Comments on: ADF's Brian Raum: "In Defense of the National Organization For Marriage"

By: ResistSSA

ResistSSA — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:09:26 +0000

Wow, David K, what an insightful comment. Classic SSMer post; personal insult, no substance.

By: David Argue

David Argue — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:26:32 +0000

'Insisting on the same rights that you have, to marry your partner, is not a demand for "special rights' That's exactly what it is. Everyone has the same rights now - to marry someone of the opposite sex. Special rights involve marrying outside of this condition, which would include SSM . Once you take away the one man-one woman aspect, you open up marriage to all kinds of 'special rights' for people to sue for.

By: AnonyGrl

AnonyGrl — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:18:07 +0000

Randy E King,

Insisting on the same rights that you have, to marry your partner, is not a demand for "special rights".

By: Randy E King

Randy E King — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:37:59 +0000

Mark,

Please elaborate!

What lies are you referring to? I'm sure a moral upstanding individual such as yourself would not stoop to slander and defamation in defense of your demands for special rights for those who enjoy a paticual decadent activity like rubbing their reproductive organ against same gender companions.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:42:59 +0000

"So we are supposed to feel a sense of personal moral outrage towards NOM because why exactly?" Because they are acting like a hate group who tries to support it's lies by playing the victim.

By: Randy E King

Randy E King — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:37:28 +0000

So what the marriage corruption proponents are trying to say is that NOM should not be trying to marshall its supporters if doing so drives a wedge between marriage corruption supporters and members of the Hispanic and African American communities who traditionally support the Marxist agenda, but draw the line at redefining marriage in order to appease the decadent elite?

So we are supposed to feel a sense of personal moral outrage towards NOM because why exactly?

By: Daughter of Eve

Daughter of Eve — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:33:25 +0000

"Unfounded would be if NOM was NOT in the business of trying to deny equal rights to people who only want the same protections that their neighbors have for their families."

That is completely unfounded. Please produce evidence showing that NOM wants to make either sexual orientation or homosexual activity an eligibility requirement for acquiring a marriage license.

Everyone already has the same legal protections available, and no one is prohibited from marriage based on their sexual proclivities or their orientation.

I love ADF. They are willing to beard the lion in its den.

By: AnonyGrl

AnonyGrl — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:12:50 +0000

Unfounded would be if your internal documents did NOT say that you were aiming to drive wedges between groups. Unfounded would be if Mitt Romney was NOT a major contributor. Unfounded would be if NOM was NOT in the business of trying to deny equal rights to people who only want the same protections that their neighbors have for their families.

So no, nothing unfounded here.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:51:30 +0000

"why are HRC, The New York Times, and others attempting demonize NOM simply because they have sought to marshal the black and Hispanic communities to speak out for marriage"

Because that is not what the internal documents revealed.

"The strategic goal…is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. "

This is not marshaling support. Please, at least be honest about what NOM has written.