NOM BLOG

NOM Marriage News: September 11, 2009

 

NOM Marriage News.

Donate to NOM! Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter!

Dear Friends of Marriage,

This week in D.C. a man came into my office. He was very distinguished-looking, with white hair; and he had a distinguished past to match. "I was on the front lines marching against the war in Viet Nam," he told me. "I want to help you fight to protect marriage."

This combination would probably blow the minds of the Washington Post. But it's no longer a surprise to me. 

"I fought the war because I thought it was an important moral issue," he told me. "So is marriage." (If you agree, why not consider a small weekly or monthly contribution? Can you sacrifice even $5 a month to protect God's own precious and sacred institution?)

Among the great joys and privileges of being in this position, as a leader of this grand new marriage movement, are the people I get to meet all over the country. It's amazing: Marriage is drawing together Americans across all different political, racial, religious and ethnic lines.

The fights for marriage are accelerating across this country: District of Columbia, New York, New Jersey, Maine--and now the gay press is reporting that House Democrats plan shortly to introduce the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The needs on NOM are expanding rapidly. I am so profoundly grateful to each of you who have donated your time, your ear, and your treasure to this great and good fight. If in these tough economic times you cannot afford to give, I understand. Would you pass on this newsletter to a friend? We need to reach out and build--from half a million activists to more than a million in the next few months. I need your help.

If God has given you the means, can you step forward to help us replenish our coffers? We are the largest single donor to the effort to protect marriage in Maine. We are the only national organization fighting to protect marriage in New York and New Jersey. And we need your help to fight for your values.

Maggie Gallagher, NOM's president, had a great column this week called "Gay Marriage Rage." You can read it in its entirety below. But I want to pull out one big thought: Gay-marriage advocates have stopped persuading. Public opinion polls are no longer moving in their direction. And so they are responding with the politics of hate, attempting to intimidate and silence opposition by raising the cost of speaking for the Truth.

I can promise you that here at NOM, no matter what efforts they make, we will not be silenced. We will be your voice for your values. Together we will make a difference.

Let's not forget that this morning is the anniversary of 9/11. Please join me in praying for the souls of the thousands of Americans who gave their lives in a war they did not even know had been declared on our beloved country. Of all the mysteries, the mystery of evil is the most unfathomable. 

"Truth and love will prevail over lies and hate." That is our solace and our Hope.

God bless you and your family,

Brian BrownBrian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

NOM in the News: Feature
"Gay Marriage Rage"
Maggie Gallagher
September 8, 2009
I was in Maine on the day that marriage qualified for the ballot this November. I went to Maine as president and founder of the National Organization for Marriage, which helped local groups organize the signature drive in Maine, as we did in California for Proposition 8.
Most of the people in Maine were enthusiastic, but one clergyman asked me, "Shouldn't we live with our neighbors in peace?"

His question haunts me for its debased presumptions: Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors? "Agree with me or you're a hater" is not the authentic voice of peace and tolerance. But the question underscored an increasingly obvious truth: Gay marriage advocates now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate. They believe only one side has the moral right to be heard.

Witness what happened to poor Monica Hesse, a Washington Post reporter who wrote a profile on NOM's executive director, Brian Brown. The profile was (in my view) clearly written by someone who supports gay marriage. She began by assuming gay marriage opponents were ugly, mean and stupid, and then presented Brian Brown as the surprising exception. That's why Monica expected outrage from social conservatives for her "snideness." Instead, she was shocked by the tidal wave of rage directed at her for publishing anything even remotely expressing human sympathy for a guy who effectively fights to promote marriage as the union of husband and wife.

I'm not the person calling this "rage." That's what The Washington Post called it in a piece by their own ombudsman on Monica, "'Sanity & a Smile' and an Outpouring of Rage."

Here's how weird things have gotten: The ombudsman of the Post felt he had to step in to defend Monica by credentialing her as a pro-gay marriage bisexual.

