NOM BLOG

NOM Commends North Carolina Voters for Overwhelming Vote in Favor Of Marriage Protection Amendment

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 8, 2012

Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)


"So much for the idea that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Just the other day, gay advocates were predicting victory in North Carolina, but instead marriage won an overwhelming victory." —Brian Brown, NOM president—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today commended North Carolina voters for making theirs the 31st state to enact a constitutional amendment defining marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. The vote of more than 60% in favor of the amendment was an overwhelming endorsement of traditional marriage in this critical swing state.

"We commend North Carolina voters for passing the Marriage Protection Amendment, becoming the 31st state to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "So much for the idea being promulgated by the media and the elite that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Just the other day, gay activists were predicting victory in North Carolina, but instead marriage won an overwhelming victory."

NOM played a major role in the passage of the North Carolina marriage amendment. NOM contributed $425,000 directly to the campaign and raised countless additional funds for the effort. Brian Brown served on the campaign's Executive Committee and NOM National Political Director Frank Schubert managed the campaign through his firm, Mission Public Affairs.

"It should not go unnoticed that our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is gaining support, not losing support," said Brown. "Earlier this week the Gallup poll showed that support for same-sex marriage is down. Actual vote percentages in favor of traditional marriage are rising. In 2008 in California, the Prop 8 constitutional amendment on traditional marriage passed with 52% of the vote. Then in 2009 in Maine, 53% of voters stood for traditional marriage and rejected same-sex marriage legislation. In 2010, 56% of Iowa voters rejected three Supreme Court judges who had imposed gay marriage in that state. And now more than 60% of North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is a clear trend line, and it is moving in our direction."

North Carolina is the first of five states expected to vote on the definition of marriage this year. Others include Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.

"We are at the beginning of a national campaign in support of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brown. "Marriage will be a major issue in swing states across the country, and will be directly on the ballot in four more states this fall. The victory in North Carolina is a wonderful beginning to what we believe will be a clean sweep of states this year. We look forward to this national campaign to send an unmistakable message that the American people believe in preserving our historic understanding of marriage."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Anath Hartmann, [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

111 Comments

  1. B73
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Why would you commenda state for inserting bigotry into its constitution? Polls showed that when voters understood the anendment, they overwhelmingly rejected it. Tonight was not only a victory for discrimination but a victory for voter ignorance and voter suppression as well.

  2. Rick Small
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    Amendment 1 will have all kinds of negative impact on heterosexual relationships in NC. It weakens domestic violence protection, puts children at risk, and strips health and survivorship benefits from elderly couples who can't marry for tax or heritorship reasons but need the guarantees of civil domestic partnership. NOM can be so very proud for having sponsored and supported such regressive, harmful legislation, indeed.

  3. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    B73 -

    What bigotry? The amendment was merely a codification of the status quo; that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

    Same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron.

  4. Rosie
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    How AWESOME! It looks like there are STILL some moral people left in this world. Way to go North Carolina!!!!!

  5. Little Man
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Brown: It is not mathematically correct to take voter initiatives from different States vs. time and claim it supports an increase in support of marriage exclusively between a man and a woman over all the country. Your conclusion might be correct, but the data and logic you say supports your conclusion, does not. Obviously, in States which are more experimental or dogmatic, same-sex marriage could be on the increase. But thank you for your great accomplishment, as i am all for the support of marriage defined between a man and a woman, given that they are not to closely blood-related, of course. That is a very practical definition and is perfectly constitutional.

  6. Sean
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    I don't know if any people who are supportive of NOM understand what this measure has done. Amendment 1 states: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." In case you guys can't put two and two together that means any heterosexual couple who does not wish to enter into marriage has no rights either. So bravo, not only have you prevented same-sex couples from marrying the one they love, you've also prevented them AND straight couples from receiving any form of rights outside of marriage. So good job.

  7. B73
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    The bigotry evidenced in your comments each and every day, closet case. And It's not an oxymoron, it's a legal reality in 6 states, D.C. and many jurisdictions around the world.

    The fact that NOM still dishonestly calls it the "Marriage Protection Amendment" is proof that voter misinformation was the goal all along.

  8. Little Man
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    B73: You have the user name of an airplane. Are you flying high? Anyway, issues are resolved via votes, not polls, specially bad polls you point to. Can't you spell 'amendment'. That's an amendment to a State's constitution, not just any kind of law or regulation. Can -Obama- spell 'marriage amendment'? I doubt it.

  9. MarkOH
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA

    It's the same as prohibiting interracial marriage and you know it. Sad. But you and your ilk will go down in history being thought of as the George Wallacs of your day. Sleep well knowing you have enshrined discrimination into the NC constitution. Oh, and get ready for a loss of jobs.

  10. Little Man
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Sean: That's how the voters wanted it, ignorant or not, in North Carolina. It is their State and they have a right to their way. If you can read, Sean, read the rest of the ballot question, and you will see your petty criticism has no foundation.

  11. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:00 am | Permalink

    Sean, The key thing here is that the amendment doesn't take away the right of those straight couples to marry. The straight couple is told "in order to fully protect your family, you must marry". The gay couple is told "you are constitutionally prohibited from marrying to fully protect your family". That's a very very big and important difference.

  12. Little Man
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    MarkOH: OH, how scary - Loss of jobs. Actually, there will be a jobs increase in North Carolina. You just haven't read enough, or thought well about it. Read other posts at NOMblog about the empirical financial relation between acceptance of same-sex marriage and the State's relatively bad economy, compared to other States.

