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,

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.

96 Comments

  1. Clark
    Posted September 11, 2009 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    “Truth and love will prevail over lies and hate.”

    Mr. Brown, that is why marriage equality will eventually be coming to a state near you.

  2. Amy
    Posted September 11, 2009 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    What is it with the idea that we have to exclude women to have ssm be equal? I don't get it. Who doesn't need a mom?

  3. Vote NO
    Posted September 11, 2009 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    Vote NO on Question 1. Gay couples deserve the exact rights heterosexual couples have.

  4. L. Marie
    Posted September 11, 2009 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Everyone already HAS the same rights. Any man can marry a woman, ANY woman can marry a man. That's it! You can choose marriage or not, but that's what it is. Sexuality and orientation don't even come into the equation. Equal. Plain and simple. Go Maine!

  5. Andrew
    Posted September 11, 2009 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is everything else.

    Everyone is free to do as they choose for themselves, that's their choice. I support that even if I don't always agree with it. However, if you want to force society to bend to your views, then we will have problems. You don't have the right to force your views on me, my family or my children.

  6. Kathy Moody
    Posted September 11, 2009 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Why not let all the single people have the same rights as married ones... heck.. if we changed to tax code to a simple federal 10% sales tax.. everyone would pay the same and level the playing field.

    Clearly some folks will choose homosexuality for whatever reason..and yes, it is a choice.... not much that we can all do about that.

    Provide legislation and call it a civil union and require the civil union to provide the protections they feel they are entitled to if they want..

    Marriage is between a man and a women, Marriage is sacred.. Motherhood and Fatherhood are not interchangeable.

  7. Chairm
    Posted September 11, 2009 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    Clark you quoted “Truth and love will prevail over lies and hate.”

    The defence of marriage stands against the assertion of supremacy made in the name of gay identity politics.

    I'll quote this bit that is worth emphasizing for folks on all sides of the SSM issue.

    “Agree with me or you’re a hater” is not the authentic voice of peace and tolerance.

  8. Kevin
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Chairm

    ““Agree with me or you’re a hater” is not the authentic voice of peace and tolerance.”

    That’s not the objection of those of us who support marriage equality. The objection is rather: “hold a bigoted view that discriminates against a specific group of citizens and expect to get called on it.” The objection isn’t that you disagree, it’s that you hold a bigoted viewpoint that hurts families. So long as you hold this point of view, expect to hear objections. People who want to discriminate against same-sex couples in the granting of marriage licenses don’t want to be made to feel uncomfortable in their bigotry but that will come with the territory if you hold a bigoted point of view. You better get used to it.

  9. Clark
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Hey "Vote No":

    “Everyone already HAS the same rights. Any man can marry a woman, ANY woman can marry a man. That’s it! You can choose marriage or not, but that’s what it is. Sexuality and orientation don’t even come into the equation.”

    I am gay...always have been, always will be. How in the world would marriage be strengthened if I married a woman?

    What I think anti-gay marriage advocates tend to forget is that we're not going away. We have very real lives and pay very real taxes. There are very real, tangible benefits that heterosexuals enjoy through marriage. Those cannot continue to be denied us simply because your vision of the world has us in closets. We aren't going anywhere.

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

    Sorry, I meant my last statement to be directed at L. Marie.

  11. Clark
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    To Andrew:
    "Everyone is free to do as they choose for themselves, that’s their choice. . .However, if you want to force society to bend to your views, then we will have problems. You don’t have the right to force your views on me, my family or my children."

    And I suppose you have the right to force your views on us, on our families, on our children? We are here, and we aren't going anywhere. And our families are just as real as yours.

  12. Andrew
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Clark, you are free to compose your family however you like, as are single mothers allowed to create families without fathers, however, society only encourages the healthiest forms of families....those with a mother AND a father.

  13. L. Marie
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Clark/Kevin,

    The minute you allow the gay centric identity to put a chip on your shoulder against your fellow citizens, denying the consequences of your actions, with personal wants looming above your neighbors and their legitimate rights of speech, religion etc. . . then yes. We have a problem. You have said you are a gay man. I do not care one way or the other what your sexuality is. You are not your sexuality, to me, you are a person. That is enough. This discussion is not about rights withheld, it's about people and choices.

  14. Marty
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Kevin says: The objection is rather: “hold a bigoted view that discriminates against a specific group of citizens and expect to get called on it.”

