Connect with us

Same-Sex Marriage: The Compleat Guide To Refudiating NOM’s Anti-Gay Lies

Published

on

Alvie McEwen and Jeremy Hooper, who have made extraordinary contributions to the knowledge bank of the LGBT community, developed these “Simple answers to NOM’s complicated lies,” refudiating (sorry, I had to include Palin!) Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-gay homophobic lies.

Here are a few. I encourage you to stop by Alvin McEwen’s site, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, and Jeremy Hooper’s site, Good As You, and read them for yourself. Often. And send them to all your friends. And put them on Facebook and Twitter!

Here you go:

The idea that “marriage has to be defended” is nothing more than a cynical talking point designed to take attention away from the true issue – the lives of same-sex couples and especially the livelihood of children in same-sex households.

The truth of the matter is marriage is not “under attack.” It has never been “under attack.”

But what is under attack is truth, integrity, and basic fairness for the hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and especially their children who seem to be nothing more than chess pieces in NOM’s game of exploitation and manipulation, as evidenced by the following talking point:

NOM – “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Truth – Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not “redefine marriage” for the entire country because they are not forcing heterosexuals to engage in gay marriage. It’s 100% false. And the gay community don’t have a right to live as they choose, per the currently unequal laws of this nation in terms of employment, housing, etc.

Unfortunately, generalizations and straw man arguments encompass more of NOM’s talking points. The following are the list of said talking points, as well as logical answers which refutes them:


Answers to NOM’s “Frequently Asked Questions”

NOM – 1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

Truth – This an unfair generalization of the argument for marriage equality. However, if one was to go there, one could point to the many instances of those claiming to protect marriage making homophobic comments which belie the claim that they simply believe that “mothers and fathers matter to kids.”

For example:

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has called homosexuality “an unfortunate thing” which represents “at a minimum, asexual dysfunction.”

Jason McGuire of New Yorker’s Family Research Foundation (NYFRF) hascompared marriage equality to child abuse.

Alveda King, a conservative African-American activist, called marriage equality “genocide.”

National Organization For Marriage of Rhode Island executive director Christopher Plante called same-sex families “tragic situations” akin to families with divorced or even dead parents.

The Minnesota Family Council (who is partnering with NOM to stop marriage equality in Minnesota) recently pushed information on its web page linking the gay community to bestiality, pedophilia, and the consuming of urine and human excrement.

NOM – 2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Truth – Racists believed that interracial marriage would create genetically inferior children. Some opposing marriage equality claim that it would create conditions placing children in danger.

But neither view is backed by science. Children born from interracial relationships are not inferior. In that same vein, the majority of studies which look at children in same-sex households have found that they suffer no adverse effects.

NOM – 3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

Truth -  Organizations like NOM favor voter referendums where they pour millions of dollars into commercials and flyers which rely on inaccurate studies or the repetition of false horror stories designed to scare people into voting against marriage equality. NOM brags about how people in states like California and Maine voted against marriage equality, but the organization always omits the part about how these voters were manipulated by fears of the “gay agenda coming for their children.” NOM and other organizations opposing marriage equality are probably fearful of defending their arguments in court because as lawyer David Boies said, “the witness stand is lonely place to lie.”  We saw this in the 2010 Proposition 8 trial when no one from NOM testified for the California law banning gay marriage.

NOM – 4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

Truth – What about the rights of same-sex couples? Also, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home and no doubt, that number has increased. And according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the University of California, Los Angeles, Black or Latino gay couples are twice as likely as whites to be raising children. What about the rights of these families?

NOM – “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

Truth – This is a distortion. Same-sex households are not in competition with heterosexual households. Children need family environments which give them love and support.

NOM – “Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage.”

Truth -  No religious group (or any individual for that matter) will be forced toendorse anything.  Those are just words used to scare people. And tax exemption controversies have nothing to do with marriage equality, but rather how far should religious exemptions go if religious charities demanding these exemptions are using tax dollars. For example, is it fair for Catholic Charities in Illinois to have the right not to allow gays to adopt children they care for even if these charities are receiving over $30 million in tax dollars (after all, the gay community does pay taxes).

NOM – “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.”

