NOM BLOG

Please...We Cannot Let Them Get Away With It...

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Will you please make one URGENT gift right now to help protect marriage?

When the New York Times and other media outlets ran with a ridiculous narrative about NOM being racially divisive and politically poisonous, I have to admit, I was angry—but not surprised.

After all, in the middle of this artificially created media flurry, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and their allies at the Huffington Post published stolen IRS documents from NOM that are protected by federal laws.

This is what we're up against...every single day. I don't know if there is a limit to how low radical same-sex marriage activists will go to get what they want—no matter what you and I think.

Our coalition of Americans from every walk of life, regardless of race or religion has won tremendous victories for marriage. And with 2012 being such a critical year, our opponents are desperate to divide us.

We must stand up and fight back...we must make our voices heard...we must make sure the lies of radical same-sex marriage activists don't become commonly accepted "truth" because nobody is working to expose their lies.

And that's exactly why I launched this campaign to raise $200,000 by April 17.

Won't you please make an IMMEDIATE gift of $1,000, $500, $100 or even $50
to help protect marriage—knowing that your donation will be matched by another
to double its impact?

Donate now

My friend, we NEED to take full advantage of our generous donor's offer to match every gift, dollar-for-dollar up to $200,000.

If we can raise the full $200,000, we will have the funds we need to fight back and ensure your voice is heard...your beliefs are defended.

Thank you.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

58 Comments

  1. Spencer
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    I look forward to the day when the efforts of NOM become futile and offensive to the majority of all decent people.

  2. Son of Adam
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Not all moral standards can be outdated, Spencer. Especially when they are based on biological laws that have been in effect for hundreds of millions of years and will continue to be in effect for humdreds of millions of years - and can never be altered or repealed by any government power, no matter how big they get.

    Remember that everyone was supposed to be in favor of abortion rights by now - and it's still a hot button topic. What do you think happened?

  3. Spencer
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    Ah, the much repeated "biology argument," which is so silly and comical that its advancement reeks of desperation. The inability to procreate is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a marriage license, and this fact ALONE undermines the so-called "biology argument."

  4. Pete
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    What desperation.

  5. Ms. Broker
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Okay Spencer, what about Aids?

  6. Posted April 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Spencer:

    You will be looking forward for a very long time.

    A very, very, very long time :-)

    Brian: I will get a check out tomorrow.

  7. Posted April 9, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    The inability to procreate is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a marriage license, and this fact ALONE undermines the so-called "biology argument."

    So then presumption of paternity is irrational?

  8. Karen
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    The foul stench of desperation -- NOM, you reek!

  9. Alex
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    I am a firm believer of a people's right to religious beliefs, but it is time for a reality check. The language of this organization is anti-Christian. Jesus believed in rights for all people. You are using the Bible to mend to your personal, hateful beliefs. It is a cause of disruption in America. Jesus would not support this language as it hurts lesbian, gays, and transsexual youth who can be confused. This language is certain to be influential to LGBT youth who commit suicide.

  10. Spencer
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Ms. Broker:

    What about AIDS?

    Michael:

    Do you agree that the ability to procreate isn't necessary for a marriage license? Yes or no?

  11. Carol
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Non is fast becoming the new KKK,. In a few years all the pro NOM supporters will deny they ever associated with them.

  12. Robert
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Ah, the tired paternity argument. Well, letting gay couples marry does nothing to effect it! As we have said all along, nothing about straight marriage is affected by gay marriage! Just look at the places where both gay and straight couples can marry. I can assure you, if straight marriage was somehow compromised by legal same-sex marriage, we'd be hearing about it!

  13. Anthony McGregor
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    I'm always curious how the queer community intend to get the dignity derived from traditional marriage when the redefining process involved leaves the original truth of holy matrimony sodomised not only for them but for all society.

  14. wemustdissent
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    AIDs is just as easily spread in the heterosexual population as the gay population. The idea that somehow homosexuals are some sort of vector for the virus is patently and demonstrably false. Just in case you want to know yes I am straight, yes I am a research scientist working in infectious disease.

