The National Organization for Marriage has a long history of not saying what they mean. For instance, on their website they advise their followers:
Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”
It’s startling, the admission that they don’t want say the one thing they’re devoted to doing. Want to know another rank example of their hypocrisy? Their claim that they’re protecting the rights of voters in each state against evil activist judges.
- “[T]his case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court,” Maggie Gallagher says,”where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed.”
- “The gay activists don’t care about our right to home rule and right to vote on marriage,” NOM claims in a D.C. election mailer.
- NOM’s new radio ad says, “[Candidate for governor] Tom Emmer believes that Minnesota voters should have the final say on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have done.”
See, they’re not against gay marriage, they’re just protecting the rights of local voters to decide things locally.
Except they’re not.
Maggie supports this version of a federal marriage amendment:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
If Maggie were sincere, she’d favor an amendment that allows each state to set its own terms on marriage. But the amendment above does exactly the opposite. It forbids the voters of each state from doing this. If enough red states got behind the amendment, they could dictate marriage policy for the entire country. Even if every California voter supported marriage equality, it wouldn’t matter: California still couldn’t legalize same-sex marriage.
Here’s what NOM and I (and most of you, I bet) have in common: We don’t believe the voters in a state should decide whether we have the right to marry in that state. The difference, though, is that we don’t deceive people by pretending otherwise.
All NOM really wants is to kill our right to marry — by any means possible. When they claim (as they so often do) that they’re standing up for the right of voters to control marriage in their own state, they’re lying. And all we have to do is ask, “Then why are you pushing a Constitutional amendment to strip voters of that right?”
By the way, I posted this in a comment on NOM’s blog (screen shot here). Naturally, they “moderated” it out of existence. God forbid their supporters should learn of their hypocrisy.
UPDATE: I found another article from Maggie that makes it even clearer that she does NOT want to let the voters of each state decide.
It forbids the voters of each state from doing this.
No, it doesn’t.
It simply states that no constitution or law shall be construed to require it. Just as Proposition 8 did not undo the domestic partnership law, this would have no effect on things that were duly voted into place that did not contradict it directly.
Feel free to vote a law into place that allows it. You simply can’t force it into place via the judiciary.
Finally, what is really funny, Rob, is how you and yours are so upset about amending the Constitution — when the basis for your entire argument for gay-sex marriage is a constitutional amendment.
I’m afraid you’re wrong, Dallas. The first words of the amendment are: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”
That “only” is unambiguous.
“Finally, what is really funny, Rob, is how you and yours are so upset about amending the Constitution — when the basis for your entire argument for gay-sex marriage is a constitutional amendment.”
Such a strange thing to say. Are you saying we either have to be in favor of ALL possible amendments or against ALL of them? It’s not possible to be in favor of one amendment and against another?
Also, you’re ignoring the whole point of the piece, which is that NOM favors an amendment that directly contradicts their own rhetoric.
That “only” is unambiguous.
Actually, it’s not.
“Marriage in the United States” is different than “Marriage in (insert state name here)”.
So in short, California can have gay-sex marriage, call it marriage, and whatever it wants to do if it wants to vote it in. The Federal government and other states are simply not required to recognize it as such unless they choose otherwise.
The real problem here is that California chose not to have gay-sex marriage, so the gay and lesbian community is throwing a fit and trying to force it into place via the judiciary.
But what they’re not realizing in their fit is that the amendment process is the voters’ ultimate check on the judiciary. If the voters feel it necessary to use it, they can and shall, especially since there is a significant number of voters who might be supportive of gay-sex marriage, but not of implementing it by judicial fiat over the clearly-expressed will of voters.
Such a strange thing to say. Are you saying we either have to be in favor of ALL possible amendments or against ALL of them? It’s not possible to be in favor of one amendment and against another?
No; the problem here is that you are railing against the amendment process. It’s perfectly all right to have differing opinions on amendments; that’s why we vote on them. However, what you are doing is, since you lost the vote, attacking the entire process as immoral and wrong — based on an amendment that WAS duly passed following the process.
“No; the problem here is that you are railing against the amendment process.”
I am? Where?
And it’s hilarious that you think “in the United States” doesn’t include “in California.”
Dallas, you are completely wrong. Apparently, you believe that a FMA would prohibit same sex marriage only at the federal level but not at the state level. however, we already have DOMA, which prohibits SSM at the federal level but not the state. I hardly think that NOM would be spending its resources to get a constitutional amendment that would accomplish nothing more than what is already federal law.
A FMA, with its wording, would define marriage as between one man and one woman, as as the US constitution is the supreme law of the land, that means that any state law that says otherwise would be null and void. It would therefore void SSM in Massachusetts, Iowa and in every corner of the land. That’s the big prize for NOM, because once the constitution is amended, that’s the end of the matter. No court would be able to rule otherwise, so the courts and the legislatures, whether they would be state or federal, would be closed to us.
If you doubt me, check with any attorney.
ND30: “The real problem here is that California chose not to have gay-sex marriage, so the gay and lesbian community is throwing a fit and trying to force it into place via the judiciary.”
The court case was brought by Ted Olsen, a solid member of the conservative wing of the Republican party, and David Bois, who is also an attorney but on the left. They brought the case themselves, and when they announced it, it was condemned by the HRC, Freedom to Marry and most all of the major gay rights groups. None of the plaintiffs in the case have a history of gay activism, and neither Olsen nor Bois did either.
In short, Olsen and Bois, two straight attorneys, brought this case DESPITE the opposition of the gay and lesbian community. If you want to blame someone for “trying to force the judiciary”, then you should be the blame solidly where it belongs — with a Republican attorney named Ted Olsen, and a Democratic one name DAvid Bois.
Apparently, you believe that a FMA would prohibit same sex marriage only at the federal level but not at the state level. however, we already have DOMA, which prohibits SSM at the federal level but not the state.