  13. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    Little Man, Yes it's an amendment to the constitution. So was the very similar Prop 8. Prop 8 has been ruled to be in violation of the U.S. Constitition, the same Constitution that protects the citizens of North Carolina. You do the math.

  14. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    B73 - Nice name-calling. Typical response from you guys. Doesn't change the fact that so-called SS"M" is an oxymoron in all of the other states.

  15. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    "What bigotry? The amendment was merely a codification of the status quo; that marriage is the union of one man and one woman."

    Overcame, no it wasn't. If that were the case, it wouldn't have gone the added step by banning civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other non-marital form of government protected union. It made life much more difficult for gay couples, their households, and their families.

  16. MarkOH
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    "North Carolina has 222,800 unmarried couples, an increase of 55% over the last decade; 12% are same-sex couples, according to the 2010 census."

    So the 88% of straight couples have just been denied their rights. Way to go NC!

  17. Bev
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    I see the gay bigots are out in force tonight, gnashing their teeth that they couldn't redefine marriage in NC. The NC Constitution has been amended, and if you don't like it, you're going to have to figure out some way to change the minds of at least 11% of NC voters. As for it eliminating heterosexual common law spouses, I think that's a good thing. If a man and woman want to commit to each other, they should go before a justice of the peace or a pastor and make the commitment. That's an awful loophole I've never seen the need for.

  18. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Kudos to NC and all the great people who worked so hard to make this victory possible!

  19. MarkOH
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    OvercameSSA #12
    "Doesn't change the fact that so-called SS"M" is an oxymoron in all of the other states."

    Actually, it's not an oxymoron. It is marriage, pure and simple. Just because you fail to recognize a LEGAL union doesn't make it less so.

  20. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    MarkOH -

    I'm not going to repeat the oft-made post that educates people of your ilk on the difference between the immutable characteristic of race and the non-immutable characteristic of sexual behavior. Remember, when the race issue was resolved, it was resolved to allow certain men to marry women.

  21. Randy E King
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    RJ,

    The Alliance Defense Fund helped draft the Amendment in such a way as to dicourage any thoughts one might have about offering a Trojan Horse as a peace offering.

    Fool me once...

  22. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    B73, not so. If a gay man and a gay woman have a family together, they are perfectly allowed and encouraged to get married and thus protect their family with all the benefits afforded by marriage. They won't be prohibited from any marriage right on the grounds of sexual identity, sexual behavior, or political affiliation with gay identity.

    A same-sex couple that identifies as gay is no less able to acquire a marriage license, than a "straight" same-sex couple would be. Their sexual orientation is not the issue.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    MarkOH wrote:

    "North Carolina has 222,800 unmarried couples, an increase of 55% over the last decade; 12% are same-sex couples, according to the 2010 census."

    222,800 x .12 = 26736 pervert couples

    California managed to marry off 18k same-gendered companions out of a population of 38 million during a mad rush to get as many people accross the line as possible and now you claim a state of 9.5 million -25% of CA - has twice as many same-gender couples as the most populous state in the union?

    Marriage corruption supporters never saw a lie they didn't like

  24. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    B73, to ease your mind, I did a quick check on a NC marriage license application. You are required to show the folllowing:

    "The application may vary depending on the county, but generally the application will simply ask both the bride and groom for some basic information such as:

    • Full name • Address
    • Date and place of birth
    • Social security number
    • Race
    • Education level
    • Father’s full name, state of birth, and current address
    • Mother’s full maiden name, state of birth, and current address
    • Number of previous marriages and when they ended

    Both applicants will also need to provide one of the following forms of ID before North Carolina will issue the license:

    • Passport
    • Driver’s license
    • State issued identity card
    • Military identity card
    • Certified birth certificate

    If you use a current form of ID, it cannot be expired in order to be accepted for the application submission."

    You'll notice that nowhere on the application will you be asked to divulge your sexual orientation, sexual history, or your political affiliation. So, if you're "gay," it's a non-issue, and you can proceed to get married to the bride of your choice (assuming you are male, of course). If a bride is not what you're looking for, you'll also notice that there is no mandate to get married. You can have a committment ceremony of your choice with any consenting adult.

  25. SC Guy
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    A warm congratulations to North Carolina (and America for that matter) in reinforcing the true meaning of marriage. This is a particularly strong victory considering the amendment banned gay marriages, civil unions and so forth. Had it just banned gay marriages, it likely would have passed by a wider margin. NC's 61% is truly a very strong number and flies into the 'conventional wisdom' that SSM is now supported by a majority of Americans.

    This should serve as a rallying call for conservative-minded Americans in Minnesota, Maryland, Maine and Washington to do the same thing in November!

  26. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    DoE,

    Please stop that line of discourse. You know very well that we are fighting here for the ability to marry the person we love, just like straight couples do.

    This "they are already equal" mantra of yours is bs. In states with marriage equality for gay couples, everyone is equal, even more so, since every adult, despite sexual orientation, can marry for love.

  27. Little Man
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    B73 airplane. Should i do the math for you? Because you can't? Now, you are comparing North Carolina with North Dakota, just because of some similarity? You also lost in North California (as opposed to Baja). Where's the elected officials in N. Carolina who are going to ignore the amendment to their constitution, as in California?

  28. Little Man
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:53 am | Permalink

    RJ: Stop your whining. Marriage is not just about love, or we could civil marry our pet fish. Love is not something government can ascertain. Stop your line of reasoning - it is ridiculous.

