A new ad produced the the National Organization for Marriage claims that evil gay marriage will “take away [your] freedom.” One women in the video wails, “my freedom will be taken away” by same-sex marriage. One has to ask: Exactly how will her freedom be taken away? Will the government force her to marry another woman? Will it force her to go on double-dates with gay couples? Perhaps she will be sent to a re-education camp to be forcibly taught to accept gays and lesbians.
The video says that gay marriage goes beyond just same-sex couples, but the examples of how it would do so are flimsy at best. Seriously, their strongest argument is that schools would teach kids that same-sex marriage is acceptable? First of all, schools are hardly instituting required 3rd-period gay marriage class. Second, to the extent that the issue even comes up, would it be better for our schools to instead be teaching that homosexuality is wrong? Perhaps they should also be teaching that interracial marriage is wrong, too.
So far as I can gather, the NOM’s real argument — weak as it is — is that her freedom would be taken away simply because she would be forced to live in a world where gay people can marry. That’s a shame if you really hate gay people, but equal marriage still doesn’t actually threaten her freedom. She still retains her Freedom of Bigotry. She has every right to continue to hate gays, and even teach her children to hate gays; nobody can stop her.
The question here is which is a more basic American freedom: the right of two people who love each other to be married, or the right of one person to impose their prejudices on others.
But the opportunities for remixing and parodies of the ad have already inspired the denizens of YouTubia to heights of LOLs! just search NOM or Gathering Storm and see the collective raspberry this ad has inspired. NOM is going to have its own entry in “Rightwing propaganda: Ur doin it wrong”
oh, and the auditions of the actors in the ad? check them out against the ad itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92MJhG_J1Xc
oh, hey! check out who NOM is and their possible connection to Opus Dei. Figures.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-SF-Gay — Lesbian-Examiner~y2009m4d8-NOM-releases-hilarious-new-antigay-ad
I think their straw man is that Churches will be forced to marry gay people or face discrimination lawsuits. However, Churches have been allowed to choose who they want to marry and who they do not forever, and there have never been lawsuits. Legalized divorce has not led to the Catholic Church being forced to marry divorced people. It chooses not to. Churches will not be forced to marry gay people if they do not want to. This is just a dumb argument.
Dumbest thing I’ve seen since the 2008 republican convention.
These people are not at all shy about their bigotry, are they?
They are just actors. Hit Joanna’s link on the auditions. Its pretty funny.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm
This is their recommended responses for questions critical of their bigotry. The first one is the best by far. It’s a funny read.
When I was in school, they told me that the Puritans had come to New England because of religious oppression in Britain. What the schoolmasters didn’t say was that the Puritans had crossed the ocean not long after losing control of the British government, and that what they had regarded as oppression was having to watch non-Puritans sing, drink & enjoy Xmas without any longer being able to punish them for it.
I think there’s a parallel here. These wingnuts dread the loss of their right to oppress teh gayz — a right they don’t actually have, but who’s counting?
As a modern day Eisenhower Republican, I just don’t understand how the Christian right can claim that ensuring someone else cannot get hitched somehow preserves their own liberties.
DtM, this isn’t about banning gay marriage. This is about keeping a wedge issue alive. This is about playing the Christian right like a violin. This is about playing on peoples fear and prejudice in order to keep them working and in camp. The GOP doesn’t want to settle abortion, guns, gay rights or immigration. They want to keep these issues alive and on the front page because it’s all they have. Reagan’s state’s rights stand was code for the GOP’s racist positions. Reagan’s mythical welfare mother was code for the GOP’s racist positions. I just don’t understand how reasonable people can stand by and let their political party become so far in debt to the worst segments on our population. The GOP has made hay from appealing to people’s lesser angels for 30 years and now they have nothing left.
While I don’t buy the “code for racist positions” bit, and I would seperate guns from those other issues because that one is stated pretty darn explicity in the 2nd Amendment, I do agree that they are keeping wedge issues alive in an act of desperation.
I went to their website and read the talking points. Seems like something straight out of the Onion.
Lets for a minute take them seriously about their reasons for supporting traditional marriage -
1 They should also be opposed to remarriage by people beyond childbearing age. After all, the purpose of marriage is to raise children. Without that , it is just companionship, support and sex. Same for gay and straight.
2 Same goes for couples who cannot have children. NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!
Reminds me of the acting in the original Twilight Zone
Imagine…bigots like Bill Clinton and Paul Wellstone opposed Gay Marriage as well.
Both Clinton and Wellstone cited deeply held religious belief as their reason for opposing gay marriage. Sure, religion is a stupid reason for opposing it, but at least they were honest.