It’s interesting that you mention DOMA, given the language therein.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
In short, since I haven’t seen anyone seriously arguing that gay-sex marriage in Massachusetts is precluded and overridden by DOMA, it’s kind of hard to argue that a Federal constitutional amendment which says essentially the same thing would work that way.
I hardly think that NOM would be spending its resources to get a constitutional amendment that would accomplish nothing more than what is already federal law.
Proposition 8 came about because the judiciary threw out Proposition 22. As I stated above, the amendment process is the voters’ check on the judiciary. Since the judiciary has already shown that it will overrule and throw out DOMA, the only recourse left is a constitutional amendment.
Meanwhile, your attempt to disassociate the gay-sex marriage movement from this lawsuit is undermined by the fact that this website, HRC, the Courage Campaign, and all these other things that you state “opposed” and “condemned” this lawsuit have in fact funded, supported, and pushed it throughout.
Thanks for that quote, Dallas. It points out the DOMA and the proposed marriage amendment do NOT say “essentially the same thing.” The passage you quote governs “any Act of Congress,” meaning that it only prohibits same-sex marriage at the FEDERAL level. That’s why Massachusetts can still allow gay marriage. The proposed marriage amendment does not have the limitation anywhere.
Thanks for the quote.
Also keep in mind that if the marriage amendment did ONLY what you claim it does, then its second sentence (“Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”) would be sufficient.
Instead it has that first sentence, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” There’s nothing in there to limit it to Acts of Congress or agencies and regulations of the US government. It’s a blanket statement about marriage in the United States. If you’re in the United States, you can only be married if you’re a man-woman couple.
Anyone else suspect that the reason ND30 comes here and whines, i mean posts, is because his site just doesn’t get near the traffic Rob’s does?
The passage you quote governs “any Act of Congress,” meaning that it only prohibits same-sex marriage at the FEDERAL level.
Not quite.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States
If one applies your logic, since Federal bureaus and regulations trump state laws and agencies, gay-sex marriage would be illegal in Massachusetts under DOMA. Since it is not, it seems rather clear that defining marriage “in the United States” only refers to the Federal specifically, and not to the states as individual units.
Also keep in mind that if the marriage amendment did ONLY what you claim it does, then its second sentence (“Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”) would be sufficient.
Not really. You need the first sentence to clarify to what the second sentence is referring.
Anyone else suspect that the reason ND30 comes here and whines, i mean posts, is because his site just doesn’t get near the traffic Rob’s does?
Oh, I’m sure people do. In fact, I’d love to see how many do. It’s a good demonstration of how the gay and lesbian community, instead of trying to make an intellectual argument, starts trying to attack and cast aspersions, insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is “mentally ill”, how all gays who don’t do exactly what the gay and lesbian community want have “Stockholm syndrome”, and so forth.
In fact, let me show you something. This is what the gay and lesbian community endorses doing to any gay or lesbian person who doesn’t automatically support the Obama Party in everything. I think it shows nicely the true emotions and motivation of the gay and lesbian community and how well it tolerates diversity, don’t you?
ND30: “In short, since I haven’t seen anyone seriously arguing that gay-sex marriage in Massachusetts is precluded and overridden by DOMA.”
Of course no one has argued that, because that wasn’t the intent or the effect of DOMA. DOMA only says that no state need to recognize SSM from another state, and that the federal government is precluded from recognizing SSM. DOMA allows Massachusetts or any other state, such as Iowa or Connecticut or even DC to have SSM.
“it’s kind of hard to argue that a Federal constitutional amendment which says essentially the same thing would work that way.”
They are two different animals, and they clearly do not say the same thing. DOMA forbids only the federal government from recognizing SSM. (notice the language applies to administration agencies OF the United STates, not of any particular state.) A federal amendment would forbid the federal government AND all states from recognizing SSM. That language is really that clear and plain.
” Since the judiciary has already shown that it will overrule and throw out DOMA, the only recourse left is a constitutional amendment.
Yes! Now you have it. And a constitutional amendment would preclude California from allowing SSM. Which is why NOM is fighting for it.
” HRC, the Courage Campaign, and all these other things that you state “opposed” and “condemned” this lawsuit have in fact funded, supported, and pushed it throughout.”
No, the lawsuit was funded by AFER, and yes NOW they get support from the HRC and others. But only after the decision came out.
This is pretty easy to settle. Just read Maggie Gallagher’s column. She links to http://www.allianceformarriage.org/. If you read their website, it’s clear this federal marriage amendment is intended to allow states to permit civil unions, but would ban gay marriage nation-wide. So Rob is correct in saying that Maggie doesn’t want to let the people of each state decide for themselves. She wants one national solution imposed on all states regardless of what the citizens of each state desire. She’s a hypocrite and a liar.
It’s not that our community doesn’t tolerate diversity, Dan, but just that time and time again your specific arguments are shown to be full of holes. You have to present a reasoned, factual, and, uhm… intellectual! argument to be taken seriously.
ND30, what exactly is your beef with same-sex couples wanting to marry? Fine. You don’t want to marry someone of the same-sex then don’t, but please, keep your personal desires to yourself and keep the hell out of mine. I’ll give you the same courtesy. Allowing me to marry my partner of 9 years has diddly-squat to do with you and your life. Same goes for any gay anti-gay marriage person or hetero anti-gay marriage person. Don’t want same-sex marriage, then don’t effing get married to someone of the same-sex. It can’t get any simpler than that.
God, you and your kind are pathetic. Regarding the marriage issue, just because YOU don’t want it doesn’t mean you should have the right to keep me from having it. And please, don’t give me any of the extraneous arguments about “foundation of society,” or “changing the definition of,” “think of the children, they’ll all want to get gay married” as intelligent people know that life is nonstationary. Those arguments are a fallacy. A circular argument that can NEVER be proven. Life changes all the time. The world moves forward, not backwards. And allowing gays to marry isn’t going to cause a collapse in ANYTHING. NOTHING. It will, however, provide equality to a group of people currently denied such. And any decent human being could recognize and appreciate that.