Reading her angry e-mails, Monica "wept." She won't care for my sympathy, but nonetheless, she has it. You have to experience it to understand -- it is shocking to discover the waves of hatred now aimed at forcing conformity with the gay marriage party line. Either you are for gay marriage or you are a bad person who should be repressed, humiliated, hurt, marginalized and excluded. "What's next, a piece on how a KKK leader is just 'someone next door' and 'really a nice person'?" as one outraged Post reader put it.

Here's the truth: You will now be called a hater and a bigot merely for standing for marriage as one woman and one man. What do we make of this sad truth? So far, the bullies pay no price for their meanness and their rage.

This is not an issue of free speech but of neighborliness. Fundamental decency requires that we treat each other with respect, especially when we disagree deeply on hot moral issues. Sadly, I've grown used to the reality that tolerance is now a one-way street for gay marriage advocates. It no longer matters how respectfully and civilly one makes the case for humanity's marriage tradition.

So Fred Karger gets quoted in The Washington Post calling Brian Brown "just as shrill, just as anti-gay as any of the leading gay-bashers." Fred doesn't provide any examples because he can't. Fred doesn't have to. The Washington Post does not feel any obligation to ask Fred Karger for proof. Being pro-gay marriage, Fred doesn't need proof as he hurls his charges like brickbats at Americans who disagree with him.

I know that not every gay person agrees with the tactics of hate currently employed by this powerful steamroller of a political movement to suppress dissent, just as I know some gay people don't support gay marriage. (Not many, but I've met 'em!) And I do know this: Bullies don't stop as long as bullying works. Gay marriage advocates have to rein in their movement, or people in Maine and elsewhere are going to draw the natural conclusion: When the law endorses gay marriage advocates like Fred Karger and their ideas, it will have consequences.

"FRC Action Announces Presidential Values Voter Straw Poll"
FRC Action
September 8, 2009
Next week, one of the first major presidential straw poll events of the 2012 election cycle will be held at FRC Action's fourth annual Values Voter Summit.  The ballot will feature ten possible presidential candidates, several of whom will be speaking at the Summit, who have also exhibited leadership on key issues -- Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. 

NOM in the News
"How Dare You Call a Right-Winger 'Sane'!"
Tim Graham
National Review Online (blog)
September 8, 2009
Washington Post reporter Monica Hesse dared to compliment a man opposing "gay marriage," and her e-mail from the gay Left was so hostile it made her cry. The man was Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. Hesse snidely wrote that unlike the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world, Brown was civil, "instantly likable" and a "thoughtful talker." Brown is effective because "he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane." 
  
"Washington Post Apologizes for Praiseworthy Portrayal of Gay Marriage Opponent"
NewsBusters
September 6, 2009
The profile examined Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups that lobbied for Proposition 8, the hotly-contested California State ballot initiative that explicitly defined marriage as between and man and a woman, overturning a State Supreme Court decision to the contrary.

"The political education of Monica Hesse"
World Magazine
September 8, 2009
The fallout from Washington Post Style writer Monica Hesse's profile of Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage has been quite amusing.
 
"Washington Post Apologizes for Calling NOM Head's Views Sane"
Alliance Alert
September 8, 2009
Following an "avalanche of messages angrily attacking" Monica Hesse's profile of National Organization for Marriage executive director Brian Brown, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander apologized to same-sex "marriage" advocates. 
 
"'Washington Post' Bewildered Over Gay Marriage Reaction"
On Top Magazine
September 7, 2009
The Washington Post was caught off guard last week by the negative reactions it received over a profile story it published on Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's most vociferous opponent of gay marriage.

©2009 National Organization for Marriage.

46 Comments

  1. Sally
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:12 am | Permalink

    "You wouldn’t be fighting so hard if you didn’t know we were winning."