  15. M. Jones
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Specer, SSM severs the link that has existed for thousand of years, between parents and their biological children, making gender irrelevant. Procreation is an essential part of this union and traditional marriage protects children that result from this union.

  16. akork
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    M. Jones. How exactly do two gay men getting married sever the link between a heterosexual married couple and their children? Since when is procreation a requirement for marriage? Are you saying people who are infertile should not be allowed to marry?

  17. J. Cox
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 3:43 am | Permalink

    So should all the marriages that result in no children be annulled then?

  18. Son of Adam
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 4:04 am | Permalink

    Spencer, marriage is between a man and a woman not because they are REQUIRED to procreate, but becuase they are the only combination that CAN procreate.

    Demanding that the establishment of every right and law be based on every possible exception is what reeks of desperation.

  19. Apollonia
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 4:47 am | Permalink

    SoA
    Gene-science working already on reproduction- processes with the gene material from two females.
    So what will you do then?

  20. Thomas
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    SoA

    Question: can infertile women marry?
    if yes why?

  21. Fred
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    It's not such a ridiculous narrative. Several high profile Black and Hispanic groups and leaders have spoken out against NOM's tactics. Are they ridiculous in your opinion?

  22. Poison
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    "Specer, SSM severs the link that has existed for thousand of years, between parents and their biological children,"

    I have friends that are adopted. Is the connection between said friends and their adopted parents less than that between an abused biological child? Face it - blood means nothing. Biology means nothing. Completely subscribing to it makes us nothing more than animals. (Which, admittedly, we are, but I'm using an expression here.)

    Humans can think and humans can love, which is greater than being forced to live with someone solely because of blood. However, many other there don't seem to be doing either of those first two.

    "making gender irrelevant. Procreation is an essential part of this union and traditional marriage protects children that result from this union."

    Procreation does not protect children. It creates children, and nothing more. There are many happy children raised by gay parents, and many sad children raised by straight parents. What of it? Biology is not relevant when it comes to a matter connected only to love and parenting skill.

  23. Son of Adam
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Get in my flying car and travel to one of the colonies on the moon right after taking a pill that will provide me with nutritional sustenence for the rest of the day. That's what I'll do, Apollonia. And while I'm at it, I'll do the many other things that science has stated that we will be able to do by now but still cannot - everything from indulging in gene therepy to cloning my deceased pets.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    @Apollonia,

    "Gene-science working already on reproduction- processes with the gene material from two females.
    So what will you do then?"

    Buy that same logic we should be changing the meanings of the words traditionally associated with traffic patterns because physicists’ are working on teleportation.

    Our laws, in the United States, are firmly based on the laws of nature; not theoretical science.

  25. Michael Worley
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Spencer--

    Why on earth can't marriage be designed to encourage but not mandate procreation?

  26. Spencer
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    "Spencer, marriage is between a man and a woman not because they are REQUIRED to procreate, but becuase they are the only combination that CAN procreate."

    Again, the ability to procreate has NEVER been a criterion for a marriage license.

    "Why on earth can't marriage be designed to encourage but not mandate procreation?"

    *One* purpose of marriage can be to encourage procreation, and SSM does nothing to discourage procreation.

  27. Spencer
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    SoA,

    "Demanding that the establishment of every right and law be based on every possible exception is what reeks of desperation."

    The ability to procreate has NEVER been a criterion for a marriage license, so it isn't a "rule" from which there may be "exceptions."

  28. Spencer
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    "Specer, SSM severs the link that has existed for thousand of years, between parents and their biological children, making gender irrelevant. Procreation is an essential part of this union and traditional marriage protects children that result from this union."

    This is just another NOM talking point containing no substance whatsoever. Same-sex couples are allowed to raise children, REGARDLESS of the legality of SSM. Are you against gay adoption? If so, then you're against much more than SSM.