Religion is a perfectly good reason for opposing gay marriage. But religion is also a perfectly good reason for opposing non-kosher foods. An individual’s religious motivations for a position has absolutely NOTHING to do with the equal protection argument. Just as an individual can chose not to be kosher (thus violating the religious beliefs of another) so to should an individual be able chose to marry a member of the same sex.
Religion may be the at the root of people’s feelings towards gay marriage (for or against), but it has nothing to do with the legal arguments in support of it. I only point out this distinction because I think too often we slam religion when we mean to slam the perversion or bastardization of religious beliefs.
Which proves … what, exactly?
It proves that they were wrong on this issue — nothing more, nothing less. It doesn’t make their opposition right, and it diminishes the stature of neither of them.
Wellstone said his vote for DOMA was his biggest mistake.
Yeah, but Bill Clinton isn’t parading around the country saying that gay marriage will take away his freedom either. There’s a difference between a politician taking a stance against gay marriage for a personal reason and an organization claiming gay married couples are going to steal everyone’s freedom and destroy the world with their love for each other. If you’re going to oppose something, at least a sane reason.
In order to tackle the gay marriage debate, you have to define the parameters.
What is the purpose of “marriage”?
Why does society offer a few financial enticements to be legally married? And they are but a few. (There is really only one financial advantage to being married.)
What makes a marriage “legal” and what would happen if we removed the “legality”, for everyone, of marriage?
What is the TRUE value of gay marriage to gay couples?
What is the TRUE value of gay marriage to society?
What would happen if ALL couples were dismissed from the governments requirement to legalize the union?
Is the legal union and legal contract?
To what extent is society ready to deal with the other groups who will step forward for marriage recognition?
Lastly…ARE there, factually, gay people who have the ability to CHOOSE to be gay, and what does that do to the “sanctity” of marriage?
Lets see what we come up with.
“What is the purpose of “marriage”?”
It is important to separate civil marriage from religious marriage.
Civil marriage is a basket of a host of legal and social goods, including but not limited to, social recognition of a committed relationship, certain property rights, certain autonomy rights (like the right to make medical decisions for your spouse), etc… The purpose of civil marriage is that it allows a couple to get the whole basket of goods in one fell swoop.
Religious marriage has different purposes in different religions ranging from promoting procreation to an exchange of property rights (namely, ownership of a daughter passing from father to husband) to a recognition of the holiness of the union of a man and a woman.
The distinction is important because the debate is over civil marriage, not religious marriage. No one is going to force the Catholic church to marry gay couples (there is a little thing called the first amendment).
“Why does society offer a few financial enticements to be legally married?”
Well, I think this is more of a historical question than a policy question, but the way you can justify these incentives in a modern world is that marriage promotes social stability.
“What makes a marriage “legal” and what would happen if we removed the “legality”, for everyone, of marriage?”
This is not a terrible idea. Though, it would make life more difficult in a number of respects because you would be terminating the shortcut I mentioned above. So, there would have to be some other way to establish that you are legally entitled to survivor benefits under the VA or Social Secutiry, for instance. But lots of same sex marriage activists actually favor this option.
“What is the TRUE value of gay marriage to gay couples?”
I wonder if you are trying to imply that there is some sort of secret motive by gay people, but taking your question at face value… There are some practical considerations: Gay people want to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital. There are some sentimental considerations: Some gay people, just like some straight people, grow up dreaming of their wedding day. There are some moral considerations: Gay people don’t want to feel like second class citizens. There are some financial considerations: Gay people want to get survivors benefits and be able to access their partner’s health insurance, not to mention tax incentives.
“What would happen if ALL couples were dismissed from the governments requirement to legalize the union?”
I think I already answered this quesiton.
“Is the legal union and legal contract?”
This question is incoherent.
“To what extent is society ready to deal with the other groups who will step forward for marriage recognition?”
I assume this is the polygamy red herring. Polygamy is easily distinguishable from same sex marriage. For one, polygamy is a belief system, not a human characteristic. For another, polygamy, like prostitution, is closely intertwined with the exploitation of women. The last thing I’ll say on this subject is that fifty years ago, the supporters of anti-miscegenation laws made the same arguments about polygamy and incest. It was a stupid argument then and its a stupid argument now. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
“ARE there, factually, gay people who have the ability to CHOOSE to be gay, and what does that do to the “sanctity” of marriage?”
The “sanctity” of marriage is irrelevant because we’re talking about civil marriage and not religious marriage.
Early, I’m not sure what your point is exactly. Am I suppose to rethink my belief that the ban on gay marriage is rooted in bigotry and prejudice because