    Right. And why can't we expect you to marry a woman -- because you think women are yucky?

    Talk to me about bigotry.

  15. Pepper
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    The minute you make a 'gay centric identity' a justification for denying an entire class of people certain rights which should be available to all citizens,but at the same time denying the consequences of your actions--as if violating the rights of a minority is inconsequential--then there will always be a problem.

    Please exlain to me in concrete,factual terms how your rights of speech and religion are jeapordized by my marriage.

    I agree that this discussion is about people and choices,but unfortunately many of those people are making the choice to maginalize gays and lesbians to the status of second-class citizens,all in the name of 'protecting' marriage from some imaginary enemy.

    The fact of the matter is that gays are not harming marriage.Most of the harm has been done by those who claim exclusive ownership over that institution.

  16. Leah
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Hey Marty,
    Time and time again you put out these ridiculous claims of homosexuals being sexist because they aren’t attracted to the opposite sex while blithely ignoring that this false claim of sexism applies to heterosexuals as well. So, by your own loony beliefs, everyone who is only attracted to one sex is a bigot because they don’t want to sleep with the other sex.

    Just for kicks, here’s the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of sexism:
    1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
    2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

    Hmm, don’t see anything about not wanting to sleep with men or women based on one’s sexual orientation…

  17. Lynn
    Posted September 12, 2009 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    Marty, being gay isn't about thinking the opposite sex is "yucky". I'm sure you've heard it time and again, gay couples saying that they love each other, but obviously all this gets whittled down to is that they think the opposite sex is "yucky". Please, love, even if you don't agree with the kind of love it is, deserves a bit more respect then that.

    I wouldn't expect a gay man to marry a woman, not because he thinks she is "yucky", but because he is attracted to and falls in love with men. Personally, I'm not for putting straight people through something like that.

    When I had a boyfriend I didn't leave him because I thought he was yucky. I left him because he was clearly crazy about me, and while I thought the world of him it just simply wasn't fair that I could hardly imagine myself kissing him, and felt incredibly attracted to one of my friends. Would it have been better if i stayed with him? I feel terrible that I stayed as long as I did, as it was extremely unfair to him, and he agrees.

    We can talk about how you think the laws should be, what you think is best for society and such, and even though we disagree it can be a good conversation. But when you show a complete misunderstanding about gay people in the very simplest sense (being gay isn't about hating/not liking the opposite sex, it's about liking the same sex), and so completely undermine the real love that actually happens in gay relationships, how are we suppose to talk? Because then you won't understand why the issue is important to us. This is where the whole idea of "it's all about sex" comes in. I know why it important to you. I don't agree, but you all make your views very well known,and I understand. But for some reason a lot of you think this is all about sex, as if something like love can exist between gay people.

  18. Chairm
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    To disagree with SSM merger with marriage, according to the SSMer, is itself an act of bigotry.

    That is the axiomatic belief of the SSMer whose foot is planted and around which he pivots as he calls people names for ... disagreeing with him.

  19. Chairm
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Clark asked: "How in the world would marriage be strengthened if I married a woman?"

    Who has said that the social institution would be strengthened by your doing that?

    That is a strawman. Maybe you made that misrepresentation out of a misreading or some other error. Perhaps the SSM campaign used it and you assumed it was valid.

    The choice to form a nonmarriage arrangement is a liberty exercised, not a right denied. And the marriage law does not force people to marry, as you must understand.

    Now that the misrepresentation has been corrected, there is no excuse to repeat it nor to assume it to be valid.

  20. Nicholas
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    Pepper,

    So in order to help SSM stand on its feet, examples of failed marriages are used. If that is the basis for SSM, then the future of SSM isn't so bright either. In other words, why should SSM be recognized? What need is there for it to be or deserve status of that of what marriage accords? Shouldn't it be able to "justifiy" itself without outside "help" from the harm done by those that claim exclusivity?

  21. Chairm
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    Clark there are millions of people living outside of marriage in "our families are just as real as yours".

    The nonmarriage category is much broader and includes other kinds of arrangements and types of relationships than those that you might choose to define by gayness.

    Of all of these real families outside of marriage, why would you think that society must accord gayness a special status?

    If not gayness, then, how would you differentiate (from the rest of the nonmarriage category of real families) the type of relationship or the kind of arrangement that you have in mind?

    What are the essentials, the universal features, of what you have in mind -- and would these be legal requirements for a license issued by society?