  29. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Spencer,

    Your personal opposition to the laws of nature will not render the laws of nature moot. Rubbing your reproductive organ against same gendered friends may seem a rational act to you, but you very biology stands in evidence against your ludicrous assertions.

    You are not Alice and this is not 'Wonderland'; wake up.

  30. Ash
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Spencer, in your opinion, why is the government involved in marriage? There must be a public interest for the state to be involved.

    Other than the "they hated gay people" argument, please give us your rationale for why our country has recognized man-woman sexual relationships for all this time.

  31. ResistSSA
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Spencer -

    Although the ability to procreate has never been a criterion for a marriage license, possessing the complementary anatomy that results in procreation ALWAYS has. That's the whole point: if you have a male and a female there is the presumption of the ability to procreate. It's the basis for the perpetuation of all sexually reproducing species.

    Imagine a genetics class in which each time the teacher speaks about the contribution of genes from a parent, he must qualify with the statement, "IF the parents are fertile...." It's ridiculous.

    Male and female couples is the way humans reproduce and that is the reason that marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. There is no other reason for the preferred formation of couples. Same-sex couples NEVER procreate; that's why marriage is not defined to include them.

    Here's a good rule for you Spencer: Male plus female is the way that children are ALWAYS created. Same-sex couples is the way that children are NEVER created. Marriage is about the former.

  32. Son of Adam
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    "The ability to procreate has NEVER been a criterion for a marriage license, so it isn't a "rule" from which there may be "exceptions.""

    The criterion for a marriage license is for the applicants to be a man and a woman, Spencer. And the reason why it is between a man and a woman is because that is the only combination that CAN procreate children - regardless of whatever red herrings you come up with.

    "*One* purpose of marriage can be to encourage procreation, and SSM does nothing to discourage procreation."

    The purpose of marriage is not about keeping up procreation but establishing stable households for the children that are procreated with a male and female role model.

  33. Spencer
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    "The criterion for a marriage license is for the applicants to be a man and a woman, Spencer. "

    Which clearly violates the EPC of the 14th Amendment.

    "And the reason why it is between a man and a woman is because that is the only combination that CAN procreate children - regardless of whatever red herrings you come up with."

    Again, the ability to procreate has NEVER been a prerequisite for a marriage license, no matter how much you wish that were so.

    "The purpose of marriage is not about keeping up procreation but establishing stable households for the children that are procreated with a male and female role model."

    You *falsely* assume that this is the one and only purpose of marriage.

  34. Fred
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    To the moderator of comments: Please provide an explanation as to why you ban respectful comments on both your blog and Facebook page that happen to disagree with your point. Since NOM is concerned with the Free Speech of those against Marriage Equality, it's extremely hypocritical of NOM to stifle the Free Speech of those who support Marriage Equality.

  35. Son of Adam
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The traditional definition of marriage does not violate that clause since the laws defining marriage applies the same standards to every individual regardless of gender, race, or sexual preference. The vast majority of court cases have agreed on this. So your claim that the 14th amendment guaruntees the right to have marriage redefined to suit the sexual preferences of a special interest group is an exercise in sophistry.

    And why do you suppose being a man and a woman has always been a prerequisite before getting a marriage licence? If gender and procreation are irrelevant, why maintain such a standard for thousands of years? Can you honestly say that a two man or a two woman relationship is exactly as crucial to the survival and propogation to the human species and civilization as the traditional family unit?

    If the primary purpose for marriage is to get as many benifits from the government as we can with our relationships, then that means that the procreation and upbringing of children with both their natural parents is an irrelevant byproduct of marriage, placed second in value next to the wants and desires of adults in the eyes of the law. And that's harmful to kids!

  36. Spencer
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    "The traditional definition of marriage does not violate that clause since the laws defining marriage applies the same standards to every individual regardless of gender, race, or sexual preference."

    No, it does not. Laws prohibiting SSM create a classification (i.e. a distinction) between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, one that isn't justified in anyway by a rational basis. What is the rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples?