    Clark, the fight to protect marriage from the evils of the day is indeed a passionate fight, but the end is neither known nor inevitable. Everyone must stand up for what they believe in. If what you believe is not worth standing for, it's not worth believing in. Keep it up guys! The family is worth fighting for! Go NOM!

  2. Chairm
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    Not quite right, Clark.

    The attack on marriage has gained some ground and so on that basis it does merit a forceful and organized rejoinder. So you are only partly right. When the abuse of judicial review is so blatant, the country answered with about 40 state marriage measures -- successfully reaffirming the core of marriage.

    Meanwhile we are preparing to reaffirm marriage in some of the states now suddenly on the frontline of the national conflict.

    But nothing is inevitable -- not the SSM-merger and not the success of the marriage movement that NOM has begun to organize nation-wide.

    If you had a good argument to make, you'd make it. But as Mr. Brown said in his blogpost above:

    "Gay-marriage advocates have stopped persuading. Public opinion polls are no longer moving in their direction."

  3. Chairm
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    Leah, was your comment a white flag of surrender to the push to make marriage mean less and less?

    Of the nonmarriage category, why would you emphasize the "non-marital sexual relationship" between man and woman? The nonmarriage category is much broader than that.

    Also, contrary to your conclusion, your emphasis points to the special reason for special status for marriage in society. There are highly significant societal implications for man-woman relationships that are sexual AND fragile.

    Anyway, the real challenge for SSM supporters is to plainly say what SSM actually is and to distinguish it from the rest of nonmarriage. Then their comparisons with marriage can be made with greater intellectual honesty.

  4. becca
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    I find it quite funny how the strongest "crusaders" are those who are in denile themselves. One of your main points I have noticed is that of children being confused. Do all gay couples have children??? Getting married means that you have to bring a child into the picture?? I believe the main issue here is ignorance. Just because I am gay doesnt make me any less of a person. And now you want to deny me one of my greatest dreams to be married. Just because i cant help whom i am attracted to. Physical attraction is not for one to decide on and who you fall in love with is not either. Expression of love to the furthest of your abilities should not be taken away ( marriage).

  5. Laura
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    "Wouldn't same sex-marriage get these awful homosexuals off the streets and playgrounds, and into relationships where if they fooled around, they could stand to lose (say, half their property, in a community property state)."

    Kevin,

    Marriage is supposed to be the answer to rampant homosexual pedophilia, encouraged by mainstream homosexual media? This is getting better and better.

    Your homosexuality and all its "virtues" are YOUR problem. We will not let you make it ours.

  6. Laura
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    "Just because I can't help who I am attracted to."

    Becca,

    Pedophilies also claim that they cannot help who they are attracted to. Nevertheless, they are not given any special legal rights on that account. Or, do you think they should?

    Your homosexuality is solely your choice and your responsibility. Although the subject is taboo among homosexual rights advocates (and ex-homosexuals are intimidated and harassed by homosexuals) you can change your sexuality if you really want to. Then, you can realise your dream to be married to a person you are attracted to and love.

    A marriage means husband and wife. Any other "marriage" is a caricature of the real thing.

  7. Jesus the Socialist
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    I hate these 'advocates for traditional marriage'. Many religions believe gay marriage is healthy and good so they honor it. Ever heard of the separation of church and state? Even with NOM's few sub-secular points they should also be advocates for banning divorce and single mothers. Marriage is NOT being 'redefined' since the original deffinitions included gays, lesbians, hermaphrodites, and many more (see ancient Rome).

    I was brought up in a straight conservative household and even I can see these people are nuts. I'm a 13 year old female from Norway and I'm glad that I never have to deal with these morons from the USA.

  8. Reese
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Interesting note on the fluidity of "sexuality"....

    In December 2005, Kerry Pacer, then 17, was featured on the cover of the national gay news magazine The Advocate as its "Person of the Year" — making her the youngest gay person to achieve that honor – for fighting for a "gay-straight alliance" at White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia. But there’s apparently no embarrassment for the gay press....when she takes on a boyfriend and they have a baby. In The Washington Blade, Dyana Bagby reported:

    But today she lives with her boyfriend, a construction worker, and their baby daughter, Marley, who turns 1 year old on Saturday.

