With the fight over the future of marriage heating up across the country, NOM is working overtime to make sure that we can get news and information out to our supporters as quickly as possible. With our e-mail action alerts, Facebook Page, and Twitter accounts we're already reaching tens of thousands of supporters of traditional marriage.
Now we're launching a new blog that will get you the marriage news you won't hear about from the mainstream media. We'll have posts by NOM's president, Maggie Gallagher, our Chairman, Professor Robert George, from me, and from guest contributors.
If you like what you see, or if you've got some suggestions for improvements, send us an e-mail at nomblog@nationformarriage.org.
100 Comments
I wish to subscribe
I watched the new ad and think it's very well put together, Can anyone truly explain how allowing a couple who love each other and wish to publicly solemnize their love and committment to each other will take away anyone else's freedom? I understand that you may have very deep felt and sincere feelings about allowing same sex couples to marry but surely we can discuss this rationally and stop putting out ads that demonize the other side and feed peoples fears. That seems to me un Christian. I'd be happy to debate this with anyone who wishes to truly understand the arguments.
“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”
The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:
(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
The real facts of each case are:
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
I saw the ad, which looks effective. However how can you say that people are coming together for love, when in fact you are asking people to come together in hate. I'm sure gay people who get married love marriage as much as straight people. Marriage is no more under threat than the American's right to eat a hamburger.
I also just watched the new ad about the gathering storm. Indeed, the production quality of the ad was great. But like Alan said above, I don't know what the ad means when it talks about taking other people's freedoms away. We live in a world of diversity. There are million things on which each of us have varying views and opinions. Is it really that scary to have your children exposed to the idea that same sex marriages are okay? Is it so abhorrent that children would be exposed to this kind of compassion and tolerance?
I think people need to look to documents like the Constitution and see that it was built to protect the rights of individuals to live their lives however they may wish. Obviously, those actions can't infringe on the rights of others, but being offended by someone's lifestyle does NOT justify taking away their fundamental rights.
Specifically, regarding Marriage ... every culture in the world has some form of marriage. It is NOT a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Pagan thing. Marriage has forever been a way to unite people who want to make a commitment and an oath of love to each other.
You guys are right on! I posted your ad on my blog tonight.
The ad is great and is spot on as to the future. I litigate these civil rights cases and, as you know, the legal attack is coming.
Alan, what part of the ad isn't factually accurate? That is exactly what is happening.
I was a debater, a debate coach and have been a trial lawyer (and sometimes politcian) for 25 years so I think I can "understand" your argument about "love". I think it fails several logical and factual tests, upon which I have commented at length on my blog.
Love each other all you want-that's America. Just don't make me express approval of homosexuality by having the government force me to lend you the imprimatur of my approval through a marriage license.
The lack of activity on this weblog is encouraging. As of Wed, Apr 8, 10:58p, I count 3 comments total. It means no one is paying attention to NOM. And I'm happy for that.
I'd like to echo the sentiments of the other person who posted a comment here -- that you don't follow the Christian ethic of loving all humans, even your perceived enemies. You can talk about loving the sinner and hating the sin, but when you deny people the right to live as they please, with no objective injury to you or detriment to your ability to live as you choose, you are not following Christ. You like to call yourself "Christian" but you're just playing the part.
You don't have your facts right -- for example, from the NOM site: "Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage." According to a CBS Poll from this month (March, 2009) fully 2/3 of those surveyed believed that either all people (regardless of sexuality) should either have their right to marriage recognized or their right to engage in some form of civil union.
The people are against you. And you know it. The secularization of society -- a natural, honest progression of an evolving species -- continues. And those who fear this do so mainly because they lack a conviction in their own faith. And perhaps because they lack a conviction in their own identity. It is cowardly and dishonest -- and decidedly unlike the teaching of Jesus Christ -- to try to force your beliefs on others. Christ led by example. Why don't you try to follow his lead a little more closely.
Then I won't have to waste my time writing emails to people who should know better at 11 at night.
With all due respect to you Mr. Sporer, someone as educated in public policy, and more importantly law, should have the best grasp of how demoralizing to American values this campagin of intolerance is. From a nation that violently resisted the oppression of a tyrannical king, we sought to make our country a place where people were free to be themselves. While we've gotten away from our classical liberal ideology (please do NOT read that as contemporary liberal) that maintained a steady balance between governmental and personal liberties, the overlegislation of our government must cease. As a resident of Ohio, I had the unfortunate displeasure of watching voters pas a referrendum that altered Ohio's constitution to give certain rights only to those couples whose relationship was defined by "the imprimatur of (your) approval through a marriage license." Elderly domestic partnerships (not necessarily homosexual in nature), other caretaker relationships, and yes, even monogomously coupled homosexuals are denied rights to their loved ones' property and income after their death and are forbidden from making decisions in the best health and legal interests of their loved ones.
Mr. Sporer and those who support the aims of the National Organization for Marriage, I appeal to you to truly take stock of what you, as an American value. Your freedom of speech is being curtailed by the second, your rights to gun ownership, due process, and freedom from unwarranted search are all being decimated by a government that would rather tyranically take power from you in the name of "security" than see you exercise your God-given right to democratically oppose it. Our federal constitution supports our efforts to be FREE above all, yet you do not raise alarm at catastrophically high government spending, witchhunts, or the suspension of the civil liberties guaranteed to you in the constitution.
While an attempt at a Federal Marriage Amendment has been made, time and time again by neoconservative forces in the highest levels of American politics, the constitutionality of such an Amendment cannot be upheld. The Law of the Land was not meant to intervene into the personal lives of its citizens as your organization and its supporters would ask it to do. We, the many on the other side of this debate, only want the equality promised to us under the preamble to the Constitution of the U.S. of A. Either hand back your marriage license and realize that you hold an anti-American statement of separation from your brothers and sisters, or embrace the diversity that makes America the light on a hill, where Lady Liberty asks for the world's weary and poor. Accepting different definitions of marriage is not condoning homosexuality, it's a validation of the legal rights granted to all americans vis-a-vis the Constitution.
Marrriage belongs to the religious institutions. Abolish civil marriage and make civil unions for all. If you want to get married see your local priest/minister/rabbi/imam/etc etc
Wait a second. Why does the state issue marriage licenses in the first place? Since marriage is a traditionally religious institution and the state is supposed to be secular, the state should not meddle in the definition and application of law based on marriage. Instead, it should provide legal rights based on secular definitions and reasoning, which, according to all logic, would mean fair treatment towards people of any sexual orientation. Religious groups can define marriage however they want, but should only be allowed to make policy decisions that affect their members, who have the choice to adhere to the group.
"Express approval through a marriage license"? Does a drivers license mean you endorse every driver? NO This argument fails fo not being logical; no government action signals endorsement by its citizens; that's why we have political parties; to express approval and disapproval
As a gay American, Theodore, I don't approve of your marriage and resent having my government force me to lend you the imprimatur of my approval through a marriage license.
(Obviously, I kid, but I should think that as a trial lawyer you can see the fault with your logic as it applies to any law.)
Theodore - I have read your blog. Your comments there do not in any way address Alan's points. In what way, specifically, does a gay couple getting married in America take away any of your rights? My wife and I have been married for 20 years. When we wed, there were no married gays. Now there are many. Guess what? No change! (Well, we are older, but I don't blame that on gays
.
I think I can state, unequivocally, that you will lose no rights whatsoever if gays are allowed the same rights that you and I have to marry. If you think that is not so, please name one right you will lose. Name one benefit you will no longer enjoy. Name one freedom you will no longer have. Just one, Theodore. That's all I am asking for.