    "And why do you suppose being a man and a woman has always been a prerequisite before getting a marriage licence? If gender and procreation are irrelevant, why maintain such a standard for thousands of years?"

    Step back from the NOM talking points and *THINK* about what you're actually saying. Is the ability to procreate REALLY a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license? Ask yourself that question and answer HONESTLY. We both know that the *only* sane answer is 'no,' because infertile couples have no more difficulty in obtaining a marriage license than fertile.

    "Can you honestly say that a two man or a two woman relationship is exactly as crucial to the survival and propogation to the human species and civilization as the traditional family unit? "

    Another ridiculous standard - not all opposite-sex relationships are "exactly as crucial" to survival, and cruciality to species survival has NEVER been a prerequisite for a marriage license.

    Can you HONESTLY say that INFERTILE opposite-sex couples are as crucial to the survival and propagation of the human species and civilization as the traditional family unit? No, you cannot, but you would not recognize this fact as relevant in anyway to obtaining a marriage license.

  37. Spencer
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Be consistent SoA. If the ability to procreate really *ought* to be relevant to obtaining a marriage license, then you should be in favor of laws prohibiting all infertile couples from getting married. Of course, no NOM advocate would ever adopt this position, which makes the targeting of same-sex couples utterly bizarre and sinister.

  38. Son of Adam
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Now you are being ridiculous, Spencer. Do you know how much time, money, and effort we would have to spend to determine which opposite couples are infertle and which one's are not? Far more than can possibly be afforded. It's not like we can tell if a man and a woman is infertile just by looking at them like we can a same sex couple. But we do know that children will come out of putting men and women together regardless of whatever exceptions you can nit pick. Same sex couples, however, can never produce children. And there are no exceptions!

    That is why being a man and a woman has always been a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage licence, so that the needs and upbringing of whatever number of children come out of such unions will be of primary importance to the law and society as opposed to the wants and desires of adults.

  39. AM
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Absent the consequence of heterosexual sex- children- no society would have envisioned a need for, nor created an institution to bind men and women to one another in a lifelong monogamous union. Procreation is central to why marriage matters in a public sense.
    Any Society, if it want to continue, must provide for it’s children. Channeling the natural inclination for sex into an institution designed to bond a man and woman to each other, and to any children that they create, is the purpose of marriage..
    To accomplish this, it is neither necessary or desirable for the state to insinuate itself in the most intimate part of our life. The state doesn't ask about our personal motives for marriage, if we plan to have children, or how many. The state doesn't even ask what our orientation is. Those issues are none of the governments business. The state limits itself to simply requiring that both sexes be present. The focus on infertile couples is a red herring. Exceptions do not invalidate the rule.

  40. ResistSSA
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Spencer -

    I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand; I attribute it to a mental block in homosexuals' minds that prevents them from accepting the fact that procreation is an incredibly special and important function of human beings. I think it's hard to accept that one's brain has cheated them out of one of the most important aspects of being human: perpetuating the species.

    Here's the rule that you should remember: A male-female couple is ALWAYS the way that children are created. Same-sex couples NEVER create children.

    Marriage is about uniting the only combination of sexes that create children. It's about being human and giving special attention to the complementary nature of males and females and the only way humans are able to reproduce.

    Yes, procreation is a big deal to our civilization. No, same-sex couples are not the same as male-female couples, not even to infertile male-female couples, btw.

  41. Stefan
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Well, lot's of posts here. My opinion, Spencer wins, by a long shot. Everyone else, a broken record. Same old argument, over and over and over.......

  42. Good News
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    @ResistSSA
    "Marriage is about being human."
    Love that one!

  43. Louis E.
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    The existence of opposite-sex relationships is vital to the public interest,and the general welfare requires a perpetual guarantee of preferential treatment for such relationships.Civil marriage exists solely to further that objective.No right to have a relationship that fails to unite male to female granted the rights designed to promote male-female relationships exists.All persons are treated equally by this requirement.
    Procreation is a detail that takes care of itself within the context of the enforcement of that necessary requirement.