    "Well, she’s the most beautiful blue-eyed girl in the world and everybody tells me that so I’m not just being biased, I swear," Pacer said with a laugh.

    "I love every minute of motherhood. It’s been a very big challenge, however I love it. I’ve just been trying to work and go to school and take care of my family," she said.

  9. Laura
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    A fake 13 year old from a Scandinavian "conservative family" advocating for homosexual "marriage" in the U.S.? Couldn't you do better than that? Clearly, you must be getting desperate.

  10. Clark
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Laura,

    I have no “radical homosexual scheme”. I just want to marry the person of my choice as a tax-paying American. Let’s not polarize things beyond where they need to be. I guarantee you that you won’t be harmed and the sky will not fall.

    Best,
    Clark

  11. Reese
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    not radical by whose standards....yours? after all that's been posted here by your fellow activists? forgive me if I don't drink the kool-aid this time.

  12. Laura
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Clark,

    Prisons are full of tax-paying Americans who happen to love somebody. The fact that you happen to pay taxes and love somebody does not entitle you to special treatment. A marriage means man and woman, husband and wife. Any other "marriage" is a farce and an insult to marriage.

    Homosexual "unions" and contractual laws can fully protect homosexual couples' interests. But, of course, this is not about "equality." This is about forcing us and our children to accept homosexuality as an equivalent lifestyle. Homosexuals are not desperate to get married. They are desperate to force us to consider them normal.

  13. Clark
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Dear Laura,

    I couldn’t care less if you consider me normal. I do not consider your position normal, nor would I want it taught to my children, nieces and nephews. We agree there.

    What must be clear is that each citizen must be treated equally under the law. Why should I continue to contribute to a government that openly discriminates against me?

    As for your vitriol vis-a-vis my reasoning for marriage, you can continue to believe whatever it is you wish. I know my true intentions and they don’t involve trying to change your mind or indoctrinate your children. Trust.

    Best,
    Clark

  14. Samantha
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    "I guarantee you that you won’t be harmed and the sky will not fall."

    Clark and Kevin, you continually try to push the line that all you want is x, and you deny the consequences and baggage that come with it. Are you trying to convince yourselves, or do you really live in that much denial? I like the line Chairm quoted earlier, he's right. The time of persuading has come to an end. People have to be intimidated and cowed into acquiescing now, and it's just getting too obvious.

  15. Kevin
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    Well how does one persuade bigots to change their minds? I’ve explained that marriage discrimination violates the US Constitution, hurts the children of same-sex couples by making their lives less secure, hurts the gay couples themselves by withholding an institution that lengthens life and improves health and wealth. I mean, what more persuasion do you people need? I think a lot of people are getting impatient with religious bigotry. Sorry but so long as you persist in your homophobia, plan to encounter angry people.

  16. Samantha
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    I love it! On one side of their mouths they claim, "You won't be harmed and the sky will not fall", on the other "Well how does one persuade bigots to change their minds? People are getting impatient with religious bigotry."

    It's completely obvious that your stance is inherently anti religious and hateful, no matter how much paint you put on pinnochio, he's still not real.

  17. L. Marie
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    "What must be clear is that each citizen must be treated equally under the law. Why should I continue to contribute to a government that openly discriminates against me?"

    Clark, there is a misconception you are continuing in. There is no right to marry whomever or whatever, indiscriminately. People have the capability of falling in "love" with just about anything. That's fine, that's their choice, but it's not the stuff of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, a union made unique by the possibility of producing children. It's very simple, very straightforward. You have every opportunity to be married as everyone else does under that criteria. You are only excluded from it by yourself. That's ok, that's your choice. Just don't expect the right to stretch marriage to include the plethora of other possibilities available.