Does wanting same-sex marriage equality make me selfish? Damn right. We’re talking about sharing the right others currently enjoy, not taking them away. As a same-sex couple that contributes to the well being of this country, as much as any heterosexual couple, we DO deserve equal treatment. To argue differently is nothing more than bigoted ignorance. YES, bigoted ignorance. Fueled by nothing more than irrational emotional garbage. Honestly, I’ve not heard one solid argument for keeping gays from marrying. Only excuses based on prejudices and intolerance. And, that sir, is no excuse to deny others the same equality enjoyed by millions.
Everyone: Dallas is a homo-hatin’-homo. think George rekers, Ted Haggard, Ken Mehlman, and a host of others.
’nuff said. Don’t feed the trolls. It only makes them hungry for more.
Hey guys, I found another article from Maggie that makes it even clearer that she does NOT want to let the voters of each state decide:
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200403290933.asp
ND30, what exactly is your beef with same-sex couples wanting to marry?
Let’s start with example number one.
Allowing me to marry my partner of 9 years has diddly-squat to do with you and your life……It will, however, provide equality to a group of people currently denied such. And any decent human being could recognize and appreciate that.
Question: Do you oppose plural, incestuous, child, bestial, or other forms of marriage?
If you do, please outline why allowing these relationships to marry has “diddly-squat” to do with you and your life. After all, if you don’t want child marriage, don’t marry a child. Isn’t that your argument?
Also, please state what makes your disagreement with those anything that can’t be explained by “bigoted ignorance”, “irrational emotional garbage”, and “prejudices and intolerance”, and why you aren’t an “indecent human being” for opposing peoples’ right to marry to whatever they’re attracted.
Finally, please come up with a coherent narrative why, when you have stated that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to anyone and that “equality” is the most important thing, that you can justify laws barring marriage to any of these groups.
That’s the first reason. Your arguments suck because you are trying to ram through the judiciary what belongs in the legislative arena. Marriage is a privilege, not a right, and it makes perfect legal and logical sense that the voters have the right to extend that privilege as they wish; that is what allows them to disallow such things as child marriage and whatnot.
The problem you have is that you can’t convince voters, which brings us to reason number two.
Does wanting same-sex marriage equality make me selfish? Damn right.
Exactly.
Remember those benefits and privileges you and yours are forever whining about being denied? They cost money.
So what are you going to add back to society for it?
Are you going to produce and raise children who will ultimately pay into Social Security and Medicare and cover the benefits you take out? No; it’s biologically impossible.
Are you going to stop having promiscuous sex and respect monogamy? No; indeed, you’re agitating that heterosexual married couples should start being promiscuous like you are and that monogamy is “hurtful”.
Do you respect the institution and its purpose at all? No; indeed, you’re already talking about how single-parent households and “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” are just as “socially, economically, and spiritually worthy”.
So clearly, you won’t fulfill the basic purpose of marriage, you have no interest in the core responsibility of marriage, and you in fact don’t see why marriage is even worthwhile in the first place — but you can’t live without it.
You and your fellow gay-sex liberals have nearly forty years of telling society why marriage and traditional values such as monogamy were crap, oppressive, patriarchal, demeaning, hateful, out of date, and so forth, and you expect people now to buy into the theory that you suddenly like it?
The only reason you could have for wanting gay-sex marriage is selfishness. And that’s not an acceptable one.
ND30 – Ah, so only those couples who “produce” children are entitled to marriage? Well, I produced two kids with my partner. My kids wouldnt exist had we not decided to have a family via surrogacy. So my kids exist strictly because my partner and I are a couple. If he and I werent a couple my kids wouldnt exist. And, my brother is adopted so my parents didnt produce him. Does that mean if they hadnt had me then they shouldnt be married.
And, let’s be truthful. it’s the heterosexuals who’ve changed marriage by no longer buying into it, as evidenced by our 40% illegitimacy rate which has created an unsustainable welfare system. Rather than arguing against gay marriage, you ought to be fighting what’s causing the true destruction – heterosexuals too dang lazy to screw responsibly or act responsibly once their screwing activities have “produced” a kid. Heterosexuals either need to learn self control or birth control or get married so taxpayers dont have to fund their lifestyle.
their lifestyle.
And, let’s be truthful. it’s the heterosexuals who’ve changed marriage by no longer buying into it, as evidenced by our 40% illegitimacy rate which has created an unsustainable welfare system. Rather than arguing against gay marriage, you ought to be fighting what’s causing the true destruction – heterosexuals too dang lazy to screw responsibly or act responsibly once their screwing activities have “produced” a kid. Heterosexuals either need to learn self control or birth control or get married so taxpayers dont have to fund their lifestyle.
I couldn’t agree more. And that is, in fact, why we have marriage for heterosexuals — because their sexual activities DO have profound social consequences, such as producing children, and it is in society’s best interest to encourage the married structure for exactly that reason.
What’s interesting is that, if you look at NOM, if you look at Focus on the Family, they do in fact talk about all of those things you mentioned. They cite numerous statistics about the importance of marriage in social stability, in fighting child poverty, in supporting a child’s well-being, and so forth.
Interestingly enough, though, those are nowhere to be found on the gay-sex marriage supporter sites. Nowhere on those sites do you see anyone talking about the value of marriage, or how having children out of wedlock is a bad thing to do, or how single parenting is one of the best indicators for child poverty. Instead, what you see is talk about how marriage doesn’t matter, how it’s nothing special and certainly no better than single parenthood or plural households, etc., etc., and as I pointed out before, how monogamy is unrealistic and hurtful.
Meanwhile, Kenny, a question: are you one of those gay and lesbian people who say that your inability to marry creates a bad situation for your children and harms them?
If so, then why did you choose to have them and put them into a situation that you knew in advance was harmful to them? They would have never happened without you, as you state, so it wasn’t necessary to put them into a harmful situation; why, then, did you do it?
And if the situation that you brought them into with a lack of marriage isn’t harmful to them, then why are you going after heterosexuals for the illegitimacy rate, and why are you claiming that you need marriage to keep your children from being harmed?