  44. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    All people are born with heterosexual equipment except in the rare birth defect. When two people of the same sex choose to act out their sexual desires in that relationship, they are perverting the basic anatomical and physiological makeup of the body.

  45. Ash
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Stefan, in my opinion, Spencer lost by a long shot. Same old arguments over and over and over.

  46. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    The marriage corruption movements arguments in support of special rights for those that share in their proclivity amount to no more than "no it isn't" and "so what" knee-jerk reactions.

    "No it isn't" and "so what" are excuses; not rationales in support of.

  47. Spencer
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    SoA,

    Has the ability to procreate EVER been a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license? Yes or no? Clearly no - and yet you want that to be a prerequisite for same-sex couples but NOT opposite-sex couples who can't procreate. In other words, your criterion ONLY applies to homosexuals, even though it can easily be applied to many many heterosexuals. How is it that people like you can embrace such a blatant double standard?

    ResistSSA,

    Same response. Try actually READING what I write for a change, will you?

    Louis E.

    "The existence of opposite-sex relationships is vital to the public interest,and the general welfare requires a perpetual guarantee of preferential treatment for such relationships.Civil marriage exists solely to further that objective"

    Says who? Again, you *falsely( assume that civil marriage is only about procreation.

  48. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Spencer,

    Every single SCOTUS ruling on this subject is rooted in the expressed finding that "Procreation is a rational basis for limiting marriage to (1) man (1) woman pairings.

    This fact may be inconvenient for you, but is most certainly not a false assertion. The laws of nature stand in opposition to your unsubstantiated "no it isn't" defense of your demands for special rights.

  49. ResistSSA
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    @Spencer -

    I read what you said, and I addressed it. You're missing the important distinction between requiring procreation and possessing the complementary equipment, as it were, to procreate. No, marriage has never had procreation as a requirement. However, it has ALWAYS had the requirement that those couples applying for a marriage license be of the only combination of sexes responsible for human reproduction, male-female.

    The mental block you have is one of absolutes. Consider, " What is a man? A HA! You would say, some guys have lost their penises in an accident, so all the laws applying to men should apply to women, all of whom have no penises, as well! It's ridiculous reasoning based on the fact that there are no absolutes in life. Get a real argument, your reasoning is insulting and irrational.

  50. ResistSSA
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Spencer -

    We ALSO do not allow infertile brothers and sisters to marry. Why is that, I wonder? Because marriage is about the combination of sexes responsible for human reproduction.

  51. Alex
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    I personally know two lesbians who have raised their kids and have grandkids together now for 35 years. They love each other immensely. Even better, one of them is a pastor at a Presbyterian Church in New Hampshire. She is the most Biblical person I know. It just baffles me on why you think she is going to hell

  52. TC Matthews
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    Alex, what does going to hell have to do with marriage?

  53. TC Matthews
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    I personally know several single moms, they're doing great too. We don't call their situation marriage either. Do you think they're going to hell?

  54. Chairm
    Posted April 12, 2012 at 3:36 am | Permalink

    Spencer is stuck on stupid.

    By that I mean he has repeatedly invoked a rule of argumentation that defeats the pro-SSM complaint against the man-woman requirement.

    Readers will note that Spencer has strongly suggested that to disagree with his argumentation is, well, an act of stupidity. Let us take that at face value.

    The man-woman criterion is a requirement. Yet Spencer would have it abolished. Spencer is not in search of legal requirements but rather in search of requirements forced on people who'd show-up for a license and who'd claim the special status.

    The sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, and the marital presumption of paternity are also criteria for those who would consent to the marital type of relationship. That basis is clearly not one-sexed. It is not sex-neutral. It is two-sexed.

    But these requirements are also up for being pushed aside by Spencer's argumentation.

    Okay, let's invoke the rules he has used against the man-woman requirement and the related requirements.

    1. If [fill-in the blank] is not forced on those who show-up for a license, then, it is not a legitimate basis for good law on eligiblity.