I love my wife (more than words can say, and more and more each day
, and I believe everyone should have the chance to experience what we have - why don't you?
And "imprimatur"? Seriously? You have been granted the right to officially approve all marriage licenses in the US? That must be exhausting. Do you refuse to "lend your imprimatur" to straight couples that "refuse" to have children? Or to straight couples that practice sex that doesn't lead to procreation? Or to non-Christian straight couples? Who else do you decide to withhold the "loan of your imprimatur" to?
Finally, as an American, you should realize that what we as individuals approve of, and what others have a right to, don't necessarily have to agree. That, my friend, is America.
Here's what's not factual about that ad:
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
And Theodore, you can be "against'" gay marriage all you like; no one's forcing you to get one. However, when it comes to the state recognition of relationships, religion should have nothing to do with it. A marriage license handled by the state shouldn't have to go through your personal religious litmus test.
Alan didn't say the ad was factually inaccurate, and neither would I, because it doesn't contain any verifiable "facts." I would, however describe it as intellectually dishonest.
For instance, the actor portraying the California doctor forced to choose between her faith and her job. How does a patient's marital status affect a doctor's decision of how or whether to treat? Is a Christian doctor who treats a divorced patient similarly torn? I am sensitive to such an argument as it pertains to abortion, but fail to see how it pertains to gay marriage.
As for the NJ youth leader whose church is being "punished by the government," how so? The "government" (ad does not specify state or federal) does not itself sanction gay marriage, so why and how could it punish a church "because it cannot support gay marriage"? Another vague, non-verifiable anecdote does not make for a compelling argument.
As for the MA mother "watching helplessly as the public schools teach her child that gay marriage is okay," I suppose she is helpless if she expects the public school system to raise her child for her. It is akin to the arguments proffered by opponents of evolution. When public schools teach positions that are contrary to a person's religious beliefs, the solution is not to conform the curriculum to the individual's religious beliefs. Rather, parents should parent. Failing that, they may home-school or place their children in religious education.
All of these anecdotes, true or not, basically suggest the same theme: "My freedom is going to be taken away from me." This is an opinion, not a fact. Some would argue (as Mr. Sporer seems to on his blog) that schools' anti-bullying policies take away the "freedom" of a student to harass homosexual students based on their sexual orientation. That's not a freedom I'm interested in protecting, any more than I would if the harassment was based on a student's race.
Alan raises a legitimate question, which has yet to be addressed - how does a gay couple getting married take away anyone's freedom? I'm wondering the same thing. But there is no question that this ad is intended to frighten people with specious premises about their personal freedoms being taken away. I'm no authority on the subject, but I think his assessment of this message being un-Christian is more sound than the message itself.
Theodore, can you elaborate on how legal recognition of same sex marriage (SSM) will force you to express your approval? That argument seems like a stretch. Even after every state approves SSM, you'll still have the liberty to disapprove all you want. In many ways this is similar to the civil rights movement from a generation ago. Many people were very upset with the idea that blacks might be granted equal protections and rights by the government but just because the government eventually granted blacks the same rights accorded to whites, there was no punishment meted out to whites who continued to view blacks as inferior or undeserving of equal rights. True - with time these folks were stigmatized into a negligible minority - but even today people who are opposed to the idea that blacks are equal are more than free to not-associate with black folks, and can voice their dissent on various internet forums (like Storm Front). I know this is a poor analogy, and my intent wasn't to equate SSM opposition to racism. Here's a better one (possibly) Our government does many things that I may not personally approve of, like extending huge subsidies to agribusiness for instance. But I'm still free to vote against elected officials who support it, and I'm certainly more than free to shop at co-ops and farmers markets that are not part of the agribusiness program. It would be dishonest though for me to claim that agribusiness, and my government's endorsement or support of it, is destroying my way of life. That simply isn't the case. And I think that's why so many folks have reacted negatively to the "Gathering Storm" add. It doesn't really explain HOW, in detail, SSM will destroy or significantly alter the lives of those who view gays as aberrant or immoral people, who should not be accorded the same rights as heterosexuals. The recent revelation of the audition tapes that preceded the recording of the "Gathering Storm" add are not helping the cause either - I imagine the audition tapes (as seen on Youtube) may even surpass the popularity of the add itself. If NOM wants to succeed, I would suggest the following - PERSONALIZE the message, but do a better a job with how the message is put out there. Show us who you really are, and give concrete examples of how your lives will be negatively effected. The "Gathering Storm" add was viewed as dishonest because there were no details, it was very scripted and even a little hokey, and the folks who participated were clearly actors. Part of the reason why advocacy for gay rights is gathering momentum is because of the PERSONALIZATION of the movement. Many people have family members, friends, and colleagues who are gay and fundamentally decent people, whose sexual orientation poses no threat to anyone, let alone the institution of marriage. It's hard for these people to understand how SSM rights will threaten their livelihood. It's like the "Will and Grace" factor. I know where I live, there are more than a few gay couples on the block - I even have a gay family member - but it's a very safe, clean, and upscale community. I imagine it's more safe and more stable in many ways than some of the more rural parts of my state where marriage is truly under threat - from drug abuse (meth), economic hardship, and kids who are really too young to get married getting married too soon (one of the most common causes for divorce). Anyway, sorry for rambling! I just don't think that this is a winning proposition, and encourage this organization to redirect its focus towards making marriage stronger, perhaps through legislation that would create more tax incentives for married folk - SSM folk included. Or by encouraging curricula in high-schools and state universities that teach the kind of life-skills necessary to keep a marriage stable. I imagine more marriages have been undone by a couple's inability to balance a checkbook or listen to each other and communicate than have been undone by gay marriage. Show me a marriage or family that's been broken by legalized gay marriage, and I bet I can show you a marriage or family that had some pretty serious issues from the get-go.
I thought this nation was a nation of individual rights. Isn't that why we have a Bill of Rights? To protect the minority from the majority who, be definition, need no protection. I'm happily married with three kids. Why would my marriage suffer if one of my co-workers, who's gay, marries his partner of 14 years? Can someone please explain to me why he has less rights than I do?
Theodore, the government is not forcing you to do anything. Your rights are not being taken away.
The issue is that people such as yourself are trying to take rights away from other individuals by force through legislation.
You've got your argument backwards.
Theodore, you aren't giving any modicum of your approval by the government giving a marriage license.
Your blog only gave approval to the ad and the organization and you mentioned several things and an evil "they-re-gonna-get-us-holy-crap" agenda. Too much Rush, and too much repeating of what you've heard, stuff that has been removed already.
Anti-bullying laws are there because teachers let kids bully gay students because "it's my faith" or "it's teaching them an important lesson" so something had to be done. No student should be bullied.
"Religious health care providers are required to treat homosexuals against the religious teaching of the providers themselves."
Not one religion has a problem with treating gay/lesbian people. Possibly Islam, but that's about it. Just because you don't believe in Christ doesn't make it so for everyone.
The ad is very well put together technically speaking.
Though the "facts" in the ad are distinctly lacking actual case law and legislative fact.
No one is demanding approval of individuals of gay marriage. No one is demanding that a Christian or Muslim or anyone with staunch beliefs that homosexuality is "wrong" have to attend a gay marriage ceremony, a gay pride parade, or any other gay only oriented event. The education of homosexuality in schools is simply to inform children of what they may encounter. Just like sex education is about informing children about situations that they may encounter should they decide to participate in sexual activity.