Truth – This is a lie. The nonpartisan webpage Politifact found that this claimwas inaccurate. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, same-sex intimacy is not in the curriculum. Even those who oppose marriage equality, such as Marc Mutty – who helped lead the charge against it in Maine – said that this claim is hyperbole geared to motivate people through fear.

In reality, conversations about same-sex households probably happen already in schools amongst the students themselves. Again, according the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home. It’s safe to say that a vast number of these children attend public schools. Is it fair for them not to be able to talk about their families?



NOM – “When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

Truth -  . Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not “legally stigmatize” two-parent heterosexual families as “bigotry.” Same-sex couples with children are not in competition with mother/father couples. And to infer this is saying that families should be subjected to a caste system where one family is inferior to another simply because of make-up. That is un-American.

NOM – “One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Truth – What about the rights of same-sex couples or same-sex couples and their children? Don’t they have a say in this matter?

NOM – 5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Truth – Giving same-sex couples the right to marry does not interfere with anyone’s marriage or the love of their children.  And love in a same-sex household between partners and between parents and children is no different than in a heterosexual household. Here, NOM is trying to define love, something they often accuse gay activists/ the state of doing.

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

A Conservative Serves Up a Grassroots Fix for Trumpism

Published

on

A conservative political operative turned commentator and journalist has a grassroots prescription for what she believes ails conservatism in the age of Trump — a “cure” for Trumpism.

Sarah Isgur worked on campaigns for Mitt Romney and Carly Fiorina, served as a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice, and is now an editor at The Dispatch, a conservative news site.

In an interview with The New York Times’ David Leonhardt, Isgur outlined some suggestions for everyday Americans who may identify as conservative — or who want to make changes.

READ MORE: Prominent Conservative Quits Heritage Over Tucker Defense as Trump Backs Carlson

Isgur “lays out her dream for a return to a small-government ethos and constrained presidential power,” which includes her belief that government can’t fix everything. She also believes there should be no independent federal agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress needs to take more control.

“It’s not that we’re always going to agree on everything,” Isgur added. “That’s never been the American way. My God, we’re connected by nothing — not race, not creed, not religion. This is what we do, though, is that we say we’re going to, first of all, have decisions made at the most local level so that the person making that decision is most responsive and most represents their own constituents.”

So, how does she think that happens?

Americans, she said, “have to look at what is tending to win these elections and the currents that we’re beating up against.”

When asked, “What advice would you give to people who are deeply dissatisfied with what our political system is delivering and want to do something that’s fundamentally patriotic, which is get involved?” Isgur offered a grassroots answer.

READ MORE: ‘Fight Back!’: Trump Demands GOP Keep the House ‘at All Costs’

“Stop reading political news,” she advised. “Put your phone down. Go talk to your neighbors, check out what they’re doing. Don’t talk about politics, just check on their health. How’s their mom? What are the kids up to? Do you have any cute kid videos to show me?”

She urged Americans to “be radically involved in your neighborhood and your community. And I really mean your smallest community — getting to know the other parents in your kids’ class.”

And, she said, “Vote in primaries.”

“Our elections are increasingly getting decided in primaries and that itself is bad. And the way to fix it is to vote in primaries.”

And register for the party that you want to influence, she suggested.

“I don’t understand people who refuse to register with the other party. It’s not a tattoo. You didn’t sign up for a new religion. Part of the problem is we think of politics as a religion. I’m just signing up in a primary to help pick who that candidate is going to be in the general election. That’s it. That’s the extent of what it means to register for a political party,” Isgur explained.

READ MORE: Trump to Rub Elbows With McDonald’s Owners in Push to Promote ‘Affordability’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Prominent Conservative Quits Heritage Over Tucker Defense as Trump Backs Carlson

Published

on

The Heritage Foundation, billed as the “intellectual backbone” of the conservative movement, has just lost one of the nation’s most prominent conservatives: Princeton Professor Robert P. George. His departure came after the organization’s president, Kevin Roberts, publicly called Tucker Carlson a “close friend” of Heritage — even after the former Fox News host gave a platform to far-right extremist leader Nick Fuentes. The split lands at the same moment President Donald Trump extended support to Carlson, despite Carlson’s interview with Fuentes, who is widely seen as promoting Christian nationalism, white supremacy, racism, antisemitism, misogyny, and Islamophobia.