    2. If [fill-in the blank] is not enforced by government with a 100% guarantee, then, it is not a legitimate basis for good law on eligiblity.

    3. If [fill-in the blank] is not illegal outside of marriage, or SSM, then, it is not a legitimate basis for good law on eligibility.

    What might SSM law require by force? Same-sex sexual attraction? Nope. Same-sex sexual behavior? Nope. Same-sex sexual romance? Nope. Howzabout a membership card for the gay identity group? Nope. None of the above is required, much less forced, on those who'd show-up to SSM.

    By Spencer's own argumentation, none of that provides a good basis for lawmaking on eligiblity; and so the revision in the law that Spender demands cannot be based on that stuff.

    Right, so on one hand are the requirements that Spencer would like to see abolished; and on the other hand is the lack of a good basis for revising the law to get rid of those requirements.

    It boilsdown to answering the question, what is marriage?

    Rather than treating the man-woman requirement -- and the related requirements -- as mere lines of eligibility, it is far more reasonable to consider how those requirements comport with the core meaning of the social institution of marriage itself. This is how one might assess the justness of lines drawn around marriage -- i.e. eligiblity and ineligiblity.

    Societal regard for that core is at issue here. Spencer would rather that society disregard that core and, indeed, be forced to consider it only as an unjust thing that must be shunted aside.

    In that case, the onus is on Spencer to supply a replacement that can be assessed on its merits and demerits. Is its core meaning of such extraordinary societal significance as to require (yes, this is a Spencer requirement) the extraordinary intervention of government to substitute the core meaning of marriage?

    Based on whatever the substitution might be, (according to Spencer that is), we can then assess the lines drawn around it for eligiblity and ineligibility. If any line is arbitrary by that account, then, it must be abolished along with the other requirements that Spencer would toss aside.

    All the while Spencer must be held to the rules of argumentation that he has invoked already.

    Having gone through this sort of exercise with SSMers -- some brighter than others, some more intellectually honest than others, some more morally serious than others -- I expect that Spencer will do not better than any other SSMer.

    But I invite my fellow marriage defenders to hold Spencer to that exercise whenever Spencer pops-up to repeat misrepresentations that the SSM campaign has manufactured. Hold the SSM idea to the stated standards, those invoked rules, and show how their rheotric and argumentation is stuck on stupid.

    Given Spencer's own remarks, being stuck on stupid ought to force any SSMer to abandon the pro-SSM complaint and the pro-SSM revision demand by SSMers far and wide.

    In the end, it becomes clear, the SSM idea and its campaign is really attacking the marriage idea for no better reason than the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over justice, marriage, and even the rule of law.

  55. Son of Adam
    Posted April 12, 2012 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    For the last time, Spencer: being a man and a woman IS a prerequisite for a marriage license, and for good reason. Because a man and a woman is the only combination that CAN procreate. It is applying such a standard that keeps the needs and upbringing of children relevant to the institution of marraige, regardless of whatever exceptions to the rule you can find.

    As Chairm said, you are stuck on stupid!

  56. ResistSSA
    Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Geez, Chairm. Another great and fascinating post!

    If I may whittle down what you said for those who might not have the time to digest it:

    Spencer says that since the actual ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage, then procreation cannot be the defining element of marriage. But if this standard of requiring all individuals to comply with a certain criterion with no exceptions is applied to same-sex couples, what is the verifiable and non-arbitrary criterion that all same-sex couples possess that makes them eligible for marriage? And the answer is nothing.

    But I think that's the point: SSM-ers believe that marriage should just be a label given to whomever wants the government benefits that are currently reserved for male-female couples. Once it's redefined as such, there's no longer a reason for the government to encourage it, and there's no longer special status given to any combination of individuals or things. That, I believe, is the real goal of the homosexualists, not marriage.

  57. Posted April 14, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Note to @Chairm: That's another talking point I plan to make in this year's Day of Dialogue.

    --Victor Golf Charles, fellow marriage defender

  58. Chairm
    Posted April 18, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Victor Golf Charles, do you have a blogsite?