ND30 – Sorry to burst your bubble. But, I am married. Nonetheless, my children are cheated, not harmed by folks such as yourself. You cheat them economically by stealing additional tax money in the form of income taxes and estate taxes from their parents, simply because you refuse to grant their parents the same tax benefits extended to married couples. Frankly, I couldn’t give a hoot about marriage – I’m simply for equality. I’d be fine with domestic partnerships if they were treated equally. Heterosexuals have so trashed and disgraced the institution of marriage that I’m much happier with the concept of domestic partnerships. But, again, the basic point is that folks such as yourself are not for equality. If you were then domestic partners would enjoy the same legal rights as marriage. So, if you won’t treat them equally then folks are demanding admittance to the one that affords the most legal rights. (Let’s not forget that your ilk has not only banned marriage in many states but has also forbidden domestic partnerships and civil unions.)
You mentioned social security. Why exactly should a woman, who hasn’t bothered to work 40 quarters in her lifetime, collect 1/2 of her husband’s social security? He didn’t pay in any more than a man who is married to woman who worked her whole life and earned social security on her own earnings. It’s simply a way for married heterosexuals to milk the system. Or, how about a female whose earnings would result in a $500 benefit but 1/2 of her husband’s benefit is $750 – she’ll get the $750. Why should she get free money just because she’s married? Married heterosexuals mooching the system; no surprise, really.
And, the organizations you mention have no real concern about illegitimate babies. If they did, they’d be pressing the government to pass legislation to curb the irresponsible reproductive habits of heterosexuals. instead, those organization want to ignore the damage inflicted on society by heterosexuals. Much easier to blame someone else- teh gays – for their own problems.
ND30 stated, “Question: Do you oppose plural, incestuous, child, bestial, or other forms of marriage?”
Then you must be against heterosexual marriage, because if gay marriage leads to “plural, incestuous, child, bestial, or other forms of marriage,” then certainly heterosexual marriage does as well. You can’t simply pull out of your bung hole that only same-sex marriage leads to these, and not heterosexual marriage.I won’t even go into the two-consenting adults argument, since you’ve already proven you ignore that fact. By your reasoning, heterosexual marriage would then be the gateway drug that leads to all those other nasty drugs. YES. YOU. DO. It has to start somewhere, and that starting point would be heterosexual marriage. You’re like those ignoramuses that state pot is a gateway drug, where in REALITY it is cigarettes and alcohol (geez, and those are legal, go figure). Hetero marriage would be society’s cigarettes and alcohol, the gateway drug, not same-sex marriage.
And, finally, on this topic, it’s always the same with you people, that same-sex = incest, child and beastly sex. Your kind hasn’t the mental capacity to see just how stoopid you appear for even trying to correlate the two. Sad & pathetic. You lose simply on that argument alone but you’re obviously not smart enough to realize it.
ND30 stated, “Marriage is a privilege, not a right,”
A privilege, how so? Oh yeah, right. That’s why over 50% of heterosexual married people piss all over that privilege with their divorces and multiple marriages. So please, provide me with examples of how heterosexuals view marriage as a privilege, since I’m finding it difficult to put my finger on any. Apparently you see it as a “privilege” for a “select” group, and the rest can be damned. Sweet.
Next..
ND30 stated, “What’s interesting is that, if you look at NOM, if you look at Focus on the Family, they do in fact talk about all of those things you mentioned. They cite numerous statistics about the importance of marriage in social stability, in fighting child poverty, in supporting a child’s well-being, and so forth.”
Studies/statistics by Reker, or the likes? HA! There are FAR more studies that prove the opposite of those supporting NOM’s studies. So, are you really willing to ignore the MAJORITY of studies, indicating that same-sex marriage is beneficial and doesn’t harm society/children over the very minimal that say otherwise. That is what I refer to as bigoted ignorance. Numerous statistics by NOM… Pleeze. HA! Thanks for giving me a great example of such. Too bad you couldn’t point to any of those “statistics” against same-sex marriage, used in the Prop 8 trial. I guess there were just too many to cite. You must have felt the data would just be too overwhelming for my same-sex marriage brain.
ND30 stated, “Instead, what you see is talk about how marriage doesn’t matter, how it’s nothing special”
Again, utter bullcrap. Oh yes, we people in favor of same-sex marriage are only doing so because we currently can’t find anything else to fill up our pointless, useless lives, because, as you state, we don’t REALLY feel marriage is important AT ALL and it can only be about the sex we care about, right? Seriously? Well, it DOES really matter to those same-sex couples with children, but in your world, they must not – it’s only about the sex. Well, I and millions more find it well worth the time to push back against people like you. So, you best grab your ankles and kiss your arse goodbye, cause this battle is far from over buddy. Far. From. It.
ND30 stated, “So clearly, you won’t fulfill the basic purpose of marriage, you have no interest in the core responsibility of marriage, and you in fact don’t see why marriage is even worthwhile in the first place — but you can’t live without it.”
WTF are you blabbering about? YOU DON’T KNOW ME. YOU don’t know ANYTHING about shit what is important in my life. And frankly, you’re an ass to even THINK you do. If you DO know anything about me, then you are the world’s greatest mentalist and should be headlining in Las Vegas. You’re special. Don’t let your talents go unnoticed. The world needs your kind of entertainment.
Look, I simply requested that you provide a SOLID argument against same-sex marriage, and you failed. Miserably, I might add. Oh sure, you’ve got your prejudices down, there’s no denying that. But like I mentioned earlier, that’s all you people have. Other than that, you’ve got Zip. Nada. NOTHING.
Finally, I’ll just wrap this up by stating, we see you’re all squished out by same-sex marriage. Poor you. Frankly, I don’t care. What you feel about the relationship I have with my partner means absolutely NOTHING to me. Got it? You can feel any way you choose. I. Don’t. Care. Got. It? But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you DICTATE to me what is nothing to YOU. And yes, my same-sex marriage WOULD BE, in REALITY, nothing to you. So, find something else more productive to society to work on (maybe like that Vegas mentalist gig). Time is on MY side, not yours. That’s why you want a FMA. The “statistic” on the younger generation proves such. That’s why FMA is soooooo very important to your kind. So you can DICTATE the future lives of people from the grave, after you’re dead and buried. At least have the balls to admit it.
