Anti-Gay Marriage NOM Uses Children as Human Shields

[ShaE]

Anti-Gay Marriage NOM Uses Children as Human Shields

Posted:
05/21/09

Filed Under:Ads (http://www.politicsdaily.com/category/ads/), Gay Rights (http://www.politicsdaily.com/category/gay-rights/) <!-- Filed Under: --><!-- Filed Under:Ads (http://www.nightclubcity.com/category/ads/), Gay Rights (http://www.nightclubcity.com/category/gay-rights/) -->

25 Comments (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/21/anti-gay-marriage-nom-uses-children-as-human-shields/#comments) + (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/21/anti-gay-marriage-nom-uses-children-as-human-shields/#addcomments)


<!-- sphereit start -->While this new ad from the National Organization for Marriage (or LATENT) comically reminded me of Mr. Show with Bob and David's (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=mr.+show+with+bob+and+david&aq=3&oq=Mr.+show) "What's a Gagortion?" sketch, it's also the latest example of an emerging trend: using children as cover for bigotry. Here's the ad: (h/t Jason Linkins (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/national-organization-for_n_206003.html))

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/haVqcPfeqKI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

Just last night, I wrote about Joe the Plumber taking a similar tack (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/20/joe-the-plumber-on-man-kissing-book-fail-and-his-fifteen-minut/),the second time he's brought up the fact that he doesn't want "queers" around his kids (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/06/joe-the-plumber-and-marion-barry-an-odd-hateful-couple/).

I think Jason Linkins summed it up nicely (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/national-organization-for_n_206003.html):
I think that the people behind this newish ad from panicky gay marriage freakout group National Organization for Marriage intended this to read as some sort of plaintive explication of how being asked to consider the possibility of gay marriage will make children fundamentally confused. This seems weird to me -- after all, it's not the concept of gay marriage that's likely to confuse children, it's homosexuality itself. Seems to me that once you get your kid over that hump, the concept of marriage becomes the easy part.I agree, and I think this strips bare the notion that this is about anything but the gayness. In a child's mind, why would anyone oppose a union of 2 consenting adults who love each other? In fact, I defy anyone to explain to a child how preventing, and ending, marriages actually protects marriage?

This is NOM's cunning linguistic reach-around. By claiming to protect marriage, they can try to avoid the stink of being a hate group. The fact is, though, that they are not trying to protect anything. It is with this lie that they give themselves away. If they had a clear conscience, and God on their side, they'd call it what it is: denying, or refusing, the right of gay people to marry.

Here's an example. I oppose the right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain medications based on non-medical criteria. As such, I don't go around calling myself a Pharmacy Protector. I am an opponent of derelict pill-counters. Courage of my convictions, and all that.

I do have to give NOM props, though, for one "innovation." They eschew the tired "Adam and Steve" cliche for the updated, soon-to-be-featured-in-ALL-CAPS-blog-comments "Anna and Eve." That's probably all the progress we can expect out of them.

Finally, as a parent, I try to draw on my own experience. When I was a kid, you know what confused me? This book that my parents exposed me to, that had a guy with, like, a bag of wives (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/30.html#5), who went around killing people and cutting off a piece of each victim's penis (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/18.html). It made "Silence of the Lambs" look like a Busytown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busytown) book. I'd be careful about exposing kids to that until they're older.<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-3712949-1"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); </SCRIPT>

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/21/anti-gay-marriage-nom-uses-children-as-human-shields/

[jameznyhc]

Anti-Gay Marriage NOM Uses Children as Human Shields

Posted:
05/21/09

Filed Under:Ads (http://www.politicsdaily.com/category/ads/), Gay Rights (http://www.politicsdaily.com/category/gay-rights/) <!-- Filed Under: --><!-- Filed Under:Ads (http://www.nightclubcity.com/category/ads/), Gay Rights (http://www.nightclubcity.com/category/gay-rights/) -->

