Monday, September 19, 2011

NOM's Double Speak

http://www.nomblog.com/13941


“It makes little sense to claim you care about educational failure, violence and poverty, and then say you don’t care about people getting and staying married,” countered Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage. Lack of support for traditional marriage, she said, “is the source of a huge part of these problems in Maryland.”
... “It is sad the the only thing the governor wants to do for marriage is redefine it by cutting it off from its roots” in child-rearing, said Gallagher.

Firstly, I've already addressed the lack of link between marriage and child-rearing, so Mrs. Gallagher is wrong on that count. Though I must commend Mrs. Gallagher, who, despite having a bastard child, is still committed to making sure that no children are born out of wedlock in the future.

Second, it's blatant double-speak to call for people to get married and then actively deny them the right to marry whom they love. It's as if Mrs. Gallagher is telling people to get married, so long as Mrs. Gallagher says it's okay. And NOM's side has the audacity to call equality activists tyrants. 

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Censorship

http://www.nomblog.com/13905/


One of the biggest promises of the Internet was that it would have unfettered free speech for all.
However, a new study released Thursday revealed that Christians are one of the few groups being censored online.
The new media platforms of our world -- Facebook, Google, Apple, and MySpace -- all promise a world filled with much more free speech and democracy.
But the National Religious Broadcasters has warned these platforms could well be the new anti-religious censors of our day.
The NRB conducted a study of the social networking websites that showed even among the largest of the sites, only Twitter hasn't censored Christians.

I'm going to propose a new rule. When you censor comments on your own blog that are contributing to the discussing but offer a differing viewpoint (as many of my comments have been but not made it past NOM's censors), then you aren't allowed to complain when someone censors your point of view. Does that seem fair to everyone?
As for the study itself, it was conducted by the National Religious Board. I am not going to say that they have an agenda to fill, but I will say that the study would have more weight behind it, in my mind, if it were conducted by an independent group, or a group that looks at civil rights and censorship (like the ACLU). I am against censorship, even censorship of unpopular views. 
I would like to point out my favorite quote from the original article, however.
"Then you're thinking, 'Wait just a minute. We've crossed over into this netherworld where offense is now the justification upon which the rights we have as Americans to fully engage in the culture and to debate all issues is going to be decided?'" May asked"


It's funny, because Christians, the group allegedly being censored, oppose gay rights and gay marriage because it morally offends them. I guess that it is a worse crime to have your first amendment rights violated than it is to have your fourteenth amendment rights violated.


The last thing I will add is that gay people, in some countries and in some areas of the US, also have their first amendment rights trampled upon, not being able to say "I'm gay" without fear of community backlash (e.g. bullying in school, which has lead to suicides). So please, NOM and Christians, do NOT play the victim here; if anything, you perpetuate a culture of dehumanizing someone for their identity. That is FAR worse than not being able to say "Gay marriage is bad because..."



Thursday, September 15, 2011

NY Clerks and Marriage Licenses

http://www.nomblog.com/13839


People for the American Way Foundation (PFAW) is threatening legal action against a New York town unless its clerk starts issuing same-sex marriage licenses — or resigns.
Rose Marie Belforti made national headlines last month when she announced that her Christian beliefs would not allow her to sign same-sex marriage licenses, and that a deputy clerk would now fulfill this particular task.
According to PFAW, Belforti has committed a misdemeanor for refusing to personally issue two women a marriage license on Aug. 30. If the board fails to force Belforti to “perform her essential duties” or resign, the liberal advocacy group vows to take legal action on the women’s behalf.

So, NOM has decided to take the side of Ms. Beiforti in this scenario of Ms. Beiforti refusing to do her job based on moral reasons. It's funny because NOM attacked Obama for doing the same with DOMA. I guess so long as it's "defending marriage," any tactic is okay. Of course, if Maggie or Brian wishes to dispute this, I would love the chance to present an interview on this blog so that they might explain the double standards of their organization.



And this wouldn't be complete without ignorant comments from the site, so, let's begin with one from Michael Ejercito
Just like the NYC government forced its police department to issue pistol permits to those not legally prohibited from carrying pistols?


So, Mr. Ejercito, in your mind, the proliferation of gay marriage in the state of New York is similar to the proliferation of handguns in New York City? That certainly reveals the feelings of Mr. Ejercito towards gay marriage and it's impact on society.




Here is a comment from Louis E.


Like the ACLU,PFAW is a group my family *used* to support,until they got involved in issues where we were not in agreement with their stand...