  29. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:54 am | Permalink

    RJ -

    Not sure if you've read any of my posts on the purpose of marriage; that is the societal/governmental purpose to unite moms and dads with their offspring so that they don't become charges of the State and burdens to taxpayers.

    You said "it wouldn't have gone the added step by banning civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other non-marital form of government protected union." Banning all unions except marriage is consistent with the government/societal purpose mentioned above. No bigotry; just good law-making to protect taxpayers and establish stable families of genetically-connected individuals. What government interest is there in partnerships other than marriage? And if there is one, is it not better addressed in a different area of law, such as adoption law or foster care law, rather than changing the foundational institution on which civilization was built?

  30. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:58 am | Permalink

    Little Man - I like your post at #23. Short and to the point. The government has not interest in regulating the emotion "love." In fact, this "hate speech" nonsense irks me, as well.

  31. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    RJ, I'll have to keep up this line of discourse, as long as your rationale doesn't hold water.

    "we are fighting here for the ability to marry the person we love, just as straight couples do."

    That's not a completely true. Straight siblings can't marry, no matter how much they love each other, nor can a loving parent/adult child, and groups who love each other can't get married either. The government doesn't license and regulate all loving relationships. The burden of proof is on promoters of SSM to show why one particular subset of same-sex loving individuals should be able to marry, and others not.

    "Every adult, despite sexual orientation can [already] marry for love."

    Go check out a NC marriage license application. You'll find no mandate regarding either love, or sexual orientation, as a requirement for marriage.

    If you don't like my line of discourse, then please acknowledge legal reality. Or not. Either way, I wish you a great evening.

  32. Michael
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    The Interesting thing about the line's of reasoning most promulgated is that Marriage comes down to Sexual Intercourse. Which, to be brutally Honest, I could care less what anyone else does. There are Married couples who practice BDSM, Anal Sex, Polyamory, ect. What they do has no bearing on Me, nor my Family. In the same way what a Same Sex couple does has no interest to me either. The part that does disturb me is that Love is not a major factor. The argument that Love is not the deciding factor in a Marriage lend credence to a Statement by Aleister Crowley. "“Marriage would lead to very little trouble if men would get rid of the idea that it is anything more than a financial and social partnership. People should marry for convenience and agree to go their separate ways without jealousy.” I do in fact know 4 Opposite Sex Couples who Married for just this reason. I also know of an odd arrangement between 2 Same Sex Couples. A W/W and M/M. Both couples live next to each other, and to gain the benefits of "Marriage" they are Legally Married to their Neighbor. M/W and M/W Marriages. Although they do not stay in the same home, nor have any form of a relationship. By the statement Daughter of Eve made, She would support their arrangement since they Married within what the Law's of Minnesota allowed to gain the Legal and Financial Benefits entailed within. I Personally feel that a Marriage without Love is no Marriage at all. Although I could care less if two Men Marry or Two Women Marry. My Religion does not care either way, and does in Fact Marry Same Sex Couples in Defiance of the Minnesota State Law, and will continue to do so in the Future, regardless of the outcome of the Upcoming Amendment here in MN. It will also continue to Treat Same Sex Couples Married within it the Same as it Treats Opposite Sex Couples. The Gnostic Catholic Church chooses to do this under it Right of Freedom of Religion. I married my Wife for Love. Not for my Children, nor for any other reason. We were both Divorced. Her Ex Husband was abusive, and my Ex Wife Slept cheated on me more times than I can count, when I found out I divorced her. We each had two children. Many of the Arguments against that are used Against Same Sex Marriage also heavily imply that MY Marriage is somehow either not valid, or that it is somehow lesser. It makes not difference to me what others think or feel. For these reasons I, and My ENTIRE extended Family will be voting against the Amendment in Minnesota. I Choose to post this because an acquaintanceship of mine insist upon sending me the links to this page daily. So I chose to state my opinion here, since he knows my stances I have concluded he must wish me to state them on the Pages he sends me. And Last, I, my Family and Friends, find it abhorrent that Groups from outside Minnesota such as NOM and the HRC will be funneling money and ad's into MN for an issue that is For Minnesotan's to decide. Whether for it, or against it, it for Minnesotan's to deal with, not for any outside groups to decide. Just my Two Cents Worth.

  33. Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:24 am | Permalink

    And DoE, you just pointed to relationship compositions that transcend sexual orientation. In regulating compositions of relationships outside of immutable factors, you are denying public protection of only a subset of valid relationships.

    In the case of gay couples, denying protection through civil marriage denies public protection of all valid relationships.

    I am simply asking you to step back and realize that when you talk, you are talking about people and towards people for whom this is a very significant issue: one of profound importance when it comes to the safety and security of their homes and families.

    Of course, you did know I was referring to romantic love, which is echoed in almost all marriage vows. You chose to ignore that like you ignored all of my posts from last night.

  34. Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    RJ, first of all, please know that I apologize if I have trampled on sensitive feelings. That is not my intent. Truly. So, I ask your forgiveness if I have, in my zeal, hurt your feelings, which it appears I have done.

    I agree that marriage is a uniqiue relationships from other kinships. It is a way of creating a new kinship where biologiy is not already shared. And yes, in this society we are blessed to choose to marry for love. But marriage itself, is unique in that it simultaneously integrates both sexes, and connects them legally and biologically with any offspring they may produce. Since children cannot choose their associations, government takes an interest in regulating their creation, by regulating the union that leads to it. Hence, the government's interest in marriage, which it did not create, but does acknowledge.