  18. Clark
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Oh Samantha, pipe down. We aren’t anti-religious! In fact, I’m going to a church service tonight to mark Holy Cross Day. I *am* religious. But religion is too-often used as a reason for bigotry, which Kevin points out. Kevin, by the way, seems to be a straight, married (to a woman) man.

    Have a nice day!

    Clark

  19. L. Marie
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately Clark, Kevin/Ross/Perry reinvents himself every few threads, but I am glad you attend church. Very cool.

  20. Kevni
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Samantha,

    I most certainly am against religious bigotry. I do NOT want people of faith imposing their values on the rest of us. You are free to practice your faith as you wish. Be sure to marry someone of the opposite sex, if that satisfies your faith beliefs. But leave the rest of us alone to our lives are we choose!

  21. L. Marie
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    "But leave the rest of us alone to our lives are we choose!"

    Kevin, you are free to live your life as you choose. Have at it! The trouble is, you're not happy with that, you seem to want everyone else's stamp of approval on it as well. Sorry. I have freedom too. I choose not to have that taught in schools to my children. It's not marriage.

  22. el rio marcher
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    "Sorry but so long as you persist in your homophobia, plan to encounter angry people."

    quoted from “Gay Marriage Rage.” Gay-marriage advocates have stopped persuading. Public opinion polls are no longer moving in their direction. And so they are responding with the politics of hate, attempting to intimidate and silence opposition by raising the cost of speaking for the Truth.

    Great post!

  23. el rio marcher
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    "I most certainly am against religious bigotry. I do NOT want people of faith imposing their values on the rest of us."

    I have to ask, is there really a scenario where two sets of conflicting world views can be held simultaneously and harmoniously? Sounds like bait and switch to me.

  24. el rio marcher
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    To quote Samantha's illuminative post above: "An article in the Journal of Homosexuality stated that “parents should view the pedophile who loves their son ‘not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.’”"

    Is this what we're talking about when you talk about my values vs. those of gay activists Kevin?

  25. Laura
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    'Why should I continue to contribute to a government that openly discriminates against me?"

    Clark,

    Stop contributing and perhaps move to Norway. That way, according to this blog's 13 year old homosexual rights advocate from that country, you will not have to deal with all those American "morons", who believe that marriage means husband and wife.

    Your bogus arguments of "marriage equality" are a complete failure. So, you must again resort to your most effective tactics -- name calling, smear, boycotts, harassment and intimidation.

    Good luck!

  26. Clark
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Laura,

    I'm not sure if you've read anything I've posted here, but nothing falls under the category of name calling, smear, boycotts, harassment or intimidation. Just another example of you guys trying to make us look extreme, when in fact, gay people are becoming quite mainstream.

    And I'm not going anywhere. Neither is the other 10% of Americans who are gay. This is our country too.

    Best of luck to you and I wish you no harassment or ill feelings.

    Clark

  27. Laura
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Clark,

    No, Kevin is a widower, whose wife did not die. He also must rely on second hand knowledge to conclude that people get married out of love. Oh, and I almost forgot, Kevin thinks homosexual sex is fun and enjoyable.

    Kevin also envisions (and fantasizes) that homosexual "marriage" will pave the way to "sexuality days" in public schools where homosexual recruiters will given ample opportunity (with booths and pamphlets) to tout the "virtues" of homosexuality to young children.

    It appears that Kevin's personna is as coherent and legitimate as this radical "marriage equality" campaign. But we should all be grateful to Kevin and others for giving us a taste of what is really behind this assault on marriage.

  28. Clark
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Ah, well, Kevin is not representative of me or most of my gay friends. We have real, responsible relationships and our lives are not that different from yours, I assure you. Anyway, I've probably said all I have to say here on NOM's blog, so I'm signing off. You wont' hear from me under any nom de plume, I can assure you! You all don't seem to be evil, hateful people. And I know plenty of people who hold views different from my own. The only way we will learn to live with differences is to put ourselves in the other's shoes for a moment. Thank you for listening and thanks to those who responded with decorum.