Yeah, why would anyone want to support an organization whose stated purpose is to protect the rights of Americans everywhere?




Last one, from TC Matthews.



Live and let live right? Why is it so necessary to *force* everyone into agreement? It's not enough to force the redefinition of marriage on the nation, but we all have to like it too. Ridiculous.


This one requires a little more dissection.


1). Live and let live? Sort of like this marriage clerk is doing? 
2). It's not forcing anyone into a moral agreement, it is just trying to get Ms. Belforti to do the job she was elected to do. 
3). You don't have to like it, you merely have to abide by the law. For example, I find it absolutely appalling that there are speed limits on the road. I do not agree with them morally (why should the government tell me how fast I can go?). And yet if I break the law, I get in trouble. Weird, right?
4). The only thing ridiculous is the outrage of Mr. Matthews, surpassed only by the sheer inanity of NOM for implicitly defending someone deliberately not doing her job. 





Wednesday, September 14, 2011

NOM's own echo-chamber

http://www.nomblog.com/9301/


All of which serves to create the desired "echo chamber" effect:
report by the Media Consortium detailed how progressives had created an "echo chamber" of outlets "in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times." According to the report called "The Big Thaw," "if done well, the message within the echo chamber can become the accepted meme, impact political dynamics, shift public opinion and change public policy."

NOM accuses George Soros of an echo-chamber effect? It's funny, since NOM does the exact same thing (Ruth Institute is deeply connected to NOM, as part of it's "education fund").  And if that wasn't enough, NOM constantly blogs or tweets when it gets coverage in other media. Except when it's bad


I wouldn't be upset about this, but don't accuse others of a tactic that you yourself are doing. But then again, when you are desperate for attention as NOM is, then you're allowed to go against your own words. 

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

North Carolina will vote on marriage

http://www.nomblog.com/13673

"This is a big win for marriage and for democracy!" says Brian Brown. "The big lie in politics is that the marriage fight is over. This vote proves once again the pundits are wrong: the people want the right to decide the future of marriage. NOM reached out to more than 100,000 North Carolinians in the last few days, making sure they told their representatives they want the right to vote for marriage. Congratulations to each and every North Carolinian voter for this big win, and thanks in particular to the Family Research Council, North Carolina Family Policy Council and the North Carolina Values Coalition for all their hard work in making this vote happen.”


The italicized portion is what is hilarious, since it was the exact same method of there being marriage equality in New York. If the state legislature passing something is evidence of the will of the people in North Carolina, shouldn't it be the will of the people on New York, too? Not according to Brian Brown, since NOM is still campaigning to get people to vote on the issue at some point in New York.


There is a larger issue at work here; that issue is whether or not people should vote on matters of civil rights. Ending segregation in the 50's would have been an issue of "redefining what's right." Even after Brown v. Board of Education (which, for those of you keeping score at home, ruled that "In the field of public education, separate but equal has no place." Extending that logic, civil unions looked at as equal to marriage would also be ruled "unconstitutional" by the 14th Amendment), people still were pro-segregation. And if marriage is not a civil right, then it must therefore be a privilege that the government can regulate and license. If this is the case, then so-called "defenders of marriage" really should have no complaint when the judicial branch of government decides to intervene. 


By the way, here's a quote from the afore-referenced George Wallace. "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"  


The rhetoric is disturbingly similar to the rhetoric used by NOM and its supporters, using words like tyranny to describe the opposition (ironic, given that the opposition to George Wallace likely [and rightfully so] called Wallace bigoted). The use of "tyranny" also makes it out like people like George Wallace or groups like NOM are the victim in the matter of equal rights. To put this in perspective, imagine the following scenario:


John wants to build a pool in his backyard. In preparation, he builds a fence since he wants an in-ground pool. Bob, his neighbor, is religiously opposed to pools. John meanwhile goes through the proper legal channels to allow a pool to be placed in his backyard. He buys the extra insurance, he finds a really nice pool liner, and talks with a contractor to help build the pool. Bob, fearing a life where he has to look at a fence that hides a pool, decides to go to the mayor of the city and complain, saying the pool violates his right to religion as well as his democratic-right to vote. Bob, in desperation, holds a campaign where he claims that his rights as a citizen are being violated because he is being "denied" the "right" to tell someone else what to do on their own property, that, in the grand scheme of things, has no impact on Bob whatsoever. Bob also argues that it is bad for the neighborhood and that it will hurt property value, or be a danger to children who could fall in and drown. Because Bob has lots of money coming in from his anonymous anti-Pool donors, gets to hold a vote on the matter that is city-wide: Does John get to have a pool even though it morally offends Bob?