Anyway, thanks for playing. Please pick up your consolation prize at the door…
“Marriage is a privilege, not a right,”
The Supreme Court disagreed with you. Fourteen times.
Also, to the comment made by ND30 So clearly, you won’t fulfill the basic purpose of marriage, you have no interest in the core responsibility of marriage, and you in fact don’t see why marriage is even worthwhile in the first place — but you can’t live without it.”
You’ve got it all wrong. The basic purpose of marriage is written within its vows. You know. The “to have and to hold.” “In sickness and in health.” “To cherish from this day forward.” “Til death do us part.” Not your twisted version of “to have babies,” to “procreate,” or to “repopulate the world.” If it’s there, please point it out for the rest of the world to see.
None of the REAL basic purposes of marriage require a penis opposite a vagina. NONE. Face it, you’re simply implying (a mere belief, if you will) that it does. But the facts are not on your side, once again. And, again, your belief does not trump my right to marriage.
ND30 need to lose the internal homophobia. One of the biggest obstacles to gay rights comes from closeted gay people…I think society is starting to figure that out. You notice he keeps saying “gay sex marriage” like gay people are constantly having sex or something? My partner and I have been together monogamously for 19 years. If you were a fly on the wall in our bedroom at 3am you would see two middle aged men on opposite sides of the bed snoring..not always mind you..but I am sure a heterosexual couple that has been together as long as us would be in the same boat.
People that spew the loudest anti-gay rhetoric should always be suspect. They are so miserable with their own life choices they attack gay people who are out and happy. It is sad. I hope ND comes to terms with himself soon. Life is so short. I cannot imagine taking this lie to the grave…
Everyone: as I said above:
Dallas is a homo-hatin’-homo, but, i am informed, not a closeted one.When i said think George rekers, Ted Haggard, Ken Mehlman, and a host of others, I did not mean to imply that he was closeted.
Don’t feed the trolls unless you are doing it for edification purposes, but don’t expect Dallas to wish to be edified. His purposes are far more twisted than that.
Don’t feed the trolls. It only makes them hungry for more.
You know you want it, don’t you, boy?
I honestly don’t think Dallas is a homo-hatin’-homo. I think he’s a homo-hatin’-straight. The “gay-sex marriage” thing he keeps repeating is a little odd. And from his opposition to “gay-sex marriage”, maybe he’d be in favor of “lesbian-sex marriages”. All in all, I call, “TygerBright!” (Democratic Underground reference, for those who don’t go to the DUmp. Basically, a guy who claimed to be an African American gay man until he was outed as being white and straight, but still sometimes goes back to pretending he’s African American and gay until someone points out that we know he’s neither.)
ND30 really never answered why he’s against marriage equality. He just put up his own question about other people he’s worried will want to get married. Those groups will have to fight their own battle if they want to. I’m not interested in those so I don’t know the legal reasons for or against them, but there is no compelling reason to exclude gay couples from civil marriage.
Regarding NOM, I see nothing but more lies, hypocrisy, and propoganda to scare people into giving more money to their organizations. They will milk this FMA plot as long as possible, all the while knowing it will never pass. They won’t tell their sheep how VERY difficult it is to pass an amendment. They won’t mention that there is probably not enough public support and there is certainly not enough legislative support for a FMA and the fact that support is dwindling every year as younger people turn 18. Even when congress had a republican majority, the FMA couldn’t pass in 2004 and 2006. The longer it takes to attempt it again means there will be even less chance of it passing, but NOM won’t mention that when they ask for bigger and more donations.
I’m in agreement with Greg. ND30 isn’t any more gay than my parents. He’s a sock-puppet. Just like all those straights against gay marriage that “claim” they have gay friends that agree with them that marriage is for heterosexuals, not teh gayz. Fact, I’ve got more straight friends in favor of same-sex marriage then their imaginary gay friends against same-sex marriage.
I’ll believe he’s gay when I see him take one for the team (and you all know what I mean when I say “take one”).
Folks, I think that ND30 is a pathological contrarian. One of those people who dissents just to get attention and a response.
Pathetic really and indicative of SOME kind of mental problem.
Anyway, what OTHER kinds of people but the pathological would put words in another person’s mouth?
Here we are, a serious and sober movement of people who have shown commitment and compassion for marriage. Gone through great expense, as well as humiliation and cruelty to have ss relationships and children protected from the hostile whims of the anti gay.
There is nothing more infuriating or chilling and cowardly on this debate then the opposition saying so glibly “you don’t really want to get married, you don’t really care about marriage, you don’t care about children.”
It’s a common derailing tactic. Doesn’t have to be true, just has to be reiterated and then too much energy is dispensed in being defensive.
ND30 likes to speak for others contrary and in direct contradiction to all the evidence before him.
Only the very immature, and those incapable of giving the opposition the weight they deserve do that.
This is obviously not a frivolous matter to gay people. But gay people are frivolous to the anti gay. They don’t want to see the humanity and legitimate courage to protect their loved ones in gay people.
ND30 is projecting his pettiness as a person. He hates being ignored.
Must suck to be him to do something so pathetic and obvious.
We could ask why he would bother, but his little ego can’t handle it. Gnats are annoying little bugs, just like ND30.
But because they have a short life span, or deserve to be swatted, is what happens to them eventually.
Think of ND30 as a gnat and you’ll feel better.
He has admitted to such on this very page website.
website. not page.
I’m interested in what other marriage conditions NOM is interested in enshrining in our federal Constitution.