    Those real families outside of marriage are not going anywhere. Within that category people should be treated equally, with no bias based on gayness, agreed?

  22. Chairm
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 1:03 am | Permalink

    Pepper said: "Please exlain to me in concrete,factual terms how your rights of speech and religion are jeapordized by my marriage."

    Another strawman.

    The issue is not this or that marriage. The issue is marriage.

    What is marriage, Pepper?

    When you referred to your marriage, what did you mean, in concrete factual terms?

    Remember that the law is not written by this or that particular individual for her particular feelings. Society issues licenses for marriage and society is party to each and every marriage.

    That is because this is a public type of relationship. It has societal significance -- in addition to whatever private and personal feelings one might inject into one's particular relationship.

    So, "in concrete factual terms", what is the societal significance, if any, of your idea of marriage?

    See, this is the real issue. What is marriage?

    And, for SSMers, the real issue is not marriage, in fact, but SSM. What is SSM -- in concrete factual terms.

    SSMers spend far too much time preching to society about what marriage is NOT rather than plainly stating what SSM actually is.

    Distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. Then we can compare SSM and marriage and assess the societal significance of the proposed merger of these two different things.

  23. Nicholas
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 1:03 am | Permalink

    Lynn,

    So are you saying then that your relationship with your partner is platonic and that you won't have "relations" with her based on the "love you share?" If so, and your relationship is asexual, then why the need to have your "love relationship" recognized over and against that of other "love relationships" that aren't afforded the same treatment?

  24. Chairm
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    Lynn, if it is not all about sex, then, why does the SSM campaign and its argumentation emphasis same-sex sexual attraction?

    Defenders of marriage are respondig to the assertions of the protagonists. The SSMer pushes for change in both the law and the marriage culture.

    My assessment is that the proposed merger is driven by the assertion of supremacy in the name of gay identity politics. If it was otherwise, the gayness factor would not be front and center in SSM argumentation wherever it appears.

    You might use "love" as euphemism for same-sex sexual attraction and romance, but how do you feel about the SSM campaign's insistance that if something is not a legal requirement (and love is not), then, it is not essential to the special status of marriage in our society?

    SSM argumentation has stomped all over tradition so it is tragically ironic that the SSM campaign depends so much on the relatively recent tradition of romance. The euphemistic use of "love" in arguments revives the argument from tradition which SSMers have rejected. It must be an intellectually dishonest rejection.

    Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution. But even that has been stomped all over by the SSM campaign. Suddenly marriage is such a private thing that we are admonished for defending the social institution itself. When did that occur?

    If you return to legal arguments, then, you will need to bring the definitive legal requirements that would distinguish marriage from the rest.

    When an SSMer says that liking the same sex is different from not liking the other sex, I have to wonder. Why? Because in the context of the discussion about marriage and SSM this formuilation amounts to what Marty said previously.

    One cannot form a union of husband and wife because ... one likes one's own sex? The fact that there are plenty of so-called "mixed-orientation" marriages shows this is not a "cannot" scenario. That these marriages remain largely 'in the closet' is due to the grief they get from all sides -- especially the pro-SSM side which denounces their marriages as 'shams' -- as if the SSMers know more about these marriages than the people who live them do.

    Anyway, what Marty said, yes in a frank and forceful way, might shock you, at first, but think it through further. SSMers often talk of children being created via the use of 'donors' and claim that this shows that sexual orientatin is no barrier to procreation.

    Yet somehow procration becomes a barrier to uniting fatherhood and motherhood -- by deliberate design.

    This is about sex. SSM argumentation says so.

    And because marriage is a public type of relationship BECAUSE it is a certain type of sexual relationship.

    The pro-SSM talk about 'donors', for example, serves to highlight to societal significance of marriage versus extramarital procreation -- whether the use of 'donors' is by married people, single people, coupled or uncoupled unwed people, and so forth.

    Your reaction to Marty's remarks may be understandable from the perspective of group identity, however, there is more to it than you have given him credit for.

  25. Chairm
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    Nicholas has asked a good question, Lynn. I hope my subsequent comment won't distract from that.

  26. Pepper
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 2:45 am | Permalink

    The issue is not this or that marriage?

    Without "this or that marriage", marriage would be just an institution without any relevance to the separate and diverse marriages to which the term refers, or an idea in someone's mind,like a floating abstraction detached from any referent in the real world.

    "Societal signifigance"?

    Could you be more specific and concrete?