Can't we all see how ridiculous that is? Seriously, if this were to happen in real life, we'd all laugh, right? We'd all tell Bob to take a long walk off a short pier? Why should Bob's opposition to fences be ANY different than NOM's opposition to gay marriage? 


There is also the whole messiah-complex, too, of representing "great" people and their "great" political positions that happen to deny equal rights. Can anyone else see Brian Brown sweating in his tax-exempt suit delivering a fiery sermon in front of small throng of supporters shouting "Man and woman today, man and woman tomorrow, man and woman forever"?

Sunday, September 11, 2011

NOM's lying headline

http://www.nomblog.com/12893/

NOM"s headline reads "

NJ School District Yanks Lesbian Sex Book From Required Middle School Summer Reading List"


And yet the article describes it as a high school. So NOM blatantly lied in the title of their headline. 

And as for the matter itself, it's a book. There have been several banned books that are of great literary merit, such as The Catcher in the Rye, Fahrenheit 451, or even Lord of the Flies. It always deeply troubles me when parents attempt to censor what students in high school read. Reading gives us new ideas and forces us to think about ideas we might not have thought about otherwise. 


For the record, the book in question (at least according to NOM's picture on the site) is Norweigan Wood which is really well reviewed. Also, in case you are lazy and not fond of clicking links, the book was insanely popular when it came out in Japan, selling nearly 4 million copies.   

Saturday, September 10, 2011

NC Marriage Amendment Good for Business


http://www.nomblog.com/13478

Groups that oppose the marriage amendment have said the amendment would discourage big corporations from locating in the state and might keep corporations from providing benefits to the partners of gay employees. Nothing could be more baseless. No study, economic or otherwise, has shown that the protection of marriage has yielded negative economic consequences to a state. The fact that 30 states have already protected marriage in their constitutions affirms it is good for business.
In fact, states that have protected marriage have better business rankings than states that have not or states that have redefined marriage to include gay couples. Eight out of the top 10 states ranked by Forbes magazine as the best states for business have a constitutional marriage amendment. North Carolina is one of two states in the top 10 that do not.
Each year, the American Legislative Exchange Council issues a report, "Rich States, Poor States," ranking the economic health of the 50 states. In 2011, all of the top 10 economically healthy states identified in the report have laws affirming that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nine of them in their constitutions. By contrast, the 10 bottom-ranked states for economic health all undermine marriage in their laws.
This is no accident. Strong marriage laws lead to strong economies, because marriage produces future workers who are balanced, stable and healthy.
... Marriage doesn't prevent individuals from living how they want to live. It doesn't prohibit intimate relationships or curtail one's constitutional rights. But by specifically licensing marriage, the State of North Carolina attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, providing the best known and documented environment for the rearing of our next generation.
This is the primary reason that government is in the marriage business and the reason marriage is worth protecting with a constitutional amendment

One commenter noted "THIS EMPOWERS YOU TO KILL SSM NOM" or something like that. Ignorance aside, this article is logically flawed. "Strong marriage lead to strong economies," based on their statistical observations. The implication that SSM weakens marriage is downright funny considering that something like divorce rate might be indicative of states that have strong marriages (I'd like to point out here that New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Iowa, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, all areas with legalized same-sex marriage, do not appear on that list).


The argument that "30 states have protected marriage affirms it is good for business" is downright ludicrous, implying that the majority is always right. I am quite certain that the Jim Crow laws were good for business back in the day, too.
I'd like to point out that there are a whole host of variables not accounted for by the author of this article or by NOM. Things other than marriage affect economy, such as state business tax laws, or the state unemployment rate. To draw a line in the sand like that and say that equal rights hurt economies is not doing justice to the matter at hand, nor is it a logical thought process. For example, it is very easy to observe that ice cream sales increase at the beach around the same time that the number of beached whales increase. Based on that observation using NOM's and ALEC's inane logic, one would conclude that in order to prevent whales from being beached, one must stop the sale of ice cream.


On a side note, the group that made those observations, the American Legislative Exchange Commission, is heavily criticized for its behavior. The current chairman of ALEC, Noble Ellington (ironic name?) has been quoted as saying "the taxpaying public is represented...because I'm there", which seems to go in direct contrast to NOM's "Let the people vote" idea. (For those of you keeping score at home, this is now [at least] two times NOM has gone against its own ideal of letting people vote on matters). 