    Clark

  29. L. Marie
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Clark, I appreciate that you've been civil. Even with the best, most respectful, monogamous sampling of homosexual couples, we would still have to agree to disagree that SSM is a good idea because it is fundamentally different from marriage in purpose and effect. I wish you well and hope you find much happiness.

  30. Samantha
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    SSM will never be marriage, because the United States is not ready to accept homosexuality with all it's vile baggage. Clark, you seem like a nice man, but you must know the darker side of homosexuality, and you must know what you are asking us to accept. Pretending to be simply interested in wholesome marriage is nothing but a good paint job on an ugly mess of rotting wood. If we honestly look at homosexuality and all the rainbow of Queer, Transsexual, Questioning etc. behaviors that come with it......who would want that taught in schools alongside marriage as the societal norm? Just another option? No Way.

    Are we obligated to accept all this baggage in the name of fairness or equality? No. Behaviors are not people. All people have the same equal access to marriage. All behaviors do not. I am sorry if it offends you, but the homosexual lifestyle is not a normal natural state, it's not healthy, and it's not a standard worth living by.

  31. Kevni
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Wow, my wife passes away from leukemia and it’s held against me? Why is it so hard for homophobes to believe that a middle-aged widowed man can be passionate about equal rights for all citizens?

  32. Kevin
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Laura

    “No, Kevin is a widower, whose wife did not die.”

    November 17, 2007, of pancreatic cancer. Would you like me to post her death certificate? Would that please you?

    “Kevin also envisions (and fantasizes) that homosexual “marriage” will pave the way to “sexuality days” in public schools where homosexual recruiters will given ample opportunity (with booths and pamphlets) to tout the “virtues” of homosexuality to young children.”

    He does? Must be another Kevin because this Kevin said, as a joke after someone insisted that human sexuality was something one chooses, that maybe someday adolescents will attend sexuality fairs and discuss which sexuality to choose with their parents. You seem to have dropped the “parental discussion” part of my post. I’m sure it was accidental, Laura.

    “It appears that Kevin’s personna is as coherent and legitimate as this radical “marriage equality” campaign. But we should all be grateful to Kevin and others for giving us a taste of what is really behind this assault on marriage.”

    My persona is indeed coherent and legitimate. Marriage equality is hardly radical; nothing like giving women the vote or emancipating slave, that’s for sure. The assault on marriage is coming from rampant adultery and divorce, not same-sex marriage. But NOM appears to be doing nothing about adultery and divorce, oddly enough. I guess it’s hard to raise money on a platform of criminalizing adultery or outlawing divorce.

  33. L. Marie
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Kevin, I'm not sure what's going on, but you have some serious issues. Your story changes more than most people change their socks.

  34. Nicholas
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Leah,

    So if there is no difference in a OSM and a hetero coupling, then why do people get married? There must be something more to it then, right? More than just the rings, the ceremony, the reception, etc. And if this is all there is to marriage, then why do you want to claim that for yourself? In other words, your musings don't actually entice someone to come off the fence and get married. As Chairm has said so well, what makes SSM deserving of special status that it needs the stamp of approval from the State? What is at the core of SSM that elevates it above any other "love relationship" that isn't afforded the same treatment. Furthermore, your insistence that non-married hetero couples is normative, I'll ask again, why get married if they essentially are the same? Can it really be all about the benies?

  35. Chairm
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Clark, I wish you well.

    * * *

    Please see:

    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:16 am
    http://nomblog.com/?p=426#comment-7518

    And:
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:15 am
    http://nomblog.com/?p=426#comment-7527

  36. Nicholas
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Kevin,

    "...plan to encounter angry people."

    Couldn't have said it better myself because your continual misuse of "homophobe' for anyone supporting NOM and marriage, whether religiously affiliated or not, speaks volumes of the SSM campaign and their supposed tolerance.

