Mark Monford's sophomoric rant in the San Francisco Chronicle does one thing well: it proves our point that many who are intent on redefining marriage are also deeply committed to marginalizing, stigmatizing and demonizing people who believe in marriage.
Witness how he crows about the news that 70 companies that have filed an amicus brief to overturn DOMA:
Woe to you, oh modern card-carrying homophobe. For it can't be easy to be you right now, what with all the terrifying changes taking place, all the dramatic sexual upheavals and flagrant displays of "unnatural" love being hurled like exotic sushi in your plain hamburger face these days. Oh, you poor dear.
... Behold, dear homophobe, the upwards of 70 major U.S. companies who have just signed an amicus brief -- basically a formal f-you complaint to the federal government and its odious Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- saying the damn thing is bad for business, forces discrimination and inequality in company practices, was written by/for angry encephalitic right-wing thugs who don't know their God from a hole in the seminary wall. I might be making up that last part. But only barely.
... I mean, you can't really call yourself a true American, a real Christian and still openly wear Nikes or Levi's, use Microsoft or Google, or watch Warner Brothers movies, can you? If you really walk your anti-gay talk, well, every one of these companies should be banned from your life, right?
... Don't worry, homophobic American. No one really expects you to boycott all these companies, or even any of them. No one expects you to actually walk your hateful talk. It's not really possible anyway.
52 Comments
Mark Morford writes articles that are satirical and hilarious. You need to learn how to laugh once in a while. If you are upset about this, imagine how upset the people that are actually being harmed by this discriminatory law feel. Get over it.
It's fairly ironic that this post comes from a group that wants to deprive gays and lesbians access to marriage in order to enforce their personal beliefs about marriage on everyone else. The author wants to marginalize, demonize, and stigmatize gays and lesbians and those that believe that ALL Americans deserve equal rights including marriage. I just can't believe the continued hypocrisy of those that spend their lives forcing their beliefs down other people's throats and are surprised when the people that they are oppressing are upset about it.
jamie no one wants to deny gay and lesbians from marrying. We just dont want you to marry each other, and but only because its creepy (satirical, hilarious, and fairly ironic)
The comments so far are as sophmoric and hateful as the referenced article. NOM doesn't want to deny truly equal rights to anybody. They just fundamentally disagree with the "SSM" movement about what marriage is. As far as people "forcing their beliefs down other people's throats ", the "SSM" movements havign been doing that for at least the decade, and the left has generallt been doing it for far longer(primarily through the courts) on issues like abortion.
With regard to the article, it shouldn't be a moral requirement to avoid doing business with these companies, as long as the business the person is engaging in it not itself immoral. It should be left to each person's prudential judgement. If there are alternative companies to do business with, perhaps a pro-marriage person should consider that. But as a practical matter, it would be almost impossible for an average person to avoid doing business with people that disagree with them on some moral issue. It would be wrong to do business with these companies because they support "SSM" though, but why a marriage supporter would do that is beyond me. What about the left? They seem obsessed with boycotts? Are they going to avoid pro-real marriage companies. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't be that hard these days.
correction:The comments so far are as sophmoric and hateful as the referenced article. NOM doesn't want to deny truly equal rights to anybody. They just fundamentally disagree with the "SSM" movement about what marriage is. As far as people "forcing their beliefs down other people's throats ", the "SSM" movements havign been doing that for at least the decade, and the left has generally been doing it for far longer(primarily through the courts) on issues like abortion.
With regard to the article, it shouldn't be a moral requirement to avoid doing business with these companies, as long as the business the person is engaging in it not itself immoral. It should be left to each person's prudential judgement. If there are alternative companies to do business with, perhaps a pro-marriage person should consider that. But as a practical matter, it would be almost impossible for an average person to avoid doing business with people that disagree with them on some moral issue. It would be wrong to do business with these companies because they support "SSM" though, but why a marriage supporter would do that is beyond me. What about the left? They seem obsessed with boycotts. Are they going to avoid pro-real marriage companies. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't be that hard these days. But how's that "protesting corporate grede" with your Iphone working out?
Jamie Ward,it is the personal beliefs of those who identify as "gays and lesbians" that obligate society to marginalize them.Penalties can be deserved,and are not "oppression".
Now come on NOM, tell the truth. Nobody crows the way you do.