SSM is not "Real justice"

http://www.nomblog.com/13301/


Robert Reilly has worked in foreign policy, the military, and the arts. He writes in MercatorNet:
"...it is no longer tolerance, but the demands of justice that seem to require legally equating homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage, something no other civilization in recorded history has done.
But before justice can be enlisted on behalf of this cause, we should ask ourselves: what is justice? The classical answer to this question is that justice is giving to things what is their due according to what they are. In other words, to act justly, one must first know what things are. When one knows what something is, one then understands what it is for. The purpose of the thing then determines whether our actions toward it are a use or an abuse. This is where the matter of justice comes in.
One does not get to make up what things are. If that were the case, then justice could be anything that one said it was. That is what tyrants do. This would be arbitrary, and what is arbitrary is by definition tyrannical. It is based upon pure will, unguided by reason. Those who wish to base their freedom upon the supposed purposelessness of things should face the consequences of this view. What seems unmitigated freedom is, in fact, the foundation of tyranny."

Ummm...several other nations have same-sex marriage equated to heterosexual marriage, so you're wrong on that count. 


Next, the philosophical view on what justice is, saying that wanting equal rights is "tyranny". The thing is, the root word of "justice" is "Just" which essentially deals with fairness in an issue. Justice is blind, that is why it does not look at the purpose of marriage in this case - to do so would be to qualify justice based on what is "good and right" by someone's arbitrary definition and defeat the purpose of justice.  


And it's ironic that NOM is posting this, given the line "One does not get to make up what things are." The irony? NOM is trying to make up a federal marriage amendment to define marriage as one man one woman, essentially creating that as the truth for our civilization as the only legally-recognizable relationship. 


For NOM to break down something so beautiful as human sexuality into black and white definitions of what is wrong and what is right and the attempt to make that into law is the true tyrannical action here. 

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Sunday Comments on Sex and Marriage

http://www.nomblog.com/13147


While Denny Smith, Executive Director of Winning Marriage Equality, lists plenty of nice things that happen to be part of marriage (and other deep friendships as well), he is passionately convinced that "marriage is not about sex ... it's not about sex":
Marriage isn't about sex at all? We wonder what married people would think about that claim.
Denny's claim that marriage isn't about sex proves the point our President Brian Brown made in this week'sMarriage News:
"Gay marriage is a radical proposal because it cuts marriage off at the root, separating it from its roots in human nature."

Let's round up some comments

Here's one from John Noe

Marriage is about the union of one man and one woman. It is about the sex because only heterosexual sex can produce future offspring.


To save myself time, I'll address it at the same time as addressing this gem from Louis E.


Anyone who doesn't understand that marriage exists to unite males to females (those are the sexes of the partners) doesn't understand marriage at all.


Well, they're both wrong. Marriage is not about procreation.  If I may quote the ruling, "Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Griswold v. Connecticut"


Here's one from twingirl2


If marriage is not about SEX, then let's just all drop the label "sameSEX" as a label to claim it applies to sameSEX people. A little sameSEX honesty is in order on the bit and switch politics of sameSEX activists. First you use SEX acts to describe people as either homo or hetero-SEXual (because they have SEX with each other), and then you lump them toegether also based on their gender as non-similar groups because they have male or female homoSEXual or heteroSEXual or biSexual attraction, still based on gener or sex (male or female). It is dishonest and ingenuous to then claim that that same activity, SEX, doesn't really matter in the relationship because it is all about love and commitment and wine and sunsets. No, it IS about sex, but not about only sex acts, but about sexuality itself.


You missed capitalizing SEX a few times at the end there. And yes, we should drop the same sex label and just say it's "marriage" because that's what it is. The joining of two consenting adults into a civil contract called marriage. Everything else is kind of gibberish.


Here is a winner from Tim


Really CJR?? You think this is a description of marriage? It may be a description of a relationship but it has NOTHING to do with the fundamental nature of marriage. This describes parts of a good friendship or a romantic relationship but NOT a marriage. You may want to redefine marriage to be just this but it ISN'T! Marriage is protected and valued in society because of it's nature and ability to bond a woman and man together into more than they are alone. The capacity that they have together to procreate and to provide, care, and develop their children, to provide a home, the social foundation and fabric of a true family that is the fundamental unit of society IS what marriage is about. If marriage isn't about procreation and the upbringing of children then it isn't really marriage. And don't raise the issue of couples who cannot procreate because of age or infertility. God has proven over and over that He can and does overcome those issues. The examples of Abraham being a simple one. In the depths of old age and infertility Abraham and Sarah concieved a child that was destined for greatness. Homosexual couples lack the capacity to produce a child or provide the same home (both a mother and a father) in which to best care for a new life.