    Signifigance to whom?

    Perhaps you should ask yourself how the 'societal signifigance' of your marriage is worth protecting but the 'societal signifigance' of my marriage is not.
    Or how does the gay couple down the street invalidate the signifigance of the term "marriage" in the minds of those who disapprove of SSM?
    The government issues marriage liscenses,should it also have the authority to for the couple who gets married?
    It's primary role is to enforce the details of the marriage contract.

    My marriage does have enormous signifigance and value not only to me and my partner,but to society as well,i.e., our families and our friends.
    Who are you to say that it doesn't ?

  27. Posted September 13, 2009 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    "Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors?"

    Well, yes, if you're doing it to strip your neighbors of basic rights. That's pretty clear. Maggie's question is an example of common NOM strategy: the victory of rhetoric over sense.

  28. Clark
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Chairm asks me in reference to my question: “How in the world would marriage be strengthened if I married a woman?”:

    Who has said that the social institution would be strengthened by your doing that?

    Chairm, your cohorts suggest the same. Take L. Marie, for example:

    Everyone already HAS the same rights. Any man can marry a woman, ANY woman can marry a man. That’s it!

    And Chairm, you do a good job of making all the cerebral statements you can about marriage, but last time I checked, marriage was about relationship. Between 2 people. Two real people. And it has very real advantages that other “arrangements” don’t. Ergo, I want to marry my boyfriend!

  29. Laura
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage equality will be coming to a state near you."

    Clark,

    Your arrogant and hateful tactics are one of the reasons why that is not going to happen. A lot of people who were previously indifferent to the radical homosexual agenda are becoming completely turned off and determined to fight you. Which, of course, is very good news.

    You have chosen the wrong device to carry out your radical homosexual scheme. A great majority of people, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, consider marriage to be sacred. The homosexual "marriage" advocates are desperate to hijack marriage, debase it, and use it to legitimize and promote homosexuality. It is not about "equality", it is about normalizing unnatural sexual preferences at the cost marriage and children.

    You may be able to buy a handful of politicians or judges, but, as you well know, you will lose any general referendum. Marriage means husband and wife. A child needs a DAD AND a MOM. Homosexual parents ALWAYS deprive a child of a dad or a mom. That is the pinnacle of stupidity and cruelty.

    Clark and other homosexual "marriage" dreamers: Continue living in your LA LA land and continue deluding yourself that "marriage" will make your sexual preferences non-pathological in yours and everybody else's eyes.

    But if you really want to be married, get help and find yourself a partner of the opposite sex. You do have the right to get married, just like everybody else.

  30. Brando
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    " The objection isn’t that you disagree, it’s that you hold a bigoted viewpoint that hurts families. So long as you hold this point of view, expect to hear objections."

    i.e. agree with us or you're bigots. Thanks for clarifying that Kev.

  31. L. Marie
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    "My marriage does have enormous signifigance and value not only to me and my partner,but to society as well,i.e., our families and our friends.
    Who are you to say that it doesn’t ?"

    Pepper, let's avoid arbitrary lines. A definition isn't personal, born out of one person's experience. It's something that can be applied evenly to everyone. What do you think the definition of marriage is? Based on what criteria? You're asking everyone to change the definition of marriage to suit your wants. I think it's a fair question then to ask why you think your version of love should be accepted and not everyone else's versions.

  32. L. Marie
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Clark, if you don't want to marry a woman, you shouldn't. I never said you should. I said you COULD. That's the difference. There are many people who will never marry because they don't want to. Does that mean they are being discriminated against? Please.

  33. Samantha
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Laura, this is along the same lines:

    "Conservative Stanley Kurtz said 'Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and polyamory.... As if that is a bad thing? Celebrating more love and more commitments between consenting adults?" -Tristan Taormino, a group marriage activist

  34. Samantha
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Steve Baldwin, a former member of the California State Assembly and former chair of the Assembly Education Committee in the California legislature, wrote an article for a law journal in 2002 that is infinitely more relevant today than when it was written. This article is entitled, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” and it chronicles the homosexual community’s efforts to target children “both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement.” Here are some highlights:

    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.’”

    A homosexual magazine defended pedophilia with an article entitled, “Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?” San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper similarly editorialized, “The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.”

    Yet another homosexual magazine stated, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose…. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality…. We must do it for the children’s sake.”