And I have never understood the "forcing down another's throat" thing. If marriage equality is legal in the United States, that doesn't mean that anybody is forced to marry somebody of the same sex. However, if marriage equality remains illegal in the United States, then the ones who are opposed to marriage equality are preventing those who want to marry somebody of the same sex from doing so. That's the real throat-forcing (to coin a term).
Oh, and spare me the drivel about "gays are just as free to marry somebody of the opposite sex as anybody else." That is a disingenuous argument and you know it. Continuing to say it only makes the speaker look bad.
"If marriage equality is legal in the United States, that doesn't mean that anybody is forced to marry somebody of the same sex. "
Marriage equality already exists in the U.S. Marriage eligibility is not defined on the basis of sexual orientation; hence, all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their stated sexual orientation. Restating that fact is necessary for those in perpetual denial of their unexercised rights, tantrums and putdowns of the pro-SSM crowd notwithstanding.
Changing marriage from its opposite-sexed definition to that of any two individuals (which isn't exactly accurate, as not all same-sex couples would still qualify for a marriage license) affects everyone, and does, in fact, "force itself down our throats."
Furthermore, what Mark fails to acknowledge is that those who wish to maintain the opposite-sexed nature of marriage would protest the "marriage" of two straight people, as much as that of two individuals who call themselves homosexual.
Frankly, it's narcissistic to assume that the issues is about sexual orientation. Personally, I could care less about someone's sexual orientation, when it comes to marriage. The less I know about someone's sex life, the better. "Homophobic?" I think not. Mark's obsession with his and others' orientation is quite self-centered, but the reality is, the universe does not revolve around his proclivity for practicing sodomy.
Anti-miscegenation laws also treated all people equally: everybody had the right to marry somebody of the same race as their own; nobody had the right to marry a person of a different race. We know how well that held up.
John B,what race people are is irrelevant to marriage while the partners being of opposite sexes represents the entire purpose of marriage (and miscegenation laws were struck down because they got in the way of it).
Niscegenation laws were struck down because the SCOTUS
Miscegenation laws were struck down because the SCOTUS determined they violated the 14th amendment. There is not one word in the opinion about procreation.
"Marriage eligibility is not defined on the basis of sexual orientation"
Actually, it is. Straight people choose potential marriage partners based on their sexual orientation, as do gay people. You may as well say worshipping God is not based on religious belief: everyone has the equal right to join a Christian church, even Jews and Muslims!
These companies are not above divine law. While they mock traditional marriage now as a mere business inconvenience, they will be accountable to our creator who may not care so much about a pair of tennis shoes or the internet.
Marriage is about putting men and women together, not setting the races apart.
Apples and oranges.
Daughter of Eve, I've already pointed out to you before that even according to Paul Clement, "it is reasonable to regard DOMA as drawing a line based on sexual orientation." And you even thanked me for it. Remember?
The thing you're restating isn't a fact. Rather, it's your opinion, which is contrary to every available legal authority.
Freedom of Speech, i guess: "I might be making up that last part. But only barely." Actually, he's a bad judge of it. He's making it all up, out of hate. He's going to hate us more, when DOMA stands.
Absolutely not, Andrew D: Clement, defending DOMA, for the BLAG (Bi-Partisan Legal Advisory Group, of the US House of Reps.), does not write what you claim: "it is reasonable to regard DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act, a current law of the land for Federal purposes] as drawing a line based on sexual orientation." All you have to do is to provide a reference we can check. When i quote Clement, i provide the court case name, as in legal jargon. NOM's blog is where you can discuss civil marriage law, without your comment getting buried by 250 tangential comments, and you face educated, logical minds. Don't wiggle around.
I'm afraid, Andrew, that I do not remember our previous dialogue. You'll have to forgive me, but I do a lot of multi-tasking in my brain, and I don't keep a good track of individual conversations with strangers--no offense to you. I'm not sure what exactly I thanked you for, but it was not to admit that marriage is based on sexual orientation--probably to thank you for clarifying someone's quote. But if you can find my original quote, I can qualify my previous statement.
Marriage might well have evolved based on a general opposite-sexed mutual attraction, but the fact is (and this is not my opinion), that marriage eligibility law is not based on sexual attraction, but on gender. You will not find any marriage application that requires proof of sexual orientation. This is how our govt. dispenses blind justice, by treating all citizens equally, without regard for sexual orientation.
