NOM BLOG

Carson Holloway: Has Obama Changed His Position on Marriage Again?

 

Carson Holloway at CatholicVote:

The Obama campaign has a new ad featuring actress Sarah Jessica Parker. In the ad Parker invites viewers to enter a contest to win a ticket to a dinner for the president and the first lady, a dinner to be held at Parker’s New York home.

In this ad Parker characterizes the president as “the guy” who, among other things, “says you should be able to marry anyone you want.”

...So now the president is now not content to advocate redefining marriage as being possible between two people of the same sex. He is now in favor of redefining marriage so that it can be any union at all — which is to say, he is in favor of abolishing any publicly normative definition of marriage. If “you should be able to marry anyone you want,” then you should be able to marry someone who is already married, you should be able to marry your father, your mother, your sister, your brother, whoever. Taken as stated, the president’s position, proclaimed by his actress-spokesperson, is to personally advocate polygamous and even incestuous marriages.

No doubt the president does not really intend to say this. But why not, at least on the logic of the left-wing marriage nihilists whose rhetoric he is parroting? Conservatives say that same-sex marriage is a step towards the destruction of marriage. Their liberal opponents respond that this is childish, that letting gay people marry does not threaten any existing marriage. But that response completely misses the point, which is this: the argument by which the left defends same sex marriage is inseparable from an argument that marriage should be anything anybody wants it to be, which is the same thing as saying there should be no publicly normative definition of marriage, which is the same thing as destroying marriage as a public institution.

6 Comments

  1. AnonyGrl
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    So NOM has completely gone off the rails, I see.

  2. Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    And another content-free drive-by by AnonyGirl.....:-)

  3. Wayne
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Obama is a one-term president!

  4. Stefan
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, I have no little voices in my head. And as you know, what you quote are from other posters, not me. When you say that I don't deal with the actual disagreement and prefer to blather on about other nonsense, what nonsense is that? I made a few points in my post and left it at that. Granted I’ve never articulated to the degree that you have, but very few have. And I find that, for the most part, what I read on these blogs by NOM supporters is foolish, ignorant and extreme, not to mention condescending. Not everything mind you, but a lot.
    I've stated my personal opinion here a couple of times only to be told that I'm full of it, don't know what I'm talking about, etc. How effective, on target and productive are those responses?
    I have no favoritism for any group, gay or otherwise. Whether or not someone is gay makes no more difference to me than if they're straight. I have many close straight and gay friends. I have no antipathy toward those who you say reasonably prefer the core meaning of marriage over the SSM idea, although I'd question reasonably. And if you want antipathy, look at many of the posts that are geared towards SSM supporters (I realize it goes both ways). When you get queer, homo, rubbing your junk (one of Randy’s favorites), the names and implications go on, that doesn’t sound to on target to me, let alone productive.
    I’m very aware of what my core meaning of marriage is and can honestly tell you it will mean more to me when marriage equality is a done deal, be it next year, in 5, 10 or more.

  5. Chairm
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Stefan,

    You said: "You don't need to respond because I already know what I'll hear."

    And I said: "like your fellow SSMers GZeus and 14th Amend"

    And you observed that I quoted from them. Are not those the very sort of remarks you had said you already knew about? Sure.

    Your antipathy toward marriage defenders is notable and it is remarkable that you pretend to downplay it. Your misrepresented Overcame -- with blather of your own making -- and now ask where you have blathered?

    As I said, you can play a role in encouraging SSMers to do better, much better, if your standards really are better. Live up to what you expect of others.

    You say you show no favoritism for the gay identity group. Well, what is YOUR basis for the complaint against the man-woman basise of marriage law?

    You say that you are "very aware of what my core meaning of marriage is"; and that, Stefan, is another example of blather.

    Your core meaning? The social institution has a core meaning. Your notion of a personalized core meaning is absurd.

    I mean, how could you possibly claim the current marriage law is wrong unless you had some clear understanding of what marriage actually is?

    And you claim your personalized "core meaning" is superior -- right? to the man-woman law. So you clearly want to see your personalzied "core meaning" imposed in the law for all of society.

    Use of the bumpersticker, marriage equality, is another example of blather.

    Your latest remarks provided the examples you asked me to provide.

    But let us proceed with your personalized "core meaning". Please state it. Show no favoritism for the gay identity group -- as you clearly feel and believe that such favoritism would be wrong.

    your earlier comment merited my response. Your subsequent reply did not change that but diverted to something else. Fine. Got it you

    I’m very aware of what my core meaning of marriage is

  6. Craig Hundelt
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    The gay lifestyle is immoral, unhealthy, and destructive. Numerous studies have shown the debilitating effects. The 2010 CDC report declared an epidemic rise of HIV/AIDS among the youth in gay population.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.