Hi Ben
I too have seen those posts by ND30 stating he’s gay, but here’s the deal; I have a ton of gay friends. And, there are a couple that don’t agree with same-sex marriage. NOT because of the arguments ND30 uses, but because they feel we should never be trying to emulate heterosexuals. They see heterosexual marriage as a failure (just look how well it works for them – over 50% divorce rate). They NEVER, EVER, EVER would use the extraneous and insipidly moronic arguments NOM / Focus on the Family uses. NEVER. If anything, they believe the Government needs to be out of marriage, PERIOD. That’s their reasons for not supporting same-sex marriage. They want to see an end to all those special rights and perks married people have, granted by the Fed Gov’t. But, of course you’ll never see ND30 agree with that, and why? Because he’s lying about being gay. He loves his special rights and privileges. Really, he does. And, he likes all of us gay couples unable to marry paying to fund his/those privileges.
I honestly don’t know of ANY gay that would be against same-sex marriage and hold NOM / Focus on the Family up as the pinnacle reasoning for denying same-sex marriage. Too many independent organizations and studies have PROVEN NOM / Focus on the Family lie and distort the truth. Even gays against same-sex marriage know this. And, I’d bet nobody here can provide one single gay friend that would do so either.
Bets are on the tables, boys and girls. I doubt that ND30 can ante up, though.
I might add too, Ben, is that I’ve read Rob’s blog site for some time and in mostly silence. I’ve seen what ND30 and everyone else has had to say, and I guess, with this news story, I finally felt it was time I speak up too.
Sorry for all the posts. I’ve read and kept my tongue throughout ND30′s ugly rants, and finally felt I had to get “stuff” off my chest.
Peace to you all.
Bobby– good for you for speaking up. i’m glad you did.
But you should never underestimate the power of self-hatred, or what’s being a homo-hatin’-homo for? Look at George Rekers– testi-lying through his teeth in anti-gay court cases on monday, lifting his leggage for the rest of the week.
It’s a known phenomenon, this being a homo-hatin’-homo. You have to find a “reason” to support that, which is why Maggie does Dallas, or vice-versa.. Your friends are merely ideologically against marriage, probably without much understanding it. They are not self-haters.
Actually I’m willing to believe ND30 is gay. If you look at the earliest archives of his blog, you find a very different voice than the one he uses today, but it’s still a conservative voice.
Then you must be against heterosexual marriage, because if gay marriage leads to “plural, incestuous, child, bestial, or other forms of marriage,” then certainly heterosexual marriage does as well.
And yet somehow, it hasn’t yet.
Probably because heterosexual marriage is a privilege extended by law which, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, does not imply that said privilege must be extended to whomever with one wishes to have sex.
Gay-sex marriage? Repeatedly laughed out of the legislature and out of the voters, so now we have people trying to ram through the judiciary that it is a constitutional “right” to marry whatever sexually attracts you.
So since you’ve established that the sole determinant of whether or not someone should be allowed to marry the sexual partners of one’s choice is based solely on whether or not it affects your relationship, please, for our edification, explain how someone else’s choice to marry a child, animal, multiple, or non-consensual partners in any way affects your relationship.
A privilege, how so? Oh yeah, right. That’s why over 50% of heterosexual married people piss all over that privilege with their divorces and multiple marriages.
Indeed, that is a problem.
So why should we make it worse by adding gays and lesbians, who insist that such behavior is normal, that monogamy is outdated and harmful and that men simply aren’t capable of sexual commitment, that marriage is no better than any other “arrangement”, and who themselves “piss all over marriage with their divorces”?
WTF are you blabbering about? YOU DON’T KNOW ME. YOU don’t know ANYTHING about shit what is important in my life. And frankly, you’re an ass to even THINK you do. If you DO know anything about me, then you are the world’s greatest mentalist and should be headlining in Las Vegas.
Oh, one didn’t need any type of psychic ability to figure that one out.
Well, I and millions more find it well worth the time to push back against people like you. So, you best grab your ankles and kiss your arse goodbye, cause this battle is far from over buddy. Far. From. It.
But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you DICTATE to me what is nothing to YOU.
That’s why FMA is soooooo very important to your kind. So you can DICTATE the future lives of people from the grave, after you’re dead and buried. At least have the balls to admit it.
Marriage isn’t the issue. It’s simply a useful proxy fight for you to take out all that displaced aggression and hatred of religion, your parents, society, and anything else that you think has wronged you.
In short, you want it because other people have it and because you want to piss them off.
That really only shows how little you know about it and how even less suited you are for it.
And now for Regan.
Here we are, a serious and sober movement of people who have shown commitment and compassion for marriage.
Except for all the time you spend mocking monogamy and insisting that marriage is nothing special.
Gone through great expense, as well as humiliation and cruelty to have ss relationships and children protected from the hostile whims of the anti gay.
Yes, you certainly have spent a lot of money and time on endorsing and supporting state and Federal bans on gay-sex marriage.
Given your tendency to do that, it makes your agitating in parking lots, screaming at patrons, and trying to get people fired over $100 donations look REALLY strange — especially when you get caught trying to deny it ever happened.
There is nothing more infuriating or chilling and cowardly on this debate then the opposition saying so glibly “you don’t really want to get married, you don’t really care about marriage, you don’t care about children.”
Oh, it’s not glib. It’s a statement of fact.
Gay-sex marriage to you, Regan, is just another reason to rail against whitey, religion, and Republicans.
That much is obvious. You and your shrieking hordes can turn out to harass a restaurant over a Mormon’s $100 donation, but, as I have pointed out numerous times, seem utterly incapable of protesting outside a religious establishment that isn’t a) Christian or Mormon, b) perceived as predominantly white, or c) in a Republican-leaning area.
This is not about gay-sex marriage, commitment, children, or anything of the sort. It’s about you looking for another reason to agitate and whine about “oppression” — and given that you can even find that in a greeting card, it’s no surprise that you’re turning it up here.
Mocking monogamy?? My partner and I have been monogamous for 19 years?? What???
Reading these rants actually makes me sad. We have no idea what this person had to deal with growing up. Our society can be very cruel..especially when you throw religion into the mix. Internal homophobia is just plain AWFUL!!! ND..my straight friends would never troll gay oriented sites and trash gay folk..but people that are gay and closeted would.