    Now, as to protections for same-sex couples, I agree that it is appropriate to allow same-sex couples some protections which are afforded a married man and woman, without removing the bride/groom requirement for marriage.

    Would you, for examlpe, consider reciprocal beneficiaries?

    Again, my intent is not to offend. I apologize for having done so. Warm regards to you and yours.

  35. Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    A great, amazing, historical victory for marriage, and hence for civilization and sanity.

    The social-engineering elites have failed, utterly.

    They have failed in their attempt to browbeat the people into surrendering humanity's oldest and most vital institution.

    The marriage corruption movement will never ever be able to win an election in this country now.

    The momentum is solidly with us, and if we capitalize on it this whole nightmare should be over next year.

    God bless North Carolina!

  36. ALLEN ANDERSON
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    next stop MN hopefully we will become state # 32

  37. M. Jones
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 2:49 am | Permalink

    What a blessed day, how great is the lord our God.

  38. Rosie
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    A MORAL MARRIAGE is and ALWAYS WILL BE between a MAN and a WOMAN. If homosexuals wish to have an immoral relationship then that is between them and their MAKER whom they WILL meet when they die. Should be an interesting meeting!

  39. Byron
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Very proud of the people of N.C.
    Though there are a few ssmers that believe this is an issue about love, the are the sacrificial pawns af a much more sinister and dangerous movement. One designed to stifle any opposition,to intrude on the sanctity of our religious beliefs and teachings,and to provide a legal club to beat down any opposition to their lifestyle.

  40. Keith
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    B73 and others...

    I can put a Ferrari symbol on the front of my Toyota Corolla, that doesn't make it a Ferrari.

    You can call same sex "marriage" whatever you want to, that doesn't make it marriage.

    Marriage is a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of unity and procreation based on sexual complimentarity. The state became involved in marriage LONG after the church because there is a civil benefit, PRIMARILY to children, to keep coulles together. Until the 2000s, NO ONE considered "recognizing love" as a legal reason to condify marriage.

    As for those who claim this is discrimination akin to interracial marriage, how so? No one is denied the right to marry. The state merely continues to reglate whom ne may marry, AS IT DOES IN THE SIX OTHER STATES AND DC.

    Right now, no one can marry a sibling anywhere. By your logic, B73, that is akin to discrimination against interracial marriage. NO ONE can marry four othes. By your logic, B73, that's akin to discrimination against interracial marriage.

    Alas, I do think this is a losing battle becauae fifty years of "self esteem" over critical thinking public schools have produced people who, like B73 have a relativistic outlook, are incapable to thinking objectively, and don't want to be told the can't do anything they want.

    Sadly, most of the same peole who think a person should be allowed to marry whomever (or whatever?) he loves, think that a person who hasn't yet been born doesn't even have the right to life.

    Critical thinking in the USA? Sadly, it has gone the way of the dodo.

  41. Pete
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    The courts will fix this.

  42. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Little Man: I guess I do need to do the math for you because your comment reveals your ignorance on how things work. North Dakota? Elected officials? Clearly you haven't a clue.

  43. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Daughter, I know how much you love your talking point that gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite sex but it's a foolish, small minded argument that serves only to further discredit. The conversation has moved far beyond that nonsense. Catch up. As the Iowa Supreme Court said, the right of a gay or lesbian person to marry someone of the opposite gender is no right at all. Catch up, and stop thinking your silliness makes you look clever.

  44. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Overcame, Name calling? I don't see your disdain for name calling from your vile pals like Randy (pervert couples). But if you're going to walk around claiming to be "ex-gay", you're going to hear "closet case" and worse since the whole movemenr is nothing but a money making scheme that's been debunked by all major mental health and medical organizations. Even some of the most prominent "ex-gay" leaders have admitted that they've never actually known someone to change their orientation. However, I don't think that you don't actually consider yourself ex-gay out in the real world. Instead, I suspect that you are just one more fictitious character created by NOM staff to push a their talking points and a particular viewpoint on this blog.

  45. Son of Adam
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    "The courts will fix this."

    The courts are stacked against you, Pete.

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf

  46. Pete
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam, thanks for the laugh. Have you not been following recent cases?

  47. Ash
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    The 9th Circuit's striking down of Prop 8 is all the more a reason for NC NOT to adopt civil unions. In his opinion, judge Reinhardt didn't even strike down Prop 8 because he believes that defining marriage as the union of a man and woman is unconstitutional. He claimed that there is no reason for a state to give the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples and not the title.

    That's only one way Prop 8 differs from the NC marriage amendment; though it is yet to be seen whether Reinhardt's ruling will be overturned by SCOTUS, as have so many of the 9th's other rulings.

    The people of NC made the right decision in enshrining the definition of marriage in their constitution as the only valid domestic legal union of their state.

  48. Anne
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    What a GREAT DAY for MARRIAGE!! Thank you NOM and North Carolina!

    PS - B73, Daughter of Eve is far more than clever. She's in fact quite intelligent and absolutely right.

    Humanity has defined marriage as the uniting of man to woman for all of history. The Iowa Supreme Court's "opinion" doesn't change the truth about what marriage is.

    I agree with you that it can seem "silly" to see something so plainly obvious being stated over and over again. But what is truly sad, rather than silly, is that something so basic and obvious would actually need to be said at all.