Sensitivity training as required by law has a focus on helping individuals understand that their personal beliefs are fine, however, if they want to remain gainfully employed they must act in a manner the maximizes the effectiveness and profitability of the business. Hate crimes laws are in place because pre-meditated violent crimes began occurring. These laws are in place for individuals of racial minority and began that way...only recently have they begun to include sexual orientation and (rarely) gender identity.
Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage did not begin that way nor did marriage ever actually become a legally binding religious sacrament in American history. Same-sex marriage isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. It's about creating a legally equal opportunity for American tax-payers and defending minority rights. This is no different at than the African-American rights movement. Your approval has nothing to do with another individual's marriage license. If you don't want same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Doctors are required by the Hippocratic oath to treat all patients to the best of their abilities no matter what. That is their job...if they don't want to treat all patients equally then they need to find a new job. One does not make oaths to God without understanding the full consequences of that oath...not responsibly at least. The Hippocratic oath does not discriminate nor should the doctors who swear to it.
Theodore,
No one forces you to approve of anything. I seriously doubt you feel anything when mixed race couples marry, why should this be different?
I appreciate the board moderators for erasing my earlier posting. I see this organization is truly open to free speech and exchange of ideas...
I have a question concerning the rights of the church that are in question here. Say a Catholic couple were to want a catholic ceremony performed in a Jewish temple, now, if said Rabbi refused to perform this ceremony would'nt they be under the same scrutiny a Baptist church would be under for refusing to allow a same sex ceremony within it's walls? At the same time, what boggles my mind is that the true enemy of the institution of marriage are shotgun weddings permissible in several states, why there is even a movie out about a couple who spend a drunken night in Las Vegas and wake up married. Perhaps television shows like Married by America should come under more scrutiny, I mean, the television viewing public deciding whom should get married and exploiting this sacred union for advertising dollars and ratings. Someone dropped the ball on that one. Perhaps there should be stricter laws governing marriage if we are to truly protect it, like a mandatory waiting period. If you fear loss of religious freedom how about only allowing marriage ceremonies to be performed in courthouses and leave the church service as a "symbolic" service thus truly seperating it from state (something we seem to have forgotten about).
Let's really address something here that seems to be overlooked, homosexuality being taught in schools. As a child in school i cannot for the life of me remember ever being taught about marriage other that certain laws being overturned in the civil rights movement banning "whites" from marrying "blacks". I think that was the proper terminology at the time. Never was i instructed by my teachers about marriage. Other than historic law being passed it has no place in schools. I'm sure you would agree that the content our children are learning is something that is usually taken up with by the school board.
Bottom line, no freedoms are lost by allowing same sex marriages and it isnt anyone's place to dictate whom someone can marry. I'm not asking for your blessing, i'm fighting for my constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Theodore,
If you had ANY principle at all, you would STOP stealing my tax dollars to support YOUR rugrats!
It is dificult to judge the factual accuracy of the ad without knowing the cases that the ad mentions. The ad says the explanations would be on the website, but I have been unable to find it.
For example, it is difficult to understand how SSM would affect a doctor, unless the doctor objects to same sex partners making medical decisions for an ill partner.
The ad says the explanations would be on the website, but I have been unable to find it.
This add is totally wrong and should be ban as soon as possible. NOM is an hatespeech organisation. And I though america was supposed to be an advanced country. WELCOME IN 1800 ....
**Corrected***
Theodore,
Look at the last paragraph of your post. Is your lack of rationality there not glaringly obvious to you?
I don't want to be rude, and I respect your opinion, but your opinion in itself points out its very flaw: you are a straight man who doesn't want to be forced to express his approval of homosexuality (which you clearly have never had any reason to understand, which is acceptable) through allowing gay people marriage licenses.
But in order to have a rational argument, you mustn't be cancelled out by the flip side:
I am gay. I was born gay. If you are not up to snuff on modern research of the links between in-utero hormonal/brain development, I suggest you take a look at that. I was twelve years old, and imagine my fear when my eyes started lingering on men rather than women. Imagine growing up around parents, siblings, friends, teachers, pastors, and people like yourself who made it obvious that they thought people like you were gross, immoral, evil, and a stain on society...at the age of 12. Does that hurt, yet? Now, imagine getting over all that, working through it with friends and family, having a very happy life, finding a person you are extremely attracted to on all levels, and wanting to share a life together that includes some GREAT legal benefits. It would probably sound like a great plan, huh? But gosh, people like you are making it impossible. Great.
But wait. You have your context as a straight person who does not want to be told to accept homosexuality by approving marriage. But can't I say the same thing? I don't want to accept your heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage (after all, the divorce rates are sky high, and it seems to be a pretty bad thing for people who make the poor decision of getting married, having families, and then ripping the families apart because the love just isn't there....). I don't want you to have a marriage license either, because you might go have kids and then force them through the process of a divorce. That's pretty bad, sad, and hard on the kids...so much so that they might act out, try out sex at too early an age, fight depression by cutting themselves, drinking, or trying drugs...That is the reality today for many, many, many young people. But gosh, if only they had been raised in a more loving environment!
I don't think YOU should have the right to a marriage license, because I don't support what you have the potential to do to your children.
But wait -- the government is FORCING me to approve of this! How is that fair? You don't question it, because it is already in your favor. But me? Maybe I do question it, and I should (by your own opinion and as a citizen of this country who has just as much dignity as you) have the right NOT to do be forced into acceptance. Which means heterosexual marriage should be abolished should be put out of existence altogether, since gay marriage on my side doesn’t exist, right?
The only way around this argument is for you to say that I am not on equal ground with you. And that is prejudice, and there is no place in any of the major world creeds for such a thing.
You can argue that marriage was an institution put in place for people who could create and raise families. That unfortunately is outdated. Not all male/female pairs are able to procreate to begin with – you must take into account hysterectomies, sterility, and other health problems that would prevent a couple from having children. If you deny gay people the right to legally marry on the grounds of the procreation argument, you then must deny straight couples who cannot procreate the same thing.
We gay people are fighting for the same legal benefits that you have and nothing more. You do not need to call it marriage. It is not the spiritual marriage that this organization seems to be claiming it is. It is cut and dry equal rights.
Your argument does not hold up.
They WILL sensor your comment if you provide them with an argument they cannot win. Not only do they have blind hatred toward people that aren't in their click, they also shut the doors on logic.
I heard NOM President Maggie Gallagher say that the quotes in the commercial are based on factual incidents. Can someone point me to that on this website. How is a California doctor not able to do his or her job because of gay marriage?
Theodore, with all due respect, no one is seeking your approval or asking that you express approval. They're just asking that you mind your own business. It's called live and let live.
I wonder have many comments opposing this organization that have been taken away - without being loud or inappropriate in any way. Mine certainly has.
I am straight. No, my freedom is not taken away by gay marriage. Yes, I want my kids in school to learn that gay marriage is OK. Yes, I feel sorry for those kids who are taught otherwise. No, I don't want to be represented by this organization.
I welcome gay marriage and wish gay couples the best of luck. The word marriage needs redefinition. What is not redefined with gay marriage, though, is the love and commitment.
"Just don’t make me express approval of homosexuality by having the government force me to lend you the imprimatur of my approval through a marriage license."
Your sentence makes no sense. No one asked for the "imprimatur of [your] approval," and you're certainly not being "forced" to approve gay marriage - by the government or anyone else.
If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay!
How gay marriage impacts negatively impacts heterosexual marriage has yet to be quantified to me in any meaningful way.
For example, when people say in vaguely threatening tones, things like "my freedom is at stake" or "the goverment is forcing me to" (fill in the blank)," it's simply not true, and it's language designed to simply scare people.
If you can cite one factual, tangible way that gay marriage actually threatens the institution of marriage, i'd be interested in hearing it. Until then, gay people are entitled to the same rights as you and I - including the right to marry, have families, and raise children.