Seriously..I wish you the best and I hope you find your way. Life is WAY too short….
Uh, mates? Remember Rob’s book club about the political brain?
“The partisan [...] worked overtime to [activate] reward circuits that give partisans a jolt of positive reinforcement for their biased reasoning. These reward circuits overlap substantially with those activated when drug addicts get their “fix,” giving new meaning to the term political junkie.”
Or as Rob summed it up: “Arguing the facts with people who staunchly oppose you [...] giving them information [...] that refutes their beliefs [...] will actually make them even more convinced they’re correct.”
I mean, both sides… just saying…
First, ND30, can you be respectful enough to not refer to it as “gay-sex marriage”? Or, if you prefer to keep using it, let’s also talk about “straight-sex marriage”.
You claim that same-sex marriage “is just another reason to rail against whitey, religion, and Republicans.”
As for “whitey”, I’m sure Regan realizes that not all white people are racist, no matter how hard you try to prove otherwise. Besides, opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t limited to people of a particular skin color or ethnic background.
As for “religion”, it has no place in civil law. If churches choose not to recognize same-sex marriage they’re free to do so. What about churches that do recognize same-sex marriages? Or do you think it’s acceptable to discriminate against them because they don’t share your personal interpretation of “marriage”?
As for “Republicans”, opposition to same-sex marriage has been pretty bipartisan, and there has been criticism of and even protests against Democrats who oppose same-sex marriage. Take, for instance, Senator Ruben Diaz, who’s certainly seen his fair share of “shrieking hordes”.
@ND30
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Nope.
Wrong.
Wrong, again.
ND30, you intrigue me. You get a lot of resistance on this site, and at first, I thought people were perhaps being unfair with you. After reading more and more of your comments, I feel that you are, in fact, being treated fairly on this blog. But there has to be more to the story.
So yesterday I decided to check out your turf. I started with your recent posts, but I decided to go back as far as I could, to January 2005. Back then, you seemed to be quite on the pro-gay side. Your focus seemed to be on *how* to win the fight. You would point out that railing against anti-gays might feel good but it won’t win over our opponents (or the middle). You post frequently and your posts are long, so I’ll tell you right now that I don’t plan to read through your blog to track your evolution, but could we have the old ND30 back? Please?
Can we have the ND30 who made astute points about how to win the fight? I don’t like the ND30 who attacks everyone who wants the same rights as everyone else, and calls them Republican / religion / whatever haters. I like the old ND30. Please, for the love of god, bring him back.
This entry has proved highly educational. I’ve learned about a new campaign in the struggle for marriage equality. This is the campaign for gay-sex marriage. It sounds to me a little too specific to be successful. It’s hardly surprising it’s found opposition.
There is, however, a positive aspect to such a campaign. As things stand, there is currently no distinction between straight-sex marriage and the marriage of persons of the opposite sex for whom the pleasures of the flesh have lost the power to arouse. It would seem apposite for those opposing gay-sex in marriage, which I presume is so close in distinction to gay sex in marriage as makes no odds, to apply a rule of consistency and oppose straight-sex (doubtless including straight sex)in marriage also.
Finally we have a platform on which to campaign for true marriage equality: No-Sex (as in, no sex) Marriage. For many long term married couples, this new campaign will likely make little difference to the continuance of their vows. For same sex couples willing to adopt celibate lifestyles this may offer an incontrovertible argument for full Federal legal recognition of their relationships.
Marriage without any of that icky sex stuff. No exchange of either precious bodily fluids or the disgusting gooey kind. Whether you’re gay or straight or something else, what difference can it make in a no-sex (that means no sex) marriage?
Surely victory is near, as soon as opposite sex couples intending to or have recently become married have had a chance to adjust to the consequences of no-sex (or no sex) marriage equality. I think we’re onto a winner.
Mocking monogamy?? My partner and I have been monogamous for 19 years?? What???
I provided the link. Feel free to read it.
Reading these rants actually makes me sad. We have no idea what this person had to deal with growing up. Our society can be very cruel..especially when you throw religion into the mix. Internal homophobia is just plain AWFUL!!!
It’s all right, dear. Throw some money out the window of your limousine and you’ll feel all better. Don’t slow down, though; poor can be smelled on you, or so the ladies at the club say.
First, ND30, can you be respectful enough to not refer to it as “gay-sex marriage”? Or, if you prefer to keep using it, let’s also talk about “straight-sex marriage”.
Why not? After all, your main argument is that you aren’t sexually attracted to women, so it’s “unfair” and compromises your constitutional right to marry that to which you’re sexually attracted.
The entertainment value will come when you twist yourself into knots trying to explain why incest practitioners or pedophiles or bestialists should have to lose their “constitutional right”. I’m still waiting for people to explain how allowing brothers and sisters to marry, or a man to marry a dog, affects their relationship.
As for “whitey”, I’m sure Regan realizes that not all white people are racist, no matter how hard you try to prove otherwise.
Like I said, Regan is busy writing nasty letters to Hallmark and presumably NASA about how the term “black hole” is racist.
The really entertaining part is that you’re probably standing right next to her talking about how her fight to rid astronomy of “oppressive white male-dominated thinking” is a “gay-rights issue”.
As for “religion”, it has no place in civil law. If churches choose not to recognize same-sex marriage they’re free to do so. What about churches that do recognize same-sex marriages? Or do you think it’s acceptable to discriminate against them because they don’t share your personal interpretation of “marriage”?
That depends. Do you also support the FLDS church’s belief that the government’s failure to solemnize plural and child marriage is discrimination? How about this?
Back then, you seemed to be quite on the pro-gay side. Your focus seemed to be on *how* to win the fight. You would point out that railing against anti-gays might feel good but it won’t win over our opponents (or the middle). You post frequently and your posts are long, so I’ll tell you right now that I don’t plan to read through your blog to track your evolution, but could we have the old ND30 back? Please?