    Yet again, you insist that someone who practices their "faith" by opposing SSM is a religious bigot underscores your disatisfaction with those who practice what they preach. What, you would be happier if we were hypocrites? Non-committal? Non-existent? Really, now can what I believe be compartmentalized to the extent that it has no bearing on my life whether public or private? If so, why claim "belief" at all? Surely, "faith" is more than just intellectual assent in God and/or a belief system that results in a corresponding change in behavior. If not, then "faith" is superfluous.

  37. Posted September 14, 2009 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    The SSMer who does not know how to respond to a nonreligious defense of marriage will repeatedly return to his irrelevant complain about the religious beliefs of those who defend marriage.

    That is called eliding the disagreement; and then choosing to bash religious beliefs. It is also known as anti-religious bigotry and it is a central theme of the SSM campaign's rhetoric.

    It is constitutional to discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. There is nothing in the US Constitution that would require society to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. Thus, the marriage law necessarily deals with marriage as distinct from other stuff.

    The other stuff is nonmarriage. And SSM argumentation fails to supply the essentials that would distinguish SSM from nonmarriage. But they do rely on empty rhetoric -- by insisting that the mere use of a term like 'gay marriage' means that this is indeed marriage.

    SSM does not stand for 'same-sex marriage' but for the specious substitution of marriage. That is what the SSM-merger is really all about. The aim is to replace marriage recognition with recognition of something else.

    The SSMer relies on gay identity politics to suppress the core meaning of marriage. He insists that gayness is the factor that requires society to treat a subset of the nonmarriage category as more special than the rest.

    That would not be equal protection. When pointing at children, the SSMer would discriminate against children whose nonmarital households are not defined by gayness. This is unjust discrimination on the basis of gayness.

    That directly contradicts the SSM campaign's rhetoric about equality and about removing unjust discrimination from the law. Instead of remove gayness as a factor, the SSM campaign and its argumentation insists that gayness be read into the law.

    The SSMer will point at the license as bestowing physical health improvements. It goes to show that when the argumentation is weak, and the SSMer understands that the pro-child defense of marriage is powerful, that he must strain to appropriate that which distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage. So he just makes stuff up and hopes no one will ask him questions that deflate his bubble.

    And so he returns to his first resort: namecalling. To disagree with him is an act of bigotry and hatred, he yells to all and sundry. This is his most cherished of incantations with which he hopes to cast a spell and to curse those whose clear-eyed view of marriage he despises.

    He admits its and we should believe him: "I mean, what more persuasion do you people need?"

    Persuading is not the same thing as convincing.

    When challenged with reason, the SSMer will hurl bucketloads of wet emotivism. When challenged with passion, the SSMer will pose as one with superior reasoning and yet his own stated standards of argumentation destroy his assertions for the SSM-merger.

    Hence the SSMer begins, and ends, with a predrawn conclusion. But it is only dressed-up as a type of conclusion; it is really an axiomatic belief.

    An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true; it is not proven but it is taken as the basis for an inference or as the foundation for an argument.

    Of course, if the axiom is wrong, the inferences and the arguments drawn from it are also wrong. As is the case with SSM argumenation.

    But you will always hear the SSMer denounce the simple statement that marriage is the union of husband and wife. Why? Because, he will say, it is just wrong.

    So the SSMer's inference is really another axiom.

    1. The man-woman basis of marriage is unjustly discriminatory against the group identity, i.e. "gay".

    2. Society must swap the basis of marriage for the basis of "gay marriage".

    When the SSMer is shown that item #1 is mistaken, he will repeat the incantation that to disagree -- even based on the strong evidence that item #1 is wrong -- is itself an act of bigotry. This is a dubious claim on the part of the SSMer for it means that the evidence is to be discarded.

    Discarded for what purpose?

    For the assertion of item #2, of course. In fact, this is to be assumed so as to make item #1 'true'.