Your dislike of gay marriage is not a legal or moral basis for refusing equal rights to homosexuals.
Organized hate built on a platform of love. Isn't that cute.
Call me curious, call me ignorant, call me what you will, but I STILL have yet to figure out what rights of mine gay people are infringing upon. They want to be able to take care of their families and loved ones if they get sick or hospitalized (Which they can't do because they're not "married"). What, you don't want them to be "married" because of what you think marriage is? That's fine, but give them something called something else. Civil Union or whatever, but they deserve the exact same rights as you have to take care of someone they love.
Again, please point me in the direction of this "Right" they are infringing upon.
For Theodore Sporer:
No one is asking you to approve. You simply have to accept that ALL humans have rights and are not subject to whims of the self righteous few.
When white Christians were forced to accept Civil rights, what was the argument against accepting it? Christianity.
You people are disgusting; you are quick to let a woman marry her self but you wont let homosexuals marry because of what you think is right according to the what you believe. There is no verse, or rule in the bible that side homosexuals can’t marry it only talks about not having sex, if leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves. If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.
Just to let you know, the bible is very old and it was written by men not by who you call the won and only true god as far as I am concerned words can be misinterpreted sentences and paragraphs can be rearranged and whole book’s can be deleted so why don’t you all get a life, hay why don’t you all go on TV and talk about all the priest’s molesting all the little kids, I am disgusted and disappointed for the way you all think.
Oh, I love how the comments are moderated so you get to censor dissenting viewpoints.
Typical for people whose ideas are based on raw emotion (hatred in this case) and won't stand up in the face of logical criticism.
I am a woman married to a man. Other peoples' marriages (straight or gay) do not affect the relationship I have with my husband. Same-sex marriage exists in our country and we're just fine.
Please end this misguided crusade.
I don't get the part of the ad where the doctor says she "has to choose between her job and her faith". What does doing her job have to do with the issue of same-sex marriage?
You probably won't post my blog comment; but I am a heterosexual woman who believes if equality for all; not just some.
My son is gay; has been with his partner for almost thirty years; yet is denied the same protections I have because he is gay. That is discrimination, not a threat to my job or the sanctity of my marriage. Please stop your insane reiterate.
Theodore, being a debater, a debate coach or even a trial lawyer doesn't make you any better or any better informed than anyone else. Remember, we're a country of laws and rights. And these are not based on any religion. I don't really care if you don't like me but what's that have to do with my individual rights. And religious freedom includes the freedom from religion.
Very well put Theodore! I do not approve of homosexuality and I think legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians because they say they 'love' each other just doesn't hold weight. I love my dog but I'm pretty certain any legislation to allow me to adopt her, get tax benefits and have her added to my insurance is not going to fly...except maybe in Massachusetts or Vermont?
Theodore, while I can understand and congratulate the ownership you express towards your government in your final point, I fail to see how your freedoms are being limited.
The fact remains that, like Alan said, the ad shows an unhealthy intolerance towards same-sex marriage.
As a related aside, given that America is essentially a democracy (however flawed), you did, as a nation, vote for this government and *all* of it's ideals and beliefs (this time, at least). If you are having second thoughts, you can only try to correct the mistake when the next election comes around.
Freedom to express your opinion is guaranteed, but only insofar as it does not negatively affect or impact the rights of others.
Federal approval of same-sex marriage does not mean that you are forced to support it, only that you must accept it. If you find yourself living in a country with laws you do not agree with, then you move to another country, do you not? You wouldn't move to a country with laws you disagree with either, correct?
Anyways, I personally find the ad repellent on several levels. The special effects are well done, admittedly, but gimmicky and therefore shallow. Just like the argument. The actors are acting like real people, which simply makes the spot feel dishonest, not emotional. "The storm is coming" is such a cliché, it simply doesn't work here. Intolerance against intolerance is the only intolerance I can tolerate, so I strongly rebel against the intolerance towards same-sex marriage in this ad.
Could you prevent your son from marrying the man he loves? Could you sleep at night? Would you threaten to cut off his money? Disown him?
Intolerance is an expression of insecurity or fear. What do you fear?
The term "marriage" is secular in the 21st century. If modern day cults (e.g. a particular sect of Christianity) choose to create a new form of "holy marriage" that is separate from the government, let them. And let their "holy marriage" have strict qualifications such as excluding the portion of the human population that are homosexuals.
If making gay marriage in its legal, secular form is the equivalent to having the gov't "force" you to lend approval to homosexuality as acceptable in society, then that's exactly what will be forced upon you. That's because the public is finally waking up to the fact that homosexuality is natural and the religious indoctrination of some groups does not trump justice in the long run. In the long run, civil rights shall triumph. You'll either grow to accept that and love your fellow neighbors and respect the separation of Church & State or you'll grow cold and recede into darkness as a relic of bigotry, not unlike the KKK.
Debate it all you want.
Theocracy is going bye-bye... thank "god."
One of the big problems I see is that when kids are taught that it's okay for other people to marry anyone they want, they naturally apply that same logic to themselves. So teaching tolerance can end up advocating homosexuality. The big message of this ad is that gays aren't just asking for tolerance any more, but instead want to evangelize their lifestyle in a (manditory) public venue.
I think the really scary thing happening in school is that we don't have full control over the values that our kids develop. Some of them, exposed to a message of tolerance, are going to go past that tolerance and experiment with a homosexual lifestyle, against the wishes of their parents. It's plenty hard just teaching kids the basics, like a sense of justice and fair play. State mandated messages in school open a can of worms that would probably be easier to deal with a few years later when the kids are adults and have their value systems more fully formed.
If we're going to be teaching tolerance to the children of people of some faiths, who believe that homosexuality is an abomination, then we need to get the message in school clear that, while homosexuality should be tolerated and is part of the "normal" spectrum of human behavior in the larger world, it is NOT acceptable and NOT normal if you are going to be a member of these faiths. Then at least the kids can wrestle directly with the issue that their parent's faith requires a stricter set of behavior than society at large does. That leads to questions of faith which can then be directed to a priest, elder, etc.
Theodore,
About the marriage license thing: you are part of many groups. Some large, like your state, which grants marriage licenses. Some less inclusive, like your faith. The norms of the more inclusive groups have to be broader. That's why your faith can say no to homosexuality while your state may say okay. Since lots of people get married in a church, they tend to think of marriage as being something granted by the church. But that hasn't been true for a long time. As my pastor pointed out, I was legally married to my wife BEFORE we got to church, just by the process of getting a marriage license.
Lighten up about the imprimatur of your approval. If people want to know how you feel about homosexuality they'll look to your faith before they look to your state, and that'll be clear enough.
I am a married gay man from Europe.
I just watched the ad.
I also read your website, but I still don't understand why you feel threatened by same sex marriage.
Marriage isn't a gift given to heterosexual people. Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state.
Who gives me the right to get married? The Government. And who approves governors? The people who vote. So THE PEOPLE agreed to give me the right to get married to a man.
I understand that there's a minority of society who don't agree with that. I say that you're a minority because if most of people thought the same as you do, gay marriages would have never been approved in any country, as laws are approved by politicians, and politicians are approved by THE PEOPLE.
So, once again, I understand that there are people against everything, and I respect that you raise your voice to get what you want.
But do you really feel offended or threatened by same sex marriage? Why? You are not less by letting us get marry. You civil rights are the same. Your marriages have the same official value.
When women were allowed to vote, the male vote wasn't lees important, they were just at the same level.
So what I DON'T understand of your ad is that we are damaging your personal life.
