that, Marzullo does not even try to explain why civil unions, which have been a perfectly acceptable foundation for heterosexual marriage, and are readily available to any couple, are somehow incompatible with his social vision when the couple happens to have matching genitalia?
Is the Area 3 GOP Vice Chair telling us that anyone who has ever been joined in a civil service (a civil union) cannot provide our state with an equal foundation upon which to build strong family values? Are we to understand that they do not have the same civil protections as couples who were were joined in a traditional marriage?
Does the Area 3 GOP Vice Chair know that the House bill defends the civil union provision of the existing statute? Civil service unions for anyone unwilling or unable to seek a traditional marriage are not hampered in any way. As a matter of principle, the state continues to represent its interest in protecting this civil and legal contract regardless of whom you think you love. (with exceptions for age, relationship to would-be spouse…etc.)
So where is the injustice? There isn’t any. It’s all a lie, coated in crocodile tears, and served on a cold plate to make the uneducated sympathetic to a problem that does not even exist in New Hampshire, and JP Marzullo is selling that lie.
People joined in a civil service are just as legal, just as productive, and just as willing to lay down their lives in the military as people who are joined in a traditional marriage. There is no difference. So returning the definition of traditional marriage to its rightful place will do none of the supposed harms the left or their new GOP spokesperson suggest.
And if it matters, if ever I have a child who believes deep down that they are a homosexual, and they find someone they love and want to be with, I’ll still love and care for them just as I always have, but I’ll tell them another secret we Heterosexuals only seem to know about…
When we seek a civil service to form a legal union, we don’t storm the State House, or make a scene, or insist that we change the laws or the language…we just call it a marriage and no one is the wiser for it.