No one bothered to listen to that ND30.
Then he found out a few things.
First, that these same people who were calling his friends, neighbors, relatives, and associates “homophobes” because of where they lived, what they believed, and how they chose to vote were shoveling money and “pro-gay” endorsements to “homophobes” who had a more correct and preferred political affiliation and/or skin color.
Second, that these self-same people who were shrieking about “workplace protections” were in fact agitating to get other people fired for being gay or for making incorrect political donations.
Third, that these so-called “tolerant” protestors were wishing death on other people and their children and tarring anyone who dared to deviate from “gay norm”.
And then when they told him to commit suicide, or hoped he got AIDS, because the world would be better off without him, he took them at their word.
And along the way, he realized two things.
1) People respected, loved and accepted him whether he was able to marry or not
2) The only people who were telling him otherwise were the gay-sex marriage “activists” — who, oddly enough, were the same ones telling him all of his friends, family, and neighbors were evil homophobes, that his only hope lay with doing whatever people of the “correct” political affiliation or skin color told him, who would try to get him fired at the drop of a hat for disagreeing with them, and who ultimately told him to kill himself.
After all, your main argument is that you aren’t sexually attracted to women, so it’s “unfair” and compromises your constitutional right to marry that to which you’re sexually attracted.
You’re a mind-reader now, eh? You have no idea to whom I’m sexually attracted. Your points about bestiality have already been addressed, repeatedly, and if you’re going to ignore those responses I don’t see any point in repeating them.
Regan is busy writing nasty letters to Hallmark and presumably NASA about how the term “black hole” is racist.
Making things up doesn’t help your credibility. Just because you can’t make a solid argument doesn’t give you the right claim NOM and other opponents of gay rights being victims while whining that those you disagree with are supposedly doing the same thing.
Do you also support the FLDS church’s belief that the government’s failure to solemnize plural and child marriage is discrimination?
The entertainment value of your responses, what little of it there is, is that you won’t answer a question directly. Child-marriage and polygamy has been addressed elsewhere, although I think it’s fair, given the discussion, to put the same question back to you. Do you think polygamy, child marriage, or even bestiality should be legalized if they’re a matter of religious belief?
Seriously, if you want to see an example of what you brought up in your last book club meeting, just look at this or any other thread involving ND30 or someone like him.
Most threads visited only by people more or less on the side of an argument are short. The individual entries are short. People quickly lose an interest and move on to the next blogpost. Not so those that have controversy.
You know how most boards and forums try to enforce non-flamewar rules. I think that is exactly why: Getting involved makes your brain squirt happy-hormones into your blood. Neither ND30 nor hardly any of the others are interested in exchanging facts, learning new things, reassessing and improving their oppinion. Everybody comes back again and again, not to argue, but to get their fix of endorphins.
You (probably just like NOM or everyone else) can impress those who agree with you with your arguments and logic and facts. (And I count myself amongst those.) But it is pretty clear, that those who are on the other side of the fence – like our bellingerent friend here – are only getting more convinced of your evilness and their own righteousness. JUST LIKE YOU ARE WHENEVER YOU VISIT NOM-SITES. I mean, be honest. We all go to these sites, and come away smuggly certain that they are morons and we are so right. Just like they do when they come here.
It’s sad, but your authors appear to be right.
Arguments won’t change a thing, except reinforce a sense tribal belonging. If you want to give queers across the country an irrational sense of belonging, you’re winning. If you want to change anybody’s mind, it seems like a lost fight.
What do you say?
ND30, would you GET OVER what happened with that restaurant already?!
I was there. And what happened reminded me vividly of my childhood neighborhoods where white proprietors in black neighborhoods who prospered from black patronage, but would vote against laws that would improve the quality of life for blacks.
Marj Christofferson lost her ‘gay friends’ cred card the day she betrayed those friends to Prop. 8.
And those gay people who thought she was their friend, had more right to being hurt and angry than she did complaining of the same.
Which she did to the press, over and over as if SHE were the injured party in this.
Her cowardly behavior deserved to be revealed. She acted like a coward, just like every other person who was real bad ass in the ballot booth, but didn’t have the spine to think that their decision to harm and confound their gay ‘friends’ and neighbors deserved explanation.
The luxury of getting over something is strictly in the ability of those who weren’t affected by Prop. 8.
And I should be able to put a historical racial context to this issue, without being called a racist. Because the analogy fits.
There is more legitimate common analogy to the gay/black experience with discrimination than any kind of complaint Christians or heterosexuals have.
As for your assertions that there are gay people (like you) who don’t want to be married or have their own personal reasons for rejecting ss marriage is no reason for overall discrimination.
Plenty of heterosexuals reject marriage for themselves too. Don’t thing marriage is necessary and consider it ‘just a piece of paper’.
How many straight people say that, but you’re not moved to discriminate against ALL heteros because of what a minority of them think and actually do in their personal relationships?
The point is having the choice.
But there is more at work in total discrimination than just the marriage issue.
I, as a black woman, feel tremendous empathy with the struggle that gay people have.
Just because YOU don’t, doesn’t mark MY character in any way.
I should be able to talk about race, without being charged with ‘sticking it to whitey’.
That’s another method of chilling and derailing a debate because YOU don’t have any intelligent analogies or defenses for your own opinions.
I’m not gay. So the only way I CAN related, empathize and articulate during any discussions on gay people, is to relate MY qualifications as a member of a similarly treated minority.
Anti gay sentiment is an extension of misogyny.
And gay people have been treated similarly to other groups with bad, inhumane and unjust laws.
Period.
It’s true. And this is where I would rather cut my own wrists than betray a gay brother or sister to the dominant culture that’s trying to justify it’s spite and sometimes outright cruelty.
Just as segregationists did. Just as anti Semitic or misogynist laws have.
I’m not on the wrong side of history and the hearts and minds that changed those laws.
You are.
And the fact that you don’t see that shows your lack of morality, let alone courage.
You capitulate.
And you think you deserve respect for that?