I would gladly hear any comment expleining me this.
Greetings,
Well Theresa, I'm a man. I'm not talking I am married to a dog, I'm saying that I LOVE my HUSBAND. He is another person like me, and I want the same rights that any other couple between human beings.
And I'm proudly enjoying those rights since 2007 as we are OFFICIALLY MARRIED. I don't care about anybody's approval. I don't approve you saying those things, so we are both in peace with each other.
If the government gives you that right, I also want them. Or are you married to a dog? No, I don't think so, you are married to another human being, don't ya?
You guys are all morons. Marriage has nothing to do with love. It's a document that our country forces us to sign so they can collect more tax dollars.
SERIOUSLY, when you really sit down and think about about it, do you really care if a man marries another man or a woman marries another woman?
The reason this country is in such disarray is because people waste all their time focusing on who can marry who. Everyone is entitled to equal rights.
The real issues here in America are education, religion, healthcare and poverty.
START FOCUSING ON WHAT SHOULD MATTER.
Theresa- Are you serious?
You are trying to compare the marriage between two human beings and you marrying your dog? Can you say animal cruelty?
Marriage is about the joining of two HUMANS. Two creatures that can choice to participate in courtship. Just because your dog wags his/her tail doesn't really hold a valid argument.
Unless you are gay, how can you tell someone if their love is different then a heterosexual love.
Your logic is rather sad and depressing. It is small-minded and shows how lifeless people with your horrid views really are.
I'm glade that someone with such bigoted views such as yourself have the luxury to have something living actually love you.
I don't care who you love, but don't try to stop me from loving either.
You are bigots. Plain and simple.
It looks more like there is a mob gathering. The one thing the ad makes clear is that it isn't defending "marriage", it is defending discrimination.
With the exception of the Massachusetts "parent", all of the "oppression" metioned occurred in states that DON'T HAVE SSM, and are people who came in conflict with anti-discrimination laws.
Mayby NOM chould change it's moniker from NOM to NOD - National Organization for Discrimination.
I am thoroughly apalled, you truly are a group of blind and misguided people. The accepting faith of christianity has been turned into some kind of cult, hunting down and picking off those who don't meet your criteria.
I am proudly an out of the closet lesbian and my life has never been better. Your supposed "storm" is a pathetic attempt to shove us back into the dark. My life partner and I were disgusted by this ad.
You say we restrict your freedom, you know NOTHING of restricted rights. This is no different than interatial relationships once claimed to also be blasphemous of God.
Find something productive to do with your religion, concern yourselves not with us, but maybe you could actually really save some people, starving people in other countries, ever think of that?
Theresa, I don't get why people always equate homosexuality to bestiality or relationships with small children. The difference is consent. Your dog can't consent to marriage. The law says that persons under a certain age can't consent to marriage. Two adults over the age of consent can consent to marriage. It isn't a fair comparison.
Here's the threat posed to marriage by gays who wish to participate in it: it changes the meaning of the term "marriage". Contrary to lamebrained fuzzy-wuzzy politically correct definitions of marriage, it is NOT about "two people who love each other". It's about a man and a woman who love each other. THAT is a marriage. It is a sacrament and celebration of the nature-ordained bond between male and female. Same-sex relationships are an aberration and are not equal to the natural relationship in any way, shape or form. It's ludicrous to pretend that it is. That's what offends many people about the idea of gay marriage IMO; it's not the sexual orientation so much, it's the dishonesty, the lie they're being asked (or in the case of those states who haven't allowed the matter to be put to the vote) FORCED to accept. Natural marriage is sacred and primal and deserves to be defended as the ONLY type of marriage worthy of the name. And I have news for those gays who call themselves "married": most Americans don't agree, and don't honor it, and won't be swayed by courts or arrogant legislators who try to put unnatural unions on the same level as natural ones. All gays are accomplishing by pushing this issue is increasing the level of animosity leveled towards them, and lessening the level of tolerance they've gained in recent years. At best, they are enjoying a hollow victory.
Theresa....
A dog? You are equating gay people to dogs?
Do you realize what you are saying and how prejudiced that is?
It may be of use for you to go out and meet some gay people...learn to understand that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon, regardless of what religion says about it.
Wow, it's amazing to see people in 2009 equating gay people to dogs. Do you people who think I have the dignity of a dog also call yourselves Christian or religious in any way?
Honestly, I'm so curious how anybody can be so ignorant.
"I do not approve of homosexuality... " -- thank you Teresa, for talking about the TRUTH, for once. This issue isn't about marriage -- it never has been. It's about personally disliking the idea of homosexuality, wanting to make it go away and trying to find a way to legislate against it. I say go ahead and pass all the laws you want, just remember this one simple thing:
IF YOU HATE SOMETHING, IT WILL END UP IN YOUR FAMILY.
The above phrase was coined as a joke, but I grew up in Alabama in the 80's and every time I go home, I see more and more evidence of the truth of that statement. Hate away, people. Try like all heck to make it go away. Then, when you have a son or daughter that decides to choose a different path than you, hate them. Same with any brother, uncle, nephew, sister, aunt, teacher, boss, employee, you've got -- just hate 'em all -- and the list will never end. The intolerance and polarization on this issue is to the point where no one can be swayed by a simple argument anymore. So, it's going to take time for people to realize that hating people will never make that person disappear; rather, the subject of your derision will be brought into your life in a way so deep that you'll be unable to hate it, because it will be a part of you, too. Keep having children, siblings, bosses, teammates and friends, and the more you do, the more you'll realize that hating the "other" only means you're hating yourself.
Please feel free to naysay me all you want -- the more you avoid having what you hate become a part of your family, the faster it will happen.
Hate is a trap -- I prefer the Golden Rule. Jesus came up with that one, in case you've forgotten.
Chairm, I have to say I disagree. You wrote: "Marriage unites the sexes and provides contingency for responsible procreation."
While that may be a traditional and historical basis for marriage, our culture today is different on many levels. Many heterosexual couple get married with the intention of never having children. Does that make their marriage wrong? If marriage is about "responsible procreation" that it would seem they are wasting their time.
Secondly, anyone who wants a child can have one either by adoption or fertility treatment, whether or not they are married, provided he or she can afford it and meets the legal requirements. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, just that it is a fact.
Marriage is about love between two people and their commitment to each other, plain and simple. Substitute "two people" with "a man and a woman" if you like, it's still about love and commitment. Marriages used to be arranged and had nothing to do with love, but times have changed and we have a different value system. (I could go on and on about this.)
So if marriage is about love, then why shouldn't two people who love each other and want to have a life together be able to marry? I don't how you claim that Iñaki's marriage is "a sexual type of relationship, at law" He never said anything about sex. This implies to me that you think homosexuals are incapable of loving their partners, but can only have sexual relationships.
Lastly, marriage carries a number of legal benefits under federal and state law. If the government gives these rights to heterosexual couples it needs to extend them to homosexual couples. This is why the courts have been making decisions in favor of same sex marriage. In my opinion, the government should either grant marriages to everyone or only issue civil unions. Everyone should be treated equally.
Religious organizations don't have to perform, condone or recognize same sex marriages within their organization. That's their right. The government should stay out of the churches and religion should stay out of government.
Hey Chairm, says who marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation? Does that mean that infertile couples, couples who are beyond childbearing age, and couples who simply do not want any children cannot get married? Marriage is between two people who feel attraction to each other on several levels: sexual (of course, but that doesn't just mean procreation), emotional, and romantic. Marriage may have originally been for the sole purpose of creating heirs or little workforces (as was the case with the large families of the American frontier), but today in this age of freedom to choose whom one marries, marriage has become much more nuanced. It's not just about pumping out kids anymore.