    The circular thinking is blatant and has zilch to do with justice and zilch to do with marriage.

    But it has everything to do with the goal of asserting supremacy in the name of the gaycentric version of identity politics.

    And identity politics is the most reliable source of injustice, unjust discrimination, hatred, bigotry, and, yes, violence. It corrupts governance and it undermines all that it touches. That is what supremacy means, and it is what they intend, so we might as well believe them when they so openly admit it.

    The SSMer knows his errors have shattered his complaint about the marriage law. But he will only stoop, pick-up the shards, and carry-on as if his complaint had not been fairly refuted.

    See items #1 and #2. The SSMer stands on on foot and pivots in circles. All his handwaving about how anyone who disagrees with him is just a big meannie, well, it is really his admission of a religious-like leap of faith in items #1 and #2. A leap into quicksand.

    And that makes it all the more boorish that the SSMer makes remarks that are steeped in anti-religious bigotry.

  38. Laura
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Before "signing off" Clark uttered yet another falsehood. Homosexul radicals insist on misrepresenting the percentage of homosexuals in our population. While the number is less than 2% for men and less than 1.4% for women, they falsely claim it is 10%. Of course, this grossly exaggerated number is supposed to convey the idea that homosexuality is and must be viewed as a very "normal" and "equivalen" lifestyle. And again, as with the "marriage equality" fraud, the intended audience are children.

  39. Laura
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Kevni/Kevin,

    Your responses (#s 81 and 82) speak for themselves. Nobody here is interested in your private life. But if you choose to lie about who you are to add some credibility to your baseless arguments, at least be smarter about it, if you can.

  40. Adam
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Laura brings up a good point that nobody addressed directly. I would like to hear some replies to her response.

    “Just because I can’t help who I am attracted to.”

    Becca,

    Pedophilies also claim that they cannot help who they are attracted to. Nevertheless, they are not given any special legal rights on that account. Or, do you think they should?

  41. Gina DeLaO
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    I can't understand why people are trying to link gays with pedophilia. It's pur ignorance. One of you anti-gay people has gay child living in your house right now and you don't know it. Please be kind.

  42. L. Marie
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Gina, it's gays linking themselves with pedophilia. Did you read the quotes? They're from prominent gay publications and activists.

  43. Adam
    Posted September 15, 2009 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Look Gina, I am just trying to understand what the difference is. How can one group be allowed to love whoever they want and its ok? But another group is held back. I mean whats the harm? Pedophile really love children and try to push that behavior on others. Whats the difference in what the gays are doing with marriage?

  44. Laura
    Posted September 16, 2009 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Adam,

    There is no difference. So, where should we draw the line? Perhaps we shoudn't draw any and create a moral anarchy.

    Consider two brothers or two sisters wanting to get married. If two homosexuals can, why shouldn't they? Brother and sister? You can say the child could have all sorts of medical problems due to incestuous procreation. But, according to homosexual activists, procreation is not part of marriage. Moreover, since when is our society concerned with child welfare? It allows homosexuals to raise children, which constitues child exploitation, plain and simple.

    If homosexual "marriage" is allowed, you cannot logically prevent incestuous marriages.

  45. G. Rothschild
    Posted September 16, 2009 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    "November 17, 2007, of pancreatic cancer. Would you like me to post her death certificate? Would that please you?"

    "Wow, my wife passes away from leukemia and it’s held against me? Why is it so hard for homophobes to believe that a middle-aged widowed man can be passionate about equal rights for all citizens?"

    you know, I wasn't going to say anything about Kevin always changing his story, I thought it was just you know, politics at play, but SERIOUSLY? This guy has some problems. Why does he hang around telling stories and making things up? He has no scruples obviously. Why should we believe anything else he says? The guy's pathological. He didn't even blink or blush or anything, just keeps right on posting like nothing happened. lol.

  46. Caremma
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    I want to say - thank you for this!,

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.