  49. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    B73 - Randy hasn't called me any names; I'll leave it to the recipients of his name-calling to handle themselves.

    All the researchers in the world can claim that people cannot change the sexual orientation, and yet, what would they say about the thousands like me, most of whom, incidentally, are publicly silent about our previous homosexuality, ashamed that we fell to such lows? We don't show up in the "research;" that's a big problem from a sampling perspective, isn't it?

    I'm not on the NOM staff; just a commenter.

  50. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but the NC Amendment is being spun by the media as a ban on same-sex marriage. If they want to take that perspective, why are they not also calling it a ban on polygamy, single person "marriages," and such things as "marriage" between people and their pets?

  51. Bruce
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    "If they want to take that perspective, why are they not also calling it a ban on polygamy, single person "marriages," and such things as "marriage" between people and their pets?"

    Because it's utterly ridiculous, that's why. There is no constituency of single people seeking marriages rights, nor is there one for the ability to marry animals. While polygamists do exist, there's no groundswell of activism on their part. I think that's why no one thinks those activities have been "banned."
    There is no media spin here.

  52. Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Why would you commenda state for inserting bigotry into its constitution?

    Nearly all of humanity, and indeed nature itself, must be bigoted.

  53. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Overcame, It's being SPUN as a ban on same-sex marriage? Gee, maybe you should tell NOM that it's it's spin, since they've been tagging every single post on the amendment with "same-sex marriage". LOL.

  54. Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    @Bruce

    Calling it a "ban" is media spin. The amendment has not banned anything, only asserted that Marriage is between a man and a woman. Was same-sex marriage legally recognized in the state prior to this vote? No, and the statute didn't ban it either. You can't ban something that was never legal. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

    And I don't understand why the liberals on this site are getting so worked up about a Southern state voting to protect Marriage. That should have been a given. The Democratic party holds very little influence in that region so it should be quite obvious that people will reject their platform.

  55. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Bruce, The fact that they're trying to pretend this ban isn't about gay people speaks volumes about how they view their own shameful agenda. They're not fooling anyone, not even themselves.

  56. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Bruce -

    Yes, it's utterly ridiculous; now you know how marriage protectors feel about people of the same-sex wanting to "marry." It's ridiculous to us. And just because you have a constituency does not make it any less ridiculous. And once the polygamists get marriage redefined for them, they will complain that the pedophiles are ridiculous for wanting to lower the age of consent, lather, rinse, repeat, for the next group in line who wants to be called "married."

    Polygamists are waiting in the wings, and we already are hearing stories of single women getting married. The slippery slope is real, and it is caused by severing the link between marriage and procreation.

  57. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    The amendment guards against current and future threats to marriage. The current threat is (was) neutered marriage, but who knows what kind of weird marriage corruptions might have arisen in the future. The opposition doesn't need to take everything personally.

  58. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Maybe so, Michael E. The fact is that these amendments are motivated by bigotry. One need only read the comments on NOM Blog for proof. At least I can hold me head high and proudly state my position using honest language. The same can't be said about the anti-gay crowd. They're forever trying veil their true motivations and legitimize their bias but anyone with a set of eyes can see straight through to their hate and ignorance.

  59. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    See Barb, there's the fundamental flaw in your claim. Marriage equality isn't a threat to anything. You know that... but thanks for giving a perfect example of what I just posted about. You're trying to cover up your bigotry with more bigotry.

  60. Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    @B73

    The amendments were not motived by bigotry. But keep saying that if it helps you sleep at night. I don't hate people who are attracted to the same-sex. I simply wish that the institution of Marriage be respected and I will be happy to have a conversation with anyone on the subject. But when I'm constantly referred to as a "bigot" it makes such talks impossible and thus defeats the purpose of having a conversation.

  61. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Glad we all agree that mother nature is a bigot.

  62. eliasasm
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pR9gyloyOjM#t=0s

  63. Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I really expect that the back and forth between world views is pretty much a done deal at this point.

    We are faced with two irreconcilable worldviews.

    All the arguments have been made (ad nauseam).

    All the points and counterpoints have been examined and re-examined and the cows have long since come home.

    It has come down to a political battle.

    Last night it became inescapably clear that ours has won.

    Our opponents can hope for vindication through the courts.

    It is a fantasy.

    Our side should focus on building on the game-changing momentum we gained last night.

    Our opposition, I hope, will begin to consider ways to make an honorable peace.

    Our side, I hope, will begin an examination of conscience so that we will display the Christian qualities of mercy and compassion, and of justice, even for our most bitter and hateful enemies.

    Time to learn to love our enemies.

    It's hard.

    In fact, humanly speaking, it is impossible.

    But nothing is impossible with God!

    High on the list of what we must begin to do, especially once we have completed our sweep of victories through the rest of this year, is to think of how we can show Christian charity and consideration for the millions upon millions of SSA people in our country who probably harbored doubts about this assault on marriage all along.

  64. Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    I really expect that the back and forth between world views is pretty much a done deal at this point.

    We are faced with two irreconcilable worldviews.

    All the arguments have been made (ad nauseam).

    All the points and counterpoints have been examined and re-examined and the cows have long since come home.

    It has come down to a political battle.

    Last night it became inescapably clear that our side has won.

    Our opponents can hope for vindication through the courts.

    It is a fantasy.

  65. Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Our side should focus on building on the game-changing momentum we gained last night.

    Our opposition, I hope, will begin to consider ways to make an honorable peace.