Chairm - I think you are being somewhat presumptuous. What about hetro couples that choose not to procreate? I know many couples who have been married for years, sometimes decades, that chose not to have kids. Are they not entitled to the benefits of marriage?
Chairm, you said:
"For marrige it is the legal presumption of paternity."
Which is a falsehood. Legally, when filling out birth certificates, it is the mother who designates the father of her child. This person may or may not be her husband as she may not be married, her husband may be infertile or she may be separated from him. Furthermore, if she has conceived the child with another man other than her husband, she may or may not list her husband as the father, however, this can be changed if the husband later files a paternity suit. You are conflating a legal definition with your perceived social definition.
The problem with the "rights" being violated in the ad are a least three fold:
1) The rights of an individual extend only to the individual. For instance, since the Bill of Rights grants that free speech is a individual right, I may say what I want, and you may say what you want, but (as long as the stipulations of non-slander), neither of us has the right to be agreed with. You likely would not agree with me that a homosexual relationship is just as right, valid and fair as the heterosexual marriage I have, but I have no right to tell you to be quiet and take this posting down. While your views offend me, I do not have a right to tell you to keep them to yourself, no matter how much I wish you would.
2) Marriage, as recognized by the state, are legal contracts and anyone who is able to enter into a legal contract (in this country we have distinguished that as a mentally competent person over the age of 18) should be able to receive one. As this is a document provided by the state, there is no basis for any religious argument here and since members of other species have no legal standing, the dog argument is ridiculous. Please, let's behave like adults, shall we?
3) If you worry about what your child is being taught, you have the right to a state-run education. You have no right to dictate what that is. Rather, the state will run it in the best interests of the state - which is to teach it's youth to be functioning members of society. Usually, acceptance of most lifestyles is conducive to a highly functioning member of society. If you dislike what your child is being taught you may address the school boards or you may provide alternate education for your children.
I'm not sure what New Jersey church decision is talked about here, if I had more information, I could counter that too, but alas, I fear there's a reason that was vague.
Chairm, your words certainly do sound very authoritative. But they are merely your opinions, not empirical facts. And since I have no idea who you are, your unbacked opinions don't really carry much weight.
It is certainly easy enough for one to provide an alternate, just-as-authoritative, theory of marriage that supports gay marriage (I'll leave that to anybody else who feels like it, I'm commenting from work and must get back to the job).
And Theodore: "Just don’t make me express approval of homosexuality by having the government force me to lend you the imprimatur of my approval through a marriage license".
OK, I won't make you express your approval. But how does the government having the force to make you do something mean that you approve of it? There are lots of things the government allows that I don't approve of. I'm sure there are other things the government allows that you don't approve of. Personally, I don't think the government should allow churches a tax-exempt status. I don't approve of that, but the government does it anyway. You see my point here, right?
1st:
In my comment I said that those relationships are usually sexual, but it means some relations don't have to be that way.
2nd: I have a commitment with my husband and a love for him. The same you have with your partnet. Exactly the same.
3nd: Would you understand if a 70 y.o. man marries a 76 y.o. woman? They will not have children...
4th: I will stop writting here, because I discovered what's the difference between you and me: We disagree about what marriage and freedom is.
Goddbye
Drat. Sorry for the typo.
Correction: The lone individual can NOT be fertile without the other sex. That’s the nature of human procreativity — it is based on opposite-sexes.
Chairm, you need to research your claims about reproduction before you make inaccurate blanket statements. It certainly IS possible, and, again, far more common than the public knows, for a lone individual to be fertile.
Just read your talking points. Pretty much it boils down to your belief that widowed or otherwise-made single-parent families should have their children taken away from them and put in traditional "mom-and-pop" homes.
So how's that coming?
Taking a whole lot longer to "moderate" my comments than Chairm's. Is there a reason for that?
Another interesting talking point:
“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
I just don't see what you're point is here. Is your problem with non-conforming to traditional marriage roles? What if mom is the bread-winner and dad is the home-maker? Is this a problem for you too? How about if they both share work and housekeeping and childrearing tasks equally? What if the male has a higher-than-"normal" estrogen output and the female a higher-than-"normal" testosterone output? Would you have a problem with that, too?
What, exactly, IS the problem you have wit two men being intimate with each other and how, outside of your anti-single-parent and anti-infertile-couple arguments, is it any different than a husband and wife?
And why is getting my comment past moderation taking so long?
According to my faith, Christians are not allowed to get married, and I may not employ them or serve them in my place of business. How do you like them apples?
Chairm,
If responsible procreation is your primary concern, then allowing loving gay couples to adopt innocent children who are victims of irresponsible heterosexual procreation would only benefit the future of society.
Why even post a comment here, NOM will remove those they disapprove of, thus manipulating towards their agenda.
NOM and it's leaders are DisHonest.
While I completely disagree with your positions politically and religiously (and I'm a Chasidic rabbi), I will say this one positive thing, subject to seeing my own comments appear with moderator approval: I am glad you at least will post seemingly all comments here, whether for or against your position. Only open dialog can give you any credibility, even if your positions are wrong.
Please don't change that, like so many hate groups do, regardless of whether you are agreed with or disagreed with. Don't take away the First Amendment right to free speech here, as well all debate whether the anti gay marriage laws take away the Fourteenth Amendment rights to equality under the law or whether or not in an non-theocratic legal system there is or isn't a lack of separation of church and state going on here if gay marriage is not legal.
Oh yeah.....i forgot to say that i strongly approve comment 35!
have a great day!
To the people posting about schools. Let me clear a few things up. First, I am a teacher in a PUBLIC school. I am required by the state and the school board to teach certain topics. Some I find completly unimportant or sometimes just a waste of time. But I do it. In your ad, one of your claims is the school in Mass. That was one parent complaining to the school board. They, as parents have every right to complain, however the school has every obligation to properly educate each child of the REAL world and everything in it. If he disagrees with the outcome, he too, has choices he can make. First, there is homeschooling, a very popular and growing source for values education. Second, private school. In fact, my child attends a private school because I don't agree with all the state testing and my child's public school is ranked a 2 by the state. There is a saying among us private school parents. I Pay, Therefore I SAY. Get my point? Now you might be saying as a taxpayer, you pay too, right? Well how many roads did you approve before they were built or how many meeting did you attend before they gave a million tax dollars to find out why cows fart?
In my class, I have 3 students with gay parents. 2 of them have committed parents who have been together for over 10 years each. I also have 7 kids who come from broken, divorced, or single parent homes. I have only 5 students who have married parents, however, 2 of them are remarried. Which leaves 3 students out of 15 who come from "MARRIED" parents. When we discuss families, which do I leave out? All the ones that are considered sinful in the bible? That leaves me addressing 3 students. How about the ones that the "Christians" approve of? Well again..that leaves me with 3. What about the other 12? What do I tell them? How do I address their families and situations? ohh and did I mention that out of the three, all three of the mothers are professional women? Well now I address a class of none.
Well no, I am a teacher. I TEACH and EDUCATE and as my students grow and mature, they have their individual minds and values and make their own decisions on topics.
Also, by teaching that some families have 2 mommies are daddies does not mean each teacher or school approves of that family style. It merely states that that type of family exists.
It seems that my previous posting wasn't "suitable" because it disagreed with what the editors wanted to release.
Currently, domestic partnerships do not provide all of the same rights as marriage.
In New York City, the surviving partners of domestic partnerships were evicted when their partners died, especially when they died of aids, because rent control only applied to surviving spouses, not surviving domestic partners.