Not all same-sexed couples meet the requirements of eligibility to get a govt. licensed marriage, and neither do all opposite-sexed couples. And it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and everything to do with gender. There is nothing wrong with classifying different kinds of relationships differently.
Miscegenation laws, which had everything to do with "interbreeding," were struck down without any idea of changing the opposite-sexed nature of marriage. Pigmentation is a non-issue in marriage eligibility.
Unless you're willing to endorse "marriages" between two brothers, or between a same-sexed parent and child, are you really all for making marriage "equal?" Or can you recognize the difference between different kinds of relationships?
I was particularly fond of this part of the quote, which the author of this post coincidentally left out:
"I see you there, mumbling angrily at how New York has had legal gay marriage for four whole months and so far, no hellfire, chaos, no petrified Christian children melting into goo in the streets. I see you horrified at how seven other states and 10 countries are thriving happily with gay marriage, God apparently not really giving the slightest damn about how anyone expresses their consensual, reverential, wholehearted love, so long as they just do."
Interesting. What do you all who oppose SSM have to say about that?
I'll let you in on a little secret. America was founded on the basis of freedom of religion and FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.
Keep your religion (and ignorant opinions) out of this country's politics. We have more important things to worry about than what somebody else is doing behind closed doors that has absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever.
Bruce,I didn't mention procreation.
Rob,there is a public interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships because they're opposite-sex.Sexual orientation doesn't exempt anyone from fulfilling that requirement to serve the public interest in order to qualify for recognition as a marriage.
Louis, you never cease to amuse me with your frequent use of circular arguments. Keep it up.
Funny, the first thing that struck me in this article was the use of obscenities. Why is it that BLTG advocates resort to such hateful choices of words? It is more evidence that homosexuality is a psychological disorder of "suspended adolescence;" wherein the afflicted can not move on to adulthood. Witness the drinking, drug use, sexual experimentation, cussing, and naivety in their lifestyle.
Bust Monford for hate speech.
These miscreants are demanding the right to use our God given gift of freedom to deny everybody else access to the source of our freedom. I wonder if these miscreants understand that the concept of "Judges" was gleaned from the Judeo-Christian faith.
We the people must be protected from the unwarranted encroachments these miscreants are demanding be codified into law.
@John B: "Anti-miscegenation laws also treated all people equally: everybody had the right to marry somebody of the same race as their own; nobody had the right to marry a person of a different race."
This is not true. The Virginia statute under examination in Loving only prohibited interracial marriages involving Whites. Racial minorities could marry each other.
@Bruce: "Miscegenation laws were struck down because the SCOTUS determined they violated the 14th amendment. There is not one word in the opinion about procreation."
"...fundamental to our very existence and survival" sounds like a reference to procreation.
Bryce,I state things that can not be sanely questioned and you demonstrate your lack of sanity by questioning them.Keep it up.
Bryce calls Louis out on his circular reasoning, and Louis responds with more circular reasoning.
"FREEDOM FROM RELIGION."
Where do our founding documents state that? A quote would be helpful. Thanks,
@Pat
"BLTG" OMG LOL!!
I call Bryce out on his denial of facts,and Bruce denies the facts.
I wasn't referring specifically to Loving v. Virginia; I was referring to previous decisions that upheld anti-miscegenation laws as constitutional (e.g., Pace v. Alabama in 1883). The point being that legal decisions on constitutionality, even at SCOTUS level, can be overturned.
BTW in Virginia, there were only two classes for legal purposes: white and "colored", and thus the law was not discriminatory because it applied equally to both classes: if you were white you could not marry a "colored" person, and if you were "colored" you could not marry a white person. All citizens were treated equally, regardless of their race. Of course that wasn't really true then, and it isn't really true now.
"'FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.
Where do our founding documents state that? A quote would be helpful. Thanks,"
DOE, so are you suggesting that people should be coerced into religion? Surely the right to religious liberty means nothing unless it also includes the right to be non-religious and to not have religion forced upon one's self.
Little man, it's a direct quote from Golinski v OPM, docket number 119, page 20. Go ahead and check.
Daughter of Eve, you thanked me for providing the quote, I wasn't implying anything else.
@Daughter of Eve
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In case you didn't get that, I'll copy and paste the clause that proves freedom from religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Get it? The argument against SSM provided by NOM is unconstitutional. How any of this is permissible by the legal system is beyond me.