25 Comments (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/21/anti-gay-marriage-nom-uses-children-as-human-shields/#comments) + (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/21/anti-gay-marriage-nom-uses-children-as-human-shields/#addcomments)


<!-- sphereit start -->While this new ad from the National Organization for Marriage (or LATENT) comically reminded me of Mr. Show with Bob and David's (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=mr.+show+with+bob+and+david&aq=3&oq=Mr.+show) "What's a Gagortion?" sketch, it's also the latest example of an emerging trend: using children as cover for bigotry. Here's the ad: (h/t Jason Linkins (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/national-organization-for_n_206003.html))

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/haVqcPfeqKI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

Just last night, I wrote about Joe the Plumber taking a similar tack (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/20/joe-the-plumber-on-man-kissing-book-fail-and-his-fifteen-minut/),the second time he's brought up the fact that he doesn't want "queers" around his kids (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/06/joe-the-plumber-and-marion-barry-an-odd-hateful-couple/).

I think Jason Linkins summed it up nicely (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/national-organization-for_n_206003.html):
I think that the people behind this newish ad from panicky gay marriage freakout group National Organization for Marriage intended this to read as some sort of plaintive explication of how being asked to consider the possibility of gay marriage will make children fundamentally confused. This seems weird to me -- after all, it's not the concept of gay marriage that's likely to confuse children, it's homosexuality itself. Seems to me that once you get your kid over that hump, the concept of marriage becomes the easy part.I agree, and I think this strips bare the notion that this is about anything but the gayness. In a child's mind, why would anyone oppose a union of 2 consenting adults who love each other? In fact, I defy anyone to explain to a child how preventing, and ending, marriages actually protects marriage?

This is NOM's cunning linguistic reach-around. By claiming to protect marriage, they can try to avoid the stink of being a hate group. The fact is, though, that they are not trying to protect anything. It is with this lie that they give themselves away. If they had a clear conscience, and God on their side, they'd call it what it is: denying, or refusing, the right of gay people to marry.

Here's an example. I oppose the right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain medications based on non-medical criteria. As such, I don't go around calling myself a Pharmacy Protector. I am an opponent of derelict pill-counters. Courage of my convictions, and all that.

I do have to give NOM props, though, for one "innovation." They eschew the tired "Adam and Steve" cliche for the updated, soon-to-be-featured-in-ALL-CAPS-blog-comments "Anna and Eve." That's probably all the progress we can expect out of them.

Finally, as a parent, I try to draw on my own experience. When I was a kid, you know what confused me? This book that my parents exposed me to, that had a guy with, like, a bag of wives (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/30.html#5), who went around killing people and cutting off a piece of each victim's penis (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/18.html). It made "Silence of the Lambs" look like a Busytown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busytown) book. I'd be careful about exposing kids to that until they're older.<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-3712949-1"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); </SCRIPT>

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/21/anti-gay-marriage-nom-uses-children-as-human-shields/

again some people believe becuase men and women have the abilinty to procreate, start familys, and consumate ...is not equal to a relationship where none of this is possible

2 gays can not procreate, they can not consumate, they can not start a family ... there not equal ..its simple ..nothing hateful about my opinion .. but to me nothing can compare to childbirth ..sorry if peo;le think thats "hateful" ... maybe they are the ones to vblind and angry to underrstand that logic

i can easily understand gays being upset about not having benefits and rights ..its called empathy

[ShaE]

and again, then these people that feel ability to consummate and procreate are so necessary to marriage, ought to start telling sterile couples, or handicapped couples that cannot consummate, they may not get married either in the interest of "protecting marriage".

[jameznyhc]

and again, then these people that feel ability to consummate and procreate are so necessary to marriage, ought to start telling sterile couples, or handicapped couples that cannot consummate, they may not get married either in the interest of "protecting marriage".

not that they are necessary to marriage... its just not possible in homosexual relationship ..therefor its not equal

[ShaE]

it's just not possible in a sterile couple either,biologically, they can't have kids, can't produce offspring, period, why not oppose them too?