Depending on the state, domestic partners may not be qualified to be on their partner's health insurance, can't be named as beneficiary on their life insurance, and will be taxed more heavily on inheritance.
The constitution guarantees that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
If a domestic partner dies because the domestic partner isn't given the same insurance benefits as a spouse, that guarantee is broken. In effect, the DP is not granted constitutional protection.
If a domestic partner looses a house, insurance benefits, or inheritance, then the DP was denied the due process.
Conversely, if Marriage is defined based on a Religious Agenda, rather than a legal definition, then marriage itself violates the first amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.
Perhaps ALL marriages should be treated as domestic partnerships, and the terms of such a contract, including the penalties outlined in the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage should be taught to all children while they are in high school. Ideally, at the same time that sex education is taught. I can't think of a better way to promote abstinence.
Do you really believe that a doctor should be allowed to refuse treatment to people on religious grounds? I hope I wouldn't get the wrong end of that decision.
The core meaning of marriage is:
1) integration of the sexes
2) contingency for responsible procreation
3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution).
Marriage is foundational to civilization.
Meanwhile, the "same-sex marriage" concept is none of these things. It is sex-segregative, it cannot provide for responsible procreation, and it is not a foundational social institution. It lacks coherency.
To demonstrate, ask the advocate of "gay marriage" for is core public meaning. And ask for the legal requirements that define that core meaning. And then ask for their justification for lines drawn around the boundaries of that core meaning, such as it might be.
They oppose the man-woman criterion and they deeply discount or would also abolish the marital presumption of paternity.
They attack tradition, they attack public morality, they attack social taboos, they attack even the sexual aspect that all come into the balance when a society regulates the parameters of marriage -- i.e. eligibility.
So they can't now rely on the tradition of romance, or on some social taboo against closely related people, or stereotypes of polygamists and polyamorists; they can't now rely on the sexual aspect because their argumentation leaves no such aspect at the center of SSM; they can't now rely on public morality for they have shot that down too.
They can't rely on the legal incidents that flow from the core of marriage, because, the upshot is that they do not acknowledge a shared public meaning at the core of what they call SSM, much less of marriage.
They can't rely on government recognizing a social institution for they denounce such a thing as a purely religious invention.
Of course, on each of these points the defenders of marriage make rational and reasonable arguments. Marriage is a sexual type of public relationship -- that is directly reflected in the laws that define the core meaning and the boundaries.
No, SSMers utlimately depend on the raw arbitrary power of Government to impose upon society a change in marriage recognnition.
Yet, it is the SSMers themselves who denounce arbitrariness when they claim that the man-woman criterion is arbitrary and unjust and bigoted.
I hope the best for the NOM blog. I hope you will take apart each of the profoundly flawed assertions made by SSMers. Especially those that have been pressed into the jurisprudence of this country. And especially those which have become cliches in the legislative debates about marriage.
Thanks.
This country was founded on Judeao-Christian values by men who lived as Christians and who risked thier lives to establish a place to worship God and Jesus. That is what has made this country great and strong- those values and beliefs. I would guess that is not taught in public schools anymore.
Many people enjoy our freedom here while boldly rejecting and critizing the foundations and morality that created such an awesome, though imperfect, place to live. And that's ok. But what "tolerance" destroys is that there is an unchangable right and wrong in the world. God has ALWAYS given people a choice- choose right or wrong. " As you sow, so shall you reap". But we all get to choose and to reap our choices.
The problem is that we allow the foundations of our country to be erroded away in the name of acceptance and tolerance! Homosexuality is wrong in God's law and "making it ok" is destroying our country- starting with the family unit. Tolerating it has changed our society and we have got to take a stand some where! Can't we AT LEAST stand up for Marriage? To quote a country song- "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"
I am not a politician, just a mother and a grandmother. I can't argue with you about politics but I can see what is around me. The true family is dying. Let's not present the children- my grandchildren- with a homosexual substitute. Let's hold the ideal that this country was created on- God and family and country. Let's not keep on sowing wrong choices and end up reaping the destruction of our country. God please have mercy on us all!
You can't just bring up your faith to justify taking away other people's freedom.
Your faith doesn't concern anyone else.
If you have to choose between your job and your faith, that is a problem you created and it's nobody else's fault. There are thousands of crazy religions with weird beliefs, and society (or the government) can't and shouldn't accommodate any.
Separation of church and state means the government, companies and society in general should work on completely atheist grounds, and not ask anything about people's religions, nor be subject to change the ruling because someone of faith is "offended" by it.
If we did that, everyone's freedom would be at risk.
Everyone should know that NOM is a front organization for the Mormon Church. I first noticed it when I saw that this website was clearly designed by the same people that designed the Protect Marriage site during the California Prop 8 battle. They didn't even disguise it...
This site tells the full story: http://www.mormongate.com
Actually Mae this country was founded on the framers' belief in separation of church and state, or have you never read the Establishments Clause of that pesky old Constitution? In fact Thomas Jefferson who you may recall wrote a little something called the Declaration of Independence once said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
And what exactly is this "true family" of which you speak? Less than a century ago it probably meant a situation in which mom wasn't allowed outside to do much more than grocery shop. Not long ago I suppose it meant a union crafted by parents choosing partners for their sons and daughters who would be politically/financially/socially advantagious. In Biblical times it included polygamy. The ever-changing definition of marriage reflects man's constant evolution toward social equality.
p.s. NOM, you going to actually publish my comment this time?
To Mae,
You are a dying breed. I'm not happy to say that you will soon be gone, but I am happy that your attitudes will die when your generation is gone. In your younger days men who were homosexual were forced into "fake" heterosexual marriages because they couldn't be free to be who they were on the inside. We still have some men around that embody this: Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are just two examples of this. I am hoping for a day when people who are born gay can be free to be who they are, and they won't be intimidated into living a lie. I hope the remainder of your life is wonderful, and I wish you no harm, but you are completely clueless about the lives of homosexuals. Can you imagine living your life as a lesbian simply to hide the fact that you were attracted to men? Put yourself in the shoes of a homosexual, and you might change your attitudes a bit. Nobody chooses to be gay any more than someone chooses their gender, race or hair color. You can pretend to be something you are not, but you will pay the price for it pyschologically. In the future, gay people will live their lives with pride, and have all the marriage rights that you have taken for granted. May it come as soon as possible... Best to you Mae....
This is for Mae, and is a much more eloquent summary of my points, it comes from this website:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Many people continue to believe the propaganda from right-wing religious organizations that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex, in a committed gay relationship, is merely a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians. Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are part of a minority themselves.
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition of many species of animals including humans. It’s not a lifestyle choice, people are born with it. When you remove the religious argument there is no logical reason why a person born as a homosexual should not be afforded the exact same rights as someone that is born a heterosexual. The United States was founded on the ideals of liberty and equality. There is no scientific evidence that proves that homosexuals are dangerous, or that they can’t adopt and raise children in happy loving homes.
This article backs up Vast's claim that sexual orientation is not a choice nor a "lifestyle." It is as much a part of a person's character as gender, race, and handedness, as is not changeable...
http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html
Here is an excerpt from the above article, which shows that the NOM folks are CLUELESS about homosexuality:
The scientific facts show how many people are incapable of even the most basic discussion of homosexuality. They refer to it as a "sexual preference" or a "lifestyle," though both these terms are as nonsensical as saying that a person has a "handedness preference" or that someone is leading the "left-handed lifestyle." If you can't comprehend the difference between a "lifestyle" and a sexual orientation, you'll never come out with the correct solution to the question of gay rights. And for those people who can't comprehend sexual orientation, who think sexual orientation is somehow weirdly "chosen," who are terrified of the empirical, clinical fact that homosexuals and left-handed people simply have biological givens, the impact of this research is, unfortunately, terrifying. It renders ideologues on both sides of the political aisle apoplectic and irrational. The socially conservative far Right is so terrified of gay rights that it clings desperately to a demonstrable falsehood.