    When forced to pull pedophilia material, the owner of a gay book store said, “I think it’s a strange day for gay culture when we start banning… a foundation of gay literature. If we pulled all the books that had adult-youth sexual themes, we wouldn’t have many novels, memoirs, or biographies left.”

    The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality acknowledges “the fact that until very recently man/boy love relationships were accepted as a part, and indeed were a major part, of male homosexuality.”

    The American Psychological Association issued a bulletin arguing that child sexual abuse does not harm children, and that it should be referred to by the politically correct term "adult-child sex" or "adult-adolescent sex." Leaders of the homosexual movement were quick to defend the report and have advocated repealing all “age of sexual consent” laws. Could one reason for this be because “abused adolescents… [are] up to 7 times more likely to self-[identify] as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused”?

    Homosexual culture is inextricably linked with pedophilia, or “adult-child sex,” to be politically correct. Not only does adult-child sex fulfill the sexual needs of the homosexuals who engage in it, it also enlarges their ranks. Obviously, homosexual culture is inconsistent with the environment that marriage fosters for children. Thus, same-sex marriage must be rejected.

    http://www.understandtheconsequences.com/

  35. Kevin
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Samantha

    Let’s pretend any of what you’re saying is true. 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)?

    Since the US Supreme Court has already said that homosexual behavior is ok, as have all the reputable (that is, not affiliated with a religion) medical organizations, how does outlawing same-sex marriage have any impact on homosexual behavior?

    And how many episodes of “To catch a predator” will you have to watch before you come to terms with the fact that there are pedophiles who prey on boys and girls? Why single out the ones who prey on boys (and who may or may not be homosexuals)?

  36. Darren
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    yeah, except that most homosexuals don't want to get married. This whole "marriage" crusade is just a push to normalize their behavior and get it into the schools. It's sick.

  37. Darren
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    "“Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?” San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper similarly editorialized, “The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.”"

    Kevin, you would really equate the reaction of the homosexual community to child pornography with the reaction the average American has to it? Man, there's something wrong there.

  38. Reese
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    "Let’s pretend any of what you’re saying is true. "

    Why pretend? Just look it up. It only scratches the surface of what's out there, from gay publications themselves no less.

    " Indeed, the Journal of Homosexuality is the premier academic journal of the mainstream homosexual world and yet it published [in 1990] a special double issue entitled, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, containing dozens of articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article states 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." . . .

    A 1995 content analysis by Dr. Judith Reisman of the Institute for Media Education, focusing on advertisements in the nation’s most influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, reveals that 63% of the personal ads sought or offered prostitution. Many of them openly solicit boys. The Advocate also advertises a "Penetrable Boy Doll . . . available in 3 provocative positions." Reisman found that the number of erotic boy images per issue of The Advocate averaged fourteen. . . "

    http://www.robgagnon.net/HeterosexismResponsePart2Science.htm

  39. Pepper
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Heterosexual culture and pedophilia are inextricably linked.Indeed the popularity of pornographic magazines like Barely Legal seem to indicate that child-adult sexual fetishes have become socially acceptable among many heterosexuals.
    Unfortunately, the insatiable and bizarre sexual needs of the heterosexuals who engage in it very often turn violent when thier needs aren't met,leading to much worse crimes,as in the case of Charles C. Roberts,who barricaded himself in an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania,where he intended to rape the young girls in the classroom.But before he could do it,he started shooting.Ten girls were shot,and five died,before Roberts turned the gun on himself.This happened only a week after Duane Morrison burst into a classroom at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey,Colorado.He took several girls hostage and raped some of them.Morrison shot one girl as she tried to escape,and then shot himself when a SWAT team shot its way in.
    And just a few weeks ago,a heterosexual married couple,Phillip Harrido,a registered sex offender and a man whom aquaintances described as a "religious fanatic",and his second wife Nancy,were arrested and charged with kidnapping Jaycee Lee Duggard and holding her captive for 18 years in a maze of tents and sheds in the backyard of thier home in Antioch,California.

    Shall I continue?

    I could go on and on and on offering quotes or news stories or studies which might suggest to the minds of some that there is a link between heterosexuality and pedophilia.Only someone blinded by propaganda and hate for heterosexuals, or who has no respect for reason and logic would conclude that a heterosexual orientation is the cause of pedophilia and rape.

    Many of the most shocking crimes in recent years proves there are plenty of heterosexuals menacing our children,too,and very often they use a religious justification for thier crimes.