    Our side, I hope, will begin an examination of conscience so that we will display the Christian qualities of mercy and compassion, and of justice, even for our most bitter and hateful enemies.

    Time to learn to love our enemies.

    It's hard.

    In fact, humanly speaking, it is impossible.

    But nothing is impossible with God!

    High on the list of what we must begin to do, especially once we have completed our sweep of victories through the rest of this year, is to think of how we can show Christian charity and consideration for the millions upon millions of SSA people in our country who probably harbored doubts about this assault on marriage all along.

  66. Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    High on the list of what we must begin to do, especially once we have completed our sweep of victories through the rest of this year, is to think of how we can show Christian charity and consideration for the millions upon millions of SSA people in our country who probably harbored doubts about this assault on marriage all along.

  67. Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    High on the list of what we must begin to do, especially once we have completed our sweep of victories through the rest of this year, is to think of how we can show charity and consideration for the millions upon millions of SSA people in our country who probably harbored doubts about this assault on marriage all along.

  68. Posted May 9, 2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    I also begin to think more and more that it is not too early for us to begin to consider how to make the peace.

    There are millions of SSA people who certainly harbored doubts about the horrific miscalculation on the part of their leaders to target marriage.

    There are tens of millions more of our fellow citizens who honestly believe this was about bigotry instead of the defense of marriage.

    The way we conduct ourselves in victory will go a long way toward determining whether this outcome is truly worthy of the Name in which it has been achieved.

  69. eliasasm
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Every single one of you NOMulans are in complete denial about the root cause, where it started and how we have come to this unfortunate for all of us moment.

  70. Randy E King
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Well said Rick,

    I have long thought that the blatant lies and falsehoods being thrown about by marriage corruption supporters would be the death of them. If they would have feigned a manicure of decorum this fight would be much harder.

  71. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    elias:

    This moment is not unfortunate for us.

    Quite to the contrary.

    It represents a moment of opportunity for all sides in this debate.

    Your attempt to redefine marriage has failed.

    The smart folks on your side know it.

    You now stand at the point of maximum leverage, to take the gains you undeniably have made and cash them in in the form of a negotiated peace which secures the legitimate interests of SSA people in accordance with the common good.

    If you insist on assaulting marriage, you will lose everything and more.

    If you insist on attacking Christianity, you will lose infinitely much more than everything.

  72. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    elias:

    This moment is not unfortunate for us.

    Quite to the contrary.

    Your attempt to redefine marriage has failed.

    You now stand at the point of maximum leverage, to take the gains you undeniably have made and cash them in in the form of a negotiated peace which secures the legitimate interests of SSA people in accordance with the common good.

    If you insist on assaulting marriage or religion, you will lose everything and more.

  73. Reed
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Despite protestations that this is just to affirm marriage, the bill stripped away ALL other forms of domestic partnership/civil union recognition - and today, ONE DAY later, domestic partnership insurance coverage IS being eliminated.

  74. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    elias:

    This moment is not unfortunate for us.

    Quite to the contrary.

    Your attempt to redefine marriage has failed.

    You now stand at the point of maximum leverage, to take the gains you undeniably have made and cash them in in the form of a negotiated peace which secures the legitimate interests of SSA people in accordance with the common good.

  75. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Reed:

    The incredibly ill-advised strategy of your leaders to employ civil unions as a Trojan Horse, by which to establish legal grounds for a cynical assault on the good will of your opponents, has backfired massively.

    Don't double down on stupid, Reed.

  76. Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Reed:

    It was an historic mistake to employ civil unions as a Trojan Horse.

    Elections have consequences.

  77. Son of Adam
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    "Son of Adam, thanks for the laugh. Have you not been following recent cases?"

    Wait until it gets to the SCOTUS. We'll see who's laughing then.

  78. Millard Kinnison
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Way to go NC!!!! Thanks for the hard work!

  79. poster child
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Here is a riddle: "why is gay marriage NOT inevitable?" "Because there is no such thing as gay marriage! The elites might manage to remove the gender requirement from marriage. But there is still no such thing as a same sex "marriage!"

  80. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Zack, I'd actually sleep better if the anendment wasn't motivated by bigotry. The world would be a better place without folks like you.

  81. eliasasm
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    @Rick DeLano#58,

    Your response has nothing to do with what I said. All you did was confirm what I said.

    You are so not a worthy opponent.

  82. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Barb, Come back to reality, please. Mother Nature" didn't amend North Carolina's Constitition, bigots did.

  83. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Rick, Your declarations remind me of GW Bush landing on an aircraft carrier a decade ago declaring "Mission Accomplished". Again.. you won a battle in a southern state, the heart of bigotry and intolerance in America. You will lose the war.

  84. eliasasm
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    @poster child#67,

    Here's a riddle fer ya.

    Where did the negative attitude towards homosexuality begin and why?

  85. Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Well, I guess we will just have to drive the point home a little more indisputably.

    elis, B73, BilltheBigot:

    See you in MN.

  86. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Bev and others - Anendnent 1 wasn't an attempt to redefine marriage - are you really this stupid?

  87. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    "A MORAL MARRIAGE is and ALWAYS WILL BE between a MAN and a WOMAN. If homosexuals wish to have an immoral relationship then that is between them and their MAKER whom they WILL meet when they die. Should be an interesting meeting!

    Meanwhile NOMers are claiming that that this wasn't about bigotry or motivated by homophobia.....

  88. M. Jones
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @BilltheCat.. Truth always wins in the end, you saw that in NC and 32 other states.. The Lord always has a say.