Umm...he's not trying to redefine marriage. He's just saying that procreation and having sex aren't essential to marriage. As for the God argument put forth, I'd like to point out that Jesus killed a figtree (what sane God does that?) and that in general the bible is kind of crazy if you actually read it. Seriously though, Tim is using the bible as proof that infertile women or impotent men can procreate? And Abraham as an example? The man was ready to kill his child for God. Doesn't exactly sound like father of the year material to me. Everything else said by Mr. tim is kind of pointless, as gay couples can provide a home and care for a child. That, and finally, marriage isn't about procreation; otherwise, it would be a requirement. Even Massachusetts said that limiting marriage to one man one woman doesn't do anything to make sure heterosexual couples don't have bastard children (Like Maggie Gallagher). 


Here's another winner from MikeGLBT


The sex act is a pleasure and it is a fact of reproduction. Taking the purpose of sex out of the picture is what helps create the illusion of false equivalancy of a couple of the same sex and a man and a woman. The marriage idea was never intended to be the vehicle to make the appearance of 2 men as a couple or 2 women as a couple the same as a man and a woman. They are different. Profoundly and extremely different. Our American obsession for equal rights and equality should not be fooled by this bogus double talk. There is nothing wrong with the special status of a man and a woman as a married couple. It does not make anyone any more or less different.


Marriage was never intended to be an equal partnership between man and woman, it was originally done as a property exchange.  And yes, congratulations, a man-man couple is different from a man-woman couple, just as a black-white couple is different from a white-white couple which is different from an asian-white couple which is different from an asian-black couple, etc. (Oh no, race is being compared to sexuality. Good thing race is not immutable). Every couple is unique, but every couple deserves the same legal recognition by the state. 


And finally, one comment from Michael Ejercito. 




I think his point is marriage is not all about sex ....
So why did Tiger Woods's marriage fail?

I'm kind of curious as to what point Mr. Ejercito is trying to make here. Pointing out a legally-recognized marriage that is clearly a sham does nothing to help your point; if anything, it strengthens the point made by equality activists that marriage is not sacred with rising divorce rates

And to answer Mr. Ejercito's original question, Tiger Woods' marriage failed because he got some bad advice from a caddy who said he should play through and not take the penalty stroke.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Marriage - family or adults

http://www.nomblog.com/12996


Today, many people see marriage as merely an adult centric institution because there is a cultural rift in the connection between marriage and children. Many people put off having children until later in life. Others have children without getting married. Those married with children, due to smaller families and longer life spans, will spend the majority of their married lives without children at home. And, there are an increasing number of adults who never have children. So, for many:
"marriage is merely the public recognition of a committed relationship between loving adults."
However in reality, marriage is a family centric institution. It is the foundation of a stable family. Therefore:
"marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union."
That is what marriage is; that is what marriage does.
Notice that the first definition describes something just for adults—a private relationship with no public benefit.
The second definition, however, describes marriage as the foundation of a family, the foundation of society. Marriage described in this way incorporates the common human desire, of every person, to know and be cared for by his or her own mother and father. Marriage defined this way not only has a public interest, but also is in the interest of every child without exception. Because of this great divergence of understandings about marriage, it is important to clarify which definition you are using when discussing marriage.

NOM likes to argue that marriage is about the family and not the adults. That is fantastic that they wish to argue that; however, it comes off as disingenuous when NOM opposes gay adoption (gay couples trying to start a family). Just to qualify, this is what family means:
a basic social unit consisting of parents and theirchildren, considered as a group, whether dwellingtogether or not: the traditional family.

b.
a social unit consisting of one or more adults togetherwith the children they care for: a single-parent family.

Nowhere is it mentioned that is must be "husband and wife". NOM will argue a child needs a mother and a father, however, this is also disingenuous given that they harp on gay adoption (as opposed to single parents through bastard children [which Maggie knows all about], or single parents through the death of a loved one). In either case, NOM does not put in nearly the same effort to helping those children get two parents as it does in preventing two loving parents from adopting because they are homosexual.