ONTD

4:35 pm - 01/01/2013

Fantasia: 'I'm Not Anti-Gay'



Fantasia Barrino caused a firestorm of controversy when she posted a rant referencing gay marriage on her Instagram account. Some fans thought it sounded very anti-gay but the American Idol alum insists she's anything but.

“I Rise ABOVE IT ALL!!! THE WORLD IS GONE MAD. KIDS, THE GOVERMENT, THE church House… Everybody Trying!!!!!!!,” the singer wrote. “It’s a lot that going on that the Bible speaks about we should Not be doing. Weed legal in some places, Gay Marriage Legal BUT YET IM JUDGED!!! Im not doing Nothing for you… My Life!!!!”

Fantasia's rant was a reference to the criticism she's had aimed at her because she began her affair with her baby daddy Antwaun Cook when he was still married. The two became parents just over a year ago.

The angry response brought about a quick statement from Fantasia's management saying she was a strong supporter of "the LGBT community," and Fantasia herself got back into the fray, posting, "I, Fantasia Monique Barrino, don’t judge anyone because I don’t want to be judged. The gay community is one of my largest supporters. I support the gay community as the support me. Bloggers please stop misrepresenting the facts.”

Source
bittermunchkin 2nd-Jan-2013 02:43 pm (UTC)
DOMA is not a tangent because it is what Windsor is discussing. If you won't discuss legal opinions on gay marriage because the Supreme Court hasn't issued one, you should have said that from the outset and saved us both the effort.
skonka 2nd-Jan-2013 03:07 pm (UTC)
You know what, I'll take half of the responsibility. I should not have been so stubbornly insistent that you stick to my question and Windsor.
If you felt the best way to respond to its import was to reaffirm it's challenge to Section 3 I should have simply jumped onboard.

As it is, I have little doubt same sex marriage will be legalised for whatever reasons they believe or make up. The momentum suggests it is an inevitability.
I still believe it is an unnecessary development because I hold that the issue is more about what marriage empowers you to do rather than the union itself. And even there, I would accept I am ignorant if a gay person were to disagree.

I will never understand why civil union with the same rights isn't a reasonable compromise even as I understand why, to a gay person, it would feel like they are on the shelf but pushed to one side.
bittermunchkin 2nd-Jan-2013 03:17 pm (UTC)
From a very basic and historically supported, non-ideological, legal standpoint, it is a less appealing option because if something is categorized under separate terminology it is subject to separate reforms and restrictions. If states and the federal governments draw a distinction between the two, and who is entitled to enjoy their respective benefits, then it is a simple matter of fact that any kind of change can be passed by the legislative or popular majority altering the privileges of unions while leaving marriage alone. This is a quite logical fear in a democracy, seeing as the vast majority of the population is not gay and therefore is not greatly compelled to care about whether civil unions are screwed with and undermined by legislators. And in fact some would prefer that legislators do so. So that is why, agree or disagree.
skonka 2nd-Jan-2013 03:38 pm (UTC)
That is a fear argued with logic and not reasonable concern. The same people who argue your point also scoff at Christians' fear that this opens the door to forcing Churches to perform same sex marriages. It follows logically, why should a parishioner be denied a church wedding because he or she is gay?

The fact is not gay people do care. I care. I don't want a person not being able to access benefits, subject to penalties nor denied visitation or succession because they are homosexual. That makes no sense.
That is not going to change. People are not against gays having rights, some are simply against gay marriage.
bittermunchkin 2nd-Jan-2013 03:45 pm (UTC)
Unless the Supreme Court argues for the strictness level of scrutiny for sexual orientation based discrimination - which no other US court has argued, and which, considering the court's moderate composition, is very unlikely to occur - the churches forced into marriage argument is not grounded in reality. It is reality that straight people have a track record of being unconcerned, if not outright opposed, to gay rights, and it is fact, not speculation, that separate legal categorizations are just that, and can be treated as just that.
This page was loaded May 24th 2013, 7:21 am GMT.