  89. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Overcame, I'm still waiting for your explanation if Anendment 1 wasn't about gays and/or is about polygamy, then why has NOM been tagging all Amendment 1 posts with "same-sex" marriage and not "polygamy"? Maybe they didn't get the memo?

  90. Posted May 9, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    B73:

    Ummm...I dunno...search term frequency analysis maybe?

  91. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH (writes)

    "It's the same as prohibiting interracial marriage and you know it. Sad. But you and your ilk will go down in history being thought of as the George Wallacs of your day. Sleep well knowing you have enshrined discrimination into the NC constitution."

    Concerning your Loving Anti-miscegenationist argument.

    I would draw your attention to the argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision

    Hernadez v Robles.

    "Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."

    Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382

  92. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Here (above) the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.

    Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage

  93. Posted May 9, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, I have to tell you that the phrase "leaping their powder dry" has been resonating in my mind since last night.

    And believe me it wasn't with regard to the Lakers.

    Please continue the catechesis.

    It is much appreciated.

  94. Posted May 9, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    *keeping*

    (spellcheck is evil)

  95. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    I posted the below before, but sadly it was rejected. However, I do hope this will go through this time:

    -----

    I think that marriage equality in the United States is most definitely inevitable, for the sole reason that younger generations are consistently more acceptable towards gay relationships and marriages than the older generations. True, NC did add a bump in the road this week, but I don't feel it is an insurmountable bump. As the younger generation grows older and is statistically more likely to vote, the marriage equality affirming views will become much more prominent at elections.

    I also think that a lot of resistance towards marriage equality is based on fear of the unknown. States that are currently voting agains it may change consensus in ten to fifteen years as they see more and more states adopting marriage equality (yes, speculation, I know, but I think its likely based on the generational difference making an impact). NOM is always advocating the policy that voters should have the final say in the matter (as much as I personally disagree with that). If at some point people at the ballot box do in fact affirm marriage equality, I feel it is likely that people in other states may look at that and say: "hey, if they are comfortable with it, why shouldn't we be?".

    As time passes in countries and states that already support marriage equality, people are statistically more likely to favor it. People in The Netherlands oppose marriage equality by approximately fifteen percent, as do people in massachusetts. Support in these territories has continued to grow over time since marriage has been opened up for same sex couples.

    Ultimately, I truly do think marriage equality will prevail across all fifty states at some point in the future. Either through the younger generations taking over the place of the older generations or through a decision by SCOTUS. It will not happen next year, probably not in five to ten years, but in perhaps fifteen plus years seems like a fair guess to me.

  96. Pete
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Obama announce his support for SSM and nothing from NOM?

  97. Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Oh, I expect Brian will get to it, Pete.

    Meanwhile, tally-ho!

    Game on for sure now.

    Marriage corruption is now a headline, front burner issue in the Presidential election!

    Thanks again, North Carolina!

    You have changed the game!

  98. Pete
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Rick, how does certifiable insane person like yourself have do much time to play on the Internet? Don't you need the big P to take back the apology to Galileo?

  99. Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    What apology is that, Pete?

  100. Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Vote much?

  101. Pete
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Popping the extra large bag of popcorn waiting for Brian's post on Obama. I'm sure the National Enquier will be jealous of Brian's tabloid-style writing with hyperboles on steroids! Fly that freak flag, NOM.

  102. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    B73 -

    I don't know the answer to your question. Why don't you ask NOM?

  103. Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Safe to say, I'm feeling gay. ;)

  104. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Overcame, Why don't YOU ask them. I agree with NOM that this anendment was primarily about same-sex marriage. You're the one claiming to be offended by it.

  105. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    B73 (writes)

    Whats so amusing about this is that the 14th amendment legal arguments of ss"m" proponents are the same equel protection arguments be they State or Federal.

    But B73 seems to be saying that he (suddenly) is not confident in his equell protection arguments when it comes to the Supreme Court.

    Ultimently there is no avoiding the central federal question under the U.S. constituion...anymore than they have been able to avoid it under State law.

    Around the office we got to calling these people "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

    The idea that "same-sex "marriage" is inevitable...but not just yet is untenable.

    Justices on either side wont go in for such gamesmanship...such as "claiming an argument in state court to get yourself in a position where you deny such arguments in Federal court.... But only for awhile, because we will be back to assert this nationwide when we feel the political winds are better"

    B73 - I'm not trying to pop your ballon but there is more going on than your aware of. SCOTUS and "living consitutonalism" is already on notice since Roe v Wade. The Justices are in a position were the State Supreme Courts now feel they can override clear Federal Precedent and activist attorneys on the left that they can game the system to this degree.

    I think when you look at it from the perspective of both Judicial politics and seperation of powers you may come to realize that you guys bit of more than you can chew here.

    Sure SCOTUS "could" rule any-old way...Put you have to remeber the pressure they have on them to stay looking ligitamate in the eyes of people who actuallyh know the law and understand that it can only be twisted so much before it breaks

  106. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    B73 (writes)

    "Fitz, I gave you the opportunity that you weren't completely clueless. You failed. I'm not going to take the time to address each and every point you attempted to make so I'll just address what I gather is the main point you're trying to make. SCOTUS is not going to answer a question that's not relevant to the case they're considering. And they're certainly not going to hand down a decision that says that states have the power to define marriage in a manner that restricts the civil rights of citizens and, simultaneously, that state's do not have the power to define marriage in a manner that expands the civil rights of citizens."