    All heterosexuals are therefore guilty.

    Heterosexual culture is clearly inconsistent with the environment that marriage fosters for children.Thus,opposite sex marriage must be abolished.

  40. Reese
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    wait Pepper, you forgot to list all the average American publications that supported the actions of the pedophiles involved......held them up as models for the community and said we should all be like them.....

    oh yeah, there aren't any.

  41. Chairm
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Pepper, your reply to me indicated that you think it would be a bad thing for the social institution of marriage to become "a floating abstraction detached from any referent in the real world."

    I asked you a few questions based on your stated standard -- factual and concrete terms -- and your remarks became highly abstract.

    L. Marrie asked you a straightforward question that you might have missed. Here it is again:

    "What do you think the definition of marriage is? Based on what criteria?"

    I'll clarify that your remarks assume a distinction between marriage and nonmarriage. So please explain, in concrete and factual terms, what distinguishes your notion of 'marriage' from the rest of the spectrum of living arrangements and types of relationships that does not fit your notion.

    You obviously reject the man-woman criterion of marriage and the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. So these legal requirements, and these factual and concrete -- very human flesh and blood -- terms do not meet with your approval. Something else, much less abstract than this, might?

    Thanks.

  42. Fred2
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Rob Tisinai posted September 13, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    [“Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors?”

    Well, yes, if you’re doing it to strip your neighbors of basic rights. That’s pretty clear. Maggie’s question is an example of common NOM strategy: the victory of rhetoric over sense.]

    Marriage is NOT a basic right.

    To say otherwise is as silly as me demanding veterans benefits even though I've never fought in a war.

  43. Chairm
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    Clark, L. Marie did not say what you may have misread her to have said.

    Keep it simple. If you wish to claim a right something, then, say what that something actually is.

    You said:"last time I checked, marriage was about relationship. Between 2 people. Two real people. And it has very real advantages that other 'arrangements' don’t."

    1. For the record, where did you check?

    2. What would be the "real" basis for the limit of two?

    3. What advantages?

    If you meant to say that there is a special status for marriage in our traditions, customs, and laws, okay. This points to the societal signfiicance of the marriage idea -- the social institution -- that is recognized and esteemed.

    What do you think is the special reason for special status? It is unlikely that the number 2 has some magical properties, right?

    When you said that marriage is a relationship, what kind of relationship? How is it different from the kinds that are not marriage?

    Your reply to me has invoked a standard -- "real" -- and hope you will stick to that.

  44. Fred2
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    Brando
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    [” The objection isn’t that you disagree, it’s that you hold a bigoted viewpoint that hurts families. So long as you hold this point of view, expect to hear objections.”

    i.e. agree with us or you’re bigots. Thanks for clarifying that Kev.]

    Kev,

    This amusing video further explores the intolerance of "tolerant" gay "marriage" activists:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmEux9PlOj4&channel=StevenCrowder

  45. Chairm
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    What Maggie said in her column is worth repeating so we can keep this in mind as we read what Rob has had to say:

    From her column:

    startQuote

    [He] 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.

    stopQuote

  46. Fred2
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    Darren
    Posted September 13, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    [““Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?” San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper similarly editorialized, “The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.””]

    Well this would explain the gay double standard regarding pedophilia.

    For example, over the summer, Duke University professor, Frank Lombard, was arrested for raping his adopted son and then trying to pimp him on eBay:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/media_nervous_on_new_duke_u_ra.html

    Strangely, gay activist groups like the HRC and GLAAD have not publicly denounced the openly gay Lombard and his vile actions. It's almost as if they condone the rape of defenseless children.

    I also won't go into the racist undertones to this case. Did I forget to mention that Lombard's son is Black?

    Gay activists' silence over cases like Lombard's partly explain why support for gay "marriage" is pretty low among American voters, especially Black voters.

  47. Chairm
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    SSM is not "outlawed" but the SSMer will use that rhetoric to disparage the marriage law.

    Polygamy is outlawed. Incestuous marriage, also outlawed. Underaged marriage, outlawed.

    Whatever SSM is, it is not outlawed.

    Marriage is not SSM but SSMers seek to suppress the the core meaning of marriage -- in the law and in the culture too.

    Whatever is at the core of the SSM merger will be vigorously enforced.