The former constricts the later; Paul: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Marriage corruption supporters only concern themselves with those parts of speech that appear to give their argument merit when taken out of context. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. constitution renders faith immutable under the law; whereas sexual depravity is not even afforded suspect class status.
Make no mistake; these miscreants need the 1st Amendment taken out in order to mandate acceptance of their depravity. In the world of the same-sex enthusiast the 14th Amendment trumps the 1st.
Makes me wonder if these miscreants understand that ‘Alice in Wonderland’ was not a documentary?
Miscreant:
somebody who behaves in a dishonest, malicious, or otherwise contemptible way
Daughter of Eve, as to the rest of your comment: you are merely restating your conclusion that the law treats gays and straights alike. It's a fallacious conclusion. Paul Clement disagrees. Multiple courts disagree. You're entitled to it, but you should know better than to present it as some undeniable fact.
Andrew D,if the constitution needs to be amended to prohibit courts from denying that allegedly-fallacious conclusion then it needs to be amended,because no other conclusion should be allowed.
No, Paul: You are not going to be able to remove religious people from the political process. We hae as much right as you to vote according to our value system. Another little 'secret' - the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Get real.
Daughter of Eve: Very nicely put. There are many kinds of same-sex potential partnerships which are not part of same-sex civil marriage advocacy.
@Little man
I'm not suggesting that Christians should not be allowed to vote. I'm suggesting that this is an issue that shouldn't be up for vote in the first place. For a law to come into existence, there must be objective reasoning behind its motivation. Your religion is your opinion, which is not objective. The only way this would be acceptable is if the church was under some sort of attack, which it is not. If you think it is, you need to do some homework.
@Randy E King
This comment is long, so I'm breaking it into two parts.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Those two clauses are not contradictory as they state two separate points: congress is not allowed to make laws based solely on a religious standpoint and congress is not allowed to make laws prohibiting the expression of a religion. In other words, you have the right to think that gays are sexual deviants and the church has the right to condemn them. However, you do not have the right to say who can and cannot stand before a judge and get married, simply because your religion says so.
In the event that you're assuming that marriage is only a religious institution, then you would be correct in saying that the points contradict one another. However, marriage does not only serve as a religious rite. What the Christians are fighting against is a change to marriage as a religious institution. The gay community is fighting for marriage as a civil institution, which provides 1,138 federal rights. This is why the gay community is up in arms over the issue; Christians are trying to deny a significant number of rights to a minority group. These two institutions are completely different things.
(...)
(Continued)
If a federal law passed stating that SSM was legal in the United States, that would mean that gay couples would be allowed to be legally married by whatever means were available to them. If a church does not wish to marry a gay couple, then they would still reserve the right to deny the ceremony. That is an issue that is left entirely up to the church; the government has no say in who the church can and cannot marry. Similarly, the church has no say in who the government can and cannot marry. Familiar with the term separation of church and state?
That said, I don't understand how the 14th amendment could trump the 1st amendment. They're not related at all. 14th explains citizenship, privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection under the law. The only semi-relevant section is equal protection, in which I assume you're misunderstanding again. The rights of the church are not being impeded upon, as I explained above (it's unconstitutional for the government to touch marriage as a religious institution as per the 1st amendment), so there goes that argument.
If anyone is still having trouble understanding why this is wrong, then I pity you.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Matthew 23:39
(Continued)
If a federal law passed stating that SSM was legal in the United States, that would mean that gay couples would be allowed to be legally married by whatever means were available to them. If a church does not wish to marry a gay couple, then they would still reserve the right to deny the ceremony. That is an issue that is left entirely up to the church; the government has no say in who the church can and cannot marry. Similarly, the church has no say in who the government can and cannot marry. Familiar with the term separation of church and state?
That is a moot argument since many reasons exist for bride-groom marriage that overlap.
Its based on religion, morality, natural law, public health, collateral benefits to society, ordered liberty, child development, population growth management, government efficiency, and more.
Besides, who do you think should say which form of marriage is recognized by law?
Non religious people only?
That would reduce to "a law against religion" and interfere with a deeply rooted fundamental right that the people of this nation have had since its founding.
It has always been the right of the American people to have their laws agree with their Christian values.
Regarding the establishment clause, that was based on the idea that the different states each had their own form of Christianity and to make sure the states were treated equally by the federal government.
It actually presumed each state was free to establish Christianity and that the federal government was not to favor one state over the other based on its form of Christianity.