    Whats so amusing about this is that the 14th amendment legal arguments of ss"m" proponents are the same equel protection arguments be they State or Federal.

    B73, you seem to be saying that your (suddenly) not confident in his equell protection arguments when it comes to the Supreme Court.

    Ultimently there is no avoiding the central federal question under the U.S. constituion...anymore than they have been able to avoid it under State law.

  107. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    (cont)
    Around the office we got to calling these people "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

    The idea that "same-sex "marriage" is inevitable...but not just yet is untenable.

    Justices on either side wont go in for such gamesmanship...such as "claiming an argument in state court to get yourself in a position where you deny such arguments in Federal court.... But only for awhile, because we will be back to assert this nationwide when we feel the political winds are better"

    B73 - I'm not trying to pop your ballon but their is more going on than your aware of. SCOTUS and "living consitutonalism" is already on notice since Roe v Wade. The Justices are in a position were the State Supreme Courts now feel they can override clear Federal Precedent and activist attorneys on the left that they can game the system to this degree.

    I think when you look at it from the perspective of both Judicial politics and seperation of powers you may come to realize that you guys bit of more than you can chew here.

    Sure SCOTUS "could" rule any-old way...Put you have to remeber the pressure they have on them to stay looking ligitamate in the eyes of people who actuallyh know the law and understand that it can only be twisted so much before it breaks

  108. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    (cont.)

    Around the office we got to calling these people "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

    The idea that "same-sex "marriage" is inevitable...but not just yet is untenable.

    Justices on either side wont go in for such gamesmanship...such as "claiming an argument in state court to get yourself in a position where you deny such arguments in Federal court.... But only for awhile, because we will be back to assert this nationwide when we feel the political winds are better"

  109. MarkOH
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    Fitz
    Thanks for bringing up Hernadez v Robles. It just proves my point. It, like Loving , were defeated at the state level. Loving was upheld at the SCOTUS level. As will marriage equality. Course, your attempt to compare equality supports with those pushing for racial segregation is, well, just silly.

  110. Posted May 10, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    Why is it silly, exactly, Mark?

    It seems to me that Fitz made a very powerful point in this regard.

    Now you can wave your hands and call it silly, or you can refute it.

    Office pool!

    I'll take "wave your hands" :-)

  111. Chairm
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Sadly there are pro-gay bigots among the SSMers who comment here.

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Each marriage includes both a man and a woman -- and thus the human race is unified on the basis of what marriage actually is.

    There is no heterosexual requirement for eligibility to marry and no such requirement has been proposed in any state that has affirmed marriage as the union of husband and wife.

    There is no homosexual requirement for eligiblity to SSM anyplace where SSM has been imposed or enacted. And no such requirement is proposed by SSMers who emphasize homosexuality in their complaint against the marriage law.

    Their complaint against the NC marriage amendment is that its affirmation of marriage is somehow a form of unjust discrimination based on sexual attraction.

    That is nonsense.

    Of course, sexual attraction is not a trump card for other types of relationships and other types of living arrangements which are not eligible for marital status. But the homosexual emphasis is the SSM campaign's proposed trump card for changing the marriage law.

    They would describe it as romantic love but that, too, is no trump card for other types of relationships and other types of arrangements.

    So what do they mean, really?

    According to SSMers, the man-woman requirement means that the prototypical husband and wife duo is comprised of a man who is sexually attracted to women -- and a woman who is sexually attracted to men. Thus, the SSMers implicitly (and increasingly expressly) acknowledge that the marriage law integrates by sex (man and woman) and by sexual attraction (attraction to women and attraction to men). Yet they oppose the social institution that integrates even as they hide behind the profoundly flawed racist analogy.

    The racists abused marriage to segregate by racists categories that are irrelevant to the union of husband and wife. The anti-miscegenation system segregated the sexes via a racist filter; it undermined responsible procreation via that same racist filter. The identity politics of white supremacy was the supposed trump card. It was about elevating an identity group unjustly.

    Today, given the SSM campaign's homosexual emphasis and their demand that the man-woman criterion be abolished from the law, the SSMers show that they favor segregation both by sex (man-man or woman-woman) and by sexual attraction (male-only or female only). Indeed, they go so far as to demand that the law treat the integrated relationship type as the moral and lawful equivalent of the segregated relationship type.

    They do so to elevate the gay identity group unjustly above the rest of the types of relationships that are ineligible to marry. Gay identity, not sexual orientation, is the proposed trump card.

    The SSM favoritism of the gay identity group today is the analogous with the supremacy of the white identity group of the past.

    As Fitz noted above, they have in common the misuse marriage for a nonmarriage purpose.

    The one-sexed type of relationship is presumed to be the gay-identified subset of all possible one-sexed relationships. Why? It is not to promote SSM among the openly homosexual adult population where even same-sex householding is a very marginal practice. It is not to promote the norms of marriage in a gay context -- sexual exclusivity and the rest. Nope.

    The purpose is to innoculate the gay identity group and to crush dissent with their asserted supremacy over the constitution, over the principles of good governance, and over justice itself.

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] National Organization for Marriage is pleased with the results, writing in a press release: The vote of more than 60% in favor of the amendment was an overwhelming endorsement of traditional [...]

  2. By Another Vote for Marriage on May 9, 2012 at 9:47 am

    [...] results show more than 60 percent support for the amendment, a result described by the National Organization for Marriage as “an overwhelming endorsement” of the traditional understanding of [...]