    That core is nothing short of the assertion of supremacy of gay identity politics over the most pro-child social institution we have. But this merger is merely a political vehicle for pressing this sort of supremacy across all of civil society -- including constitutional jurisprudence. They demand that the heavy hand of Government be used to stigmatize the societal significance of this foundational social institution.

    A more benign form of gay identity politics would instead make SSM stand on its own two feet and provide the special reason for the demand for "advantages".

    If supremacy is stripped from SSM argumentation what is left is a call for protection equality for arrangements in the nonmarriage category. Those protective measures do not amount to a special status. They are not a rival to the core meaning of marriage. But such measures are remedial in the face of vulnerabilities that are experienced by families outside of marriage -- especially those with children and other dependencies. These vulnerabilities arise from the lack of, or the diminishment of, sex integration and responsible procreation in these circumstances. This is the very thing that marriage helps to prevent in society.

    So we can affirm marriage itself while also using the democratic process to help ameliorate the experience of vulnerable families in nonmarital arrangements.

    That is how values and democracy and caring for our neighbors works on a societal level. But we don't have to depend on Government for all solutions. Indeed, civil society is the very thing that provides the protective buffer between the individual and the State.

    But the SSM campaign gets this twisted upside down. They demand a purely governmental creation of a special status for SSM -- without justification -- and so depend on the arbitrary power of a state captured by identity politics. Their demands, as per the assertion of supremacy, is not about justice, but "just us".

    That means no one would be permitted to be undecided, indifferent, or disinterested in the core of the SSM-merger. Contrary to what the less radical SSMers say when they talk of live-and-let-live. Even those less radical among SSM supporters would be subject to the heavy hand of identity politics.

    These are among the lessons that American society learned in the not-so-distant past when the anti-miscegenation system was entrenched in some places in the country.

    The SSM campaign's assertion of supremacy in the name of gay identity politics is a throw-back to that period. Racialist identity politics was unjust when pressed into the marriage law; gay identity politics would be unjust if pressed into today's marriage law.

  48. Clark
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    Laura,

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

    Sincerely,
    Clark

  49. Chairm
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    Fred2, a point of order, if I may.

    I think it is going too far to say of HRC and GLAAD -- "It’s almost as if they condone the rape of defenseless children."

    Yes, these organizations do tend to jump all over certain crimes that they can use to drum-up interest or that they can use in fundraising efforts. And, yes, they tend not to draw attention to themselves in the context of these other examples.

    That imbalance is more about the optics of identity politics, I think, than a silent agenda of condoning criminal behavior.

    When faced with the onslaught of identity politics, it may be a temptation to reply in kind in the heat of the moment. But my experience tells me that the assertion of identity politics -- of whatever kind -- corrupts and undermines public discourse, lawmaking, jurisprudence, good governance, and living peacefully with our neighbours.

    Best to stand on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity. The other stuff is like quicksand and will pull you under.

  50. Leah
    Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    Nicholas,

    I think one of the many reasons why the many failures of OSM are brought up during these debates is to illustrate the point that these days, there is very little that elevates OSM over other nonmarital agreements. There is nothing that a married heterosexual couple does that a non-married hetero couple cannot. The only thing that elevates OSM over a committed (or not) non-marital sexual relationship is that married couples enter a contract with each other, witnessed by the state or a religious organization, that gives them greater benefits, assuredly because maintaining this contract can sometimes be more difficult than maintaining a non-marital sexual relationship.

    In fact, when OSM supporters explain why they believe OSM is important, they often say “because marriage is between a man and a woman.” However, regurgitating Webster’s definition of marriage does not explain why it is important and deserves special status, because after all, other forms of hetero relationships are also “between a man and a woman” but we don’t stop homosexual couples from engaging in the counterparts of these relationships because of that definition.

    So, with all that said, the SSM camp can feel rightfully offended when asked to justify why they “deserve” marriage when the only thing separating a non-marital straight couple and a married straight couple is two signatures, two rings, and the desire (at the time) to commit to each other.

  51. 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!

  52. 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."

  53. 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.

  54. 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).

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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

  69. 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.

  70. 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!

  71. 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.

  72. 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!

  73. 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.

  74. 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?

  75. 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!

  76. 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

  77. 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.

  78. 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

  79. 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.

  80. 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.

  81. 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?

  82. 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.

  83. 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.

  84. 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?

  85. 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

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. 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.

  89. 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.

  90. 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?

  91. 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.

  92. 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.

  93. 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?

  94. 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.

  95. 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.

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

    I want to say - thank you for this!,