I'm having a lot of problems posting comments. There was more to my comment, but it won't let me post it.
@bman
All of the reasons you provided need objective explanations. You can't just throw out a bunch of terms and say THAT'S WHY THEY CAN'T GET MARRIED. You have to explain each one individually.
Public health? What is that supposed to mean? Do you think all gays are diseased? That's incredibly ignorant. Plenty of straight people are diseased.
You do raise a good point, though. Who is responsible for determining who can and cannot get married and at what point do we say enough?
I feel as though, as long as nobody's getting hurt, why deny a group of people happiness and federal rights? That doesn't seem like a very Christian thing to do.
There seems to be an automated restriction on posts regarding number of words, number of posts within a time frame, embedded links, key words used, and such.
The posts can still appear later if they make it through the second stage of a moderation process, which seems to have a person at the helm.
My intent was to briefly state why your religion argument was moot.
Bride-groom marriage is like a diamond with many facets, i.e., benefits to society that would be negatively impacted by a same sex marriage law from a public policy perspective.
Its a mistake for gays to think they can just say "its all about religion" and be done with it.
But let's consider religion as an example. A same sex marriage law works against public respect for God and replaces respect for God with "I say so."
That is a long term recipe for anarchy that would need to be managed by replacing respect for God with something else, and that something else would probably take the form of a totalitarian form of government.
The freedoms that Judeo-Christian society have passed on to us, cannot continue to be passed on unless Judeo-Christian values continue to be passed on with them.
Society can't simply add same sex marriage and end up with Judeo-Christian society "plus" same sex marriage.
Rather, to add same sex marriage means that Judeo-Christianity must be discarded or subtracted, which leaves a vacuum or a deficit in its place, to be filled with some other authority principle.
At the very least, the vacuum created by a same sex marriage law would be viewed as an open door to Islamic fundamentalists who would want Islam to become that authority principle, much like we see happening in Europe.
So, the formula you offer is a formula for replacing Christianity with some other authority principle, and the only question is what would that be.
There is a real potential for same sex marriage to result in gays eventually losing the freedoms they enjoyed under Christianity. If they "win" in the short tern, they may very well lose in the long term, not only for themselves but for everyone else as well.
Paul,
civil marriage exists solely to further the specific state interest in promoting the existence of opposite-sex relationships,which derives specifically from their being opposite-sex.The existence of same-sex sexual relationships serves no public interest whatsoever,and permitting them equal benefits to those offered by marriage robs marriage of its entire function.
You believe that same-sex relationships do not hurt people,I believe they hurt those in them and those exposed to them.But their being harmless only could argue for the relationships not being prohibited,not for their being treated as if of as much worth as opposite-sex relationships,which merely by being opposite-sex (regardless of reproductive intent or capacity) set an invaluable pattern.
The notion of a "group of people" and "rights" as such being involved needs to be rejected completely...that those wishing to engage in a particular behavior are thereby exempt from public policy in any way disadvantaging that activity would mean no government authority to reward or punish any behavior would stand.
(I forgot to add,I am not religious and never have been,I believe the necessary Infinitely First Cause of existence does not write books or found official fan clubs for itself).
Gays typically say something like, "how does it hurt you if two gays on the other side of town get married?"
The question is based on a false premise, though.
It presumes the issue is simply about a private matter, and its not.
The proper question to ask is, "How would a public same sex marriage law hurt society"
In my previous post, for example, I said, "So, the formula you offer is a formula for replacing Christianity with some other authority principle, and the only question is what would that be."
That certainly looks like a formula for harm to me.
A more immediate harm would be the compulsory pre-conditioning of children in the public schools to have gay beliefs with no opt out provision.
A federal court denied parents the right to opt out their second grader from homosexual lifestyle acceptance training soon after same sex marriage became law in Massachusetts.
The court said,
I think most people would vote against a law if it specifically said, "Children must be preconditioned to believe men having sex with men is acceptable behavior."
That, however, is what someone effectively votes for if they vote for a same sex marriage law.
They don't simply vote to help improve the private lives of gays, but they vote to impose gay beliefs on all children, and to violate deeply rooted parental and religious rights of their neighbors for as long as the nation still exists.
If you feel there is no harm in forcing gays beliefs on everyone else's children, then you are not simply advocating a "private" interest in same sex marriage, but you would advocate "public" trampling of deeply rooted rights where those rights disagree with your agenda.
And what harm could that be?