Professor George is a legal scholar who served as the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which opposes same-sex marriage. He was once described as the “this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.”

“I have resigned from the board of the Heritage Foundation,” George wrote at the National Review on Monday. “I could not remain without a full retraction of the video released by Kevin Roberts, speaking for and in the name of Heritage, on October 30. Although Kevin publicly apologized for some of what he said in the video, he could not offer a full retraction of its content. So, we reached an impasse.”

READ MORE: ‘Fight Back!’: Trump Demands GOP Keep the House ‘at All Costs’

George urged Heritage to uphold “the moral principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the civic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.”

“I pray that Heritage’s research and advocacy will be guided by the conviction that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else, as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, is ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'”

Earlier this month, Professor George, also in the National Review, wrote about his opposition to President Roberts’ statement that Heritage has “no enemies to the right.”

The conservative movement, he wrote, “simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement.”

On Sunday, President Donald Trump was asked about Tucker Carlson’s “friendly” interview with “antisemite” Nick Fuentes.

READ MORE: Trump Aims Treason Allegation at His Former FBI Director in New Online Attack

“What role do you think Tucker Carlson should play in the Republican Party in the conservative movement going forward?” a reporter asked the president.

“Well, I found him to be good,” Trump said of Carlson. “I mean, he said good things about me over the years. And he’s, I think he’s good.”

“We’ve had some good interviews. I did an interview with him. We had 300 million hits. You know that,” Trump added.

The president added, “you can’t tell them who to interview. I mean, if he wants to interview Nick Fuentes — I don’t know much about him — but if he wants to do it, get the word out, let him — you know, people have to decide. Ultimately, people have to decide.”

The Washington Post on Monday described Trump’s remarks as “defending” Carlson.

SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah said Trump’s call to “get the word out” was “deeply, deeply troubling.”

“When leaders are asked about antisemitism,” the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on Monday wrote, “there’s only one responsible answer: denounce it. President Trump’s refusal to condemn Nick Fuentes — an avowed antisemite — or to call out Tucker Carlson for amplifying him is unacceptable and dangerous.”

READ MORE: Trump to Rub Elbows With McDonald’s Owners in Push to Promote ‘Affordability’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Fight Back!’: Trump Demands GOP Keep the House ‘at All Costs’

Published

on

As President Donald Trump faces potential pushback from House Republicans over his stance on the Epstein files, he has reversed course and urged members to vote for their release. But now the president is pushing back — hard — against further defections from his agenda and is demanding that Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives “at all costs.”

In a sharply-worded post on his Truth Social website, President Trump demanded that states support his call for a rare mid-decade redistricting plan, his tool to try to pick up more GOP-held seats in the House.

Recently, Indiana Republicans acknowledged that they did not have the votes to support redistricting, leading Trump to unleash a threat on Monday.

READ MORE: Trump Aims Treason Allegation at His Former FBI Director in New Online Attack

“I will be strongly endorsing against any State Senator or House member from the Great State of Indiana that votes against the Republican Party, and our Nation, by not allowing for Redistricting for Congressional seats in the United States House of Representatives as every other State in our Nation is doing,” Trump alleged. “Republican or Democrat.”

Not all states have decided to redistrict.

“Democrats are trying to steal our seats everywhere,” the president charged, “and we’re not going to let this happen! This all began with the Rigged Census. We must keep the Majority at all costs. Republicans must fight back!”

READ MORE: Trump to Rub Elbows With McDonald’s Owners in Push to Promote ‘Affordability’

The president did not detail specifically what some of those costs might entail. Trump was president in 2020 when the census was conducted.

Trump did speak with Indiana Republican Governor Mike Braun on Monday morning, the governor noted.

“I remain committed to standing with him on the critical issue of passing fair maps in Indiana to ensure the MAGA agenda is successful in Congress,” Braun wrote.

The redistricting push started when Trump urged Texas to redistrict, which he suggested would add five GOP seats for Republicans. California soon undertook plans to do the same, possibly diminishing or neutralizing any potential GOP pickups. But some election and polling experts have said that Hispanic voters are rapidly moving away from the GOP, which could backfire on Republicans in states like Texas.

READ MORE: Democrat Warns How Trump Could Engineer a Path to Stay in Power After 2028

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.