[jameznyhc]

it's just not possible in a sterile couple either,biologically, they can't have kids, can't produce offspring, period, why not oppose them too?

they can consumate their marriage ..they can have sexual intercouse .. gay couples can not ..unless were going to redfine intercourse after we redfine marriage lol

but a sterile man or woman marrying each other is not threatening the union between other men and women .. the sterile couple can still be husband and wife ..the gay couple can never be husband and wife

but to say the sterile couple is equal to a healthy couple is a lie .. cause they cant have kids

[ShaE]

i don't think relationships have to be "equal" to both qualify for marriage. no two relationships are equal and we don't determine who gets to enjoy which rights on how SIMILAR they are.

[ITsALLaboutME]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- Opponents of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages launched a new court challenge Wednesday, led by lawyers who were on opposite sides of the case that settled the 2000 presidential race.


A crowd protests the court ruling upholding Proposition 8 in Los Angeles, California, Tuesday.

Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies have asked a federal judge to block California from enforcing the ban, known as Proposition 8.

"We are two lawyers from opposite ends of the political spectrum who have come together to support one of the most important issues of our time," Olson told reporters.

The case "is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We're here in part to symbolize that," he added.

Wednesday's lawsuit was filed on behalf of two same-sex couples who have been denied marriage licenses under Proposition 8. A federal judge in San Francisco has set a July 2 hearing on the matter.

"Our Constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law," Boies said. "There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person you love and to raise a family." Watch more on the same-sex marriage battle in California »

Olson was the lead attorney for George W. Bush in the 2000 Florida recount. Boies, meanwhile, was the top legal strategist for former Vice President Al Gore, that year's Democratic presidential nominee.

California's Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the marriage ban Tuesday, but left intact about 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted before voters approved the ban in November. The court rejected arguments that the measure improperly amended the state constitution.

In another echo of past political battles, one of those who argued in favor of Proposition 8 was Kenneth Starr -- the special prosecutor who led the Whitewater investigation that led to the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

The lawsuit is backed by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a newly formed organization based in Los Angeles. See iReporter photos of protests, celebrities »

But a coalition of groups that fought the ban in California courts -- including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal Foundation -- urged supporters Wednesday to turn their energy toward winning in the political arena rather than the courts.

"Pushing the federal government with multiple lawsuits before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to lead to bad rulings," the coalition said. "Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer."

Opponents of the ban are already planning to put a new initiative on California ballots in 2010 to repeal it. But Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, said on CNN's "Larry King Live" that polls show same-sex marriage advocates losing ground.

"Right now, Californians support traditional, natural marriage 49 percent compared to 43 percent for same-sex marriage," said Garlow, who supported Proposition 8. "That's a reversal. It has just switched in recent months. As people get more familiar with the reality, the sanctity of marriage, how special marriage is, why a child should have a mom and dad, they shift to the traditional marriage view."

The suit filed by Boies and Olson cites heavyweight Supreme Court precedents such as Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that banned segregation in public schools, and Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 ruling that struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.

It also cited Romer v. Evans, a 1996 decision that killed an amendment to Colorado's constitution that rolled back gay rights ordinances. That measure, like Proposition 8, had been approved by voters.

"We're going to court because people shouldn't have to surrender their fundamental rights to a popular plebiscite," Olson said. "People should not have to beg to be treated equally or wait for decades for popular approval to be treated equally."



Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa -- approve of same-sex marriages.

Vermont's Legislature passed a law making same-sex marriages legal that will take effect in September.

[ShaE]

California's Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the marriage ban Tuesday, but left intact about 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted before voters approved the ban in November.

so jamez, does this mean heterosexual marriages in california are diminished now b/c these gay marriages were left intact?

[TrippinFace101]

You need a liecense to go fishing somewhere. But they will let any asshole be a MOM or DAD:shuffle