Dan-
The above article cites no studies that support its thesis. It is built on a phony correlation between a statistical analysis of the incidence of left-handedness in the population and the incidence of same-sex attraction. It is a classic red herring.
I guess someone was counting on the big words and percent signs to throw off us uneducated fundies.
faboofour,
Please cite the research you'd depend on when you asserted that --
"It certainly IS possible, and, again, far more common than the public knows, for a lone individual to be fertile."
Read my previous comments carefully on this point.
No lone individual can demonstrate fertility without the other sex. Yes, we use shorthand and leave as silent the part about the other sex.
The nature of human generativity is opposite-sexed. I don't think you'd dispute that, surely.
A lone individual cannot procreate *without the other sex*. Using "donor" sperm, for example, to impregnate a woman demonstrates this point. You'd not dispute that, surely.
A roomful of persons of the same sex cannot procreate *without the other sex*. See previous two points.
It is the nature of human fertility that the individual human being begins life pre-fertile, matures to fertility, and further matures to impaired fertility (sub-fertilty and infertility). This is the variablity of fertility and, thus, infertility, which is always based on the two-sexed nature of human procreativity.
The lack of the other sex is NOT infertility. This fact is not disputed, surely.
Since a healthy individual, with reproductive powers intact, is potentially fertile *with the other sex* does not mean that individual can procreate *without the other sex*. That's obvious, surely.
So, regardless of the individual's health and potential procreativity, he or she is not infertile if the lack of the other sex is the central feature of the scenario. Again, that's obvious and undisputed, surely.
Always, a one-sexed scenario (i.e. the lack of the other sex) is nonfertile and is never fertile -- not potentially and not in practice. Obvious, surely.
The same-sex twosome, or moresome, is as nonfertile as the lone individual. Not due to sexual orientation.
When a lesbian is impregnated, by whatever means, she is living proof of all that I have said here.
When a gay man impregnates a woman, by whatever means, he is living proof of all that I have said here.
When a female human being grows and matures through to old age, she is living proof of what I have said here about the variability of human fertility. Indeed, during her childbearing years, she will be fertile only part of the each month.
When a male matures through to old age, and remains potent (though less so) long after his wife has reached menopause, he is living proof of what I have said about the variability of human fertility.
But when a lone individual remains childless, due to the lack of the other sex, he or she again demonstrates the constant nonfertility of the one-sexed scenario.
In summary: We are born equal, of a man and a woman.
To assert that the individual is fertile *without the other sex* is to rely not on fertility nor on human procreation but rather on the possibilities of *human manfacture* through asexual means such as cloning.
That also serves to support what I have described.
But you may have research to show otherwise. Please cite it. Thanks.
I am against same-sex marriage. It will encourage and increase the incidence of women seeking artificial insemination and then raising those children apart from their biological fathers or of men seeking out surrogate mothers to have a child and then be raised by male partners apart from their biological mother. I have an adopted child who came from a Russian orphanage and while I am certain he is better off than he would have been in an orphanage, and I love him dearly, I do believe that the ideal situation for children is to be raised with their biological parents whenever possible. We are entering an age of social engineering where "anything goes" and the children, who need both mothers and fathers in their lives will be the ones who suffer. In this society, we are seeing widespread effects of the "it's all about me and my rights" attitude instead of thinking what is best for the children.
Chairm, I think you need to go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis before you pontificate too much on the impossibility of monosexual reproduction. If animals can do it, its not impossible that we'll figure out how to get humans to do it. And I can think of one instance where it already occured, about two thousand years ago...
Good job Carrie Prejean, we stand behind you.
oops, My apologies. At first my comments did not come up(numbers mixup?) At least I apologize and admit my mistakes, which I wish you would do. This whole anti Gay, hateful adds etc. are a mistake. Admit it, get therapy and move on.
Paul Cook-Giles, your link does not contradict what I have said about human procreation.
Cloning would be human manufacture, not human procreation. And cloning would not treat infertility.
But your linked reinforced what I have been saying anyway: the one-sexed scenario where children are inolved would be sex-segregative.
From your link:
"The offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female".
You do not have to hate lesbians or homosexual men to believe that a Marriage is to be part of a team...A man and a woman as ordained by God. It states in the bible that is a man lay with a man as with a woman it is an abomination.....If you do not believe the bible than why do you feel it necessary to marry at all?
Many companies today in our ULTRA liberal society allow same sex unions the same benefits as a married couple...and that is basically what you want isn't it...To have the same legal opportunities as a married couple. You can say vows to one another for a committed relationship.
In days of old you did not need a paper just a small ceremony and vows....Ceremony did not have to be public or even witnessed but my God.
All of this hub-bub and change of our moral standards set forth my our forefathers and our Maker are nothing more than an immoral unbelieving society of people to break the moral fiber of our Country. Not every gay is wanting to marry...Not every gay is fighting for this...A very small percentage that want to have SOMEONE approve of their life style.
Marriage and procreation are what God had in mind for a man and a woman...As far as cloning is concerned...it is a gift given my our Lord to help people with genetic and environmentally caused deformities or catastrophic acts that may render on helpless..It is another example of the miracles of God's work.
Is Carlisle serious about Carrie Prejean? Who is going to break the news to this person that Carrie was caught posing naked in a photo shoot, and will most likely lose her Ms. California title in shame... Why is it that those that take the moral superority route always end up being the most flawed themselves. Do I need to mention Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker? I could go on... Give me a break. These people deserve all of the shame they brought on themselves and their families for living a lie in the first place...
For you marriage equality supporters, you might find hope and encouragement in this great NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
The core meaning of marriage is about TWO people, and TWO people only. Children are of secondary consideration in marriage. Although, when they are brought into to a marriage, they are of the greatest importance and should be treated with all care and legal protection. This is why same sex marriage is important and does not in any manner contradict the core meaning of marriage. It is a choice to procreate, not an essential component of marriage.
Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.
This was written by a 17 year old person on youtube. I think our next generation will handle gay marriage with far more intelligence than their parents:
My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Consolidating Dan's spamming the forum with a comment from a teenager
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based on Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is revolting, disgusting, and immoral. We oppose that gay judge attacking our beautiful women, our values, and making us unhappy with an exposure to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our response: Carrie's RIGHT to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that “We The People” have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. In litigation thereafter, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in, ( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1 ); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] that is essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursuit of happiness to marry a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge, who slandered Carrie Prejean, because of her support for traditional marriage, and for her pursuit of traditional happiness; because, that gay judges slanderous attack is meant to destroy Carrie's career, and livelihood, because of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn't attack him, he attacked and slandered Carrie because she rejected his method to pursue happiness, and this the way it always is, gays exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
There's no convincing argument that gay marriage is taking rights away from anyone (and every evidence that denying any American full equality under the law DOES strip nearly 150 rights away).
How is your marriage affected when two people, who you don't know - and who love each other deeply - wish to become married? You're not being asked to sanction it. You're not being asked to approve it. Frankly, it's none of your business.
The institution of marriage is not weakened when more people have access to it.
The NOM ad is laughable. Public opinion is shifting. And it's shifting in one direction: expressing desire for full equality for gays and lesbians. That is not wishful thinking. That is a fact.
This group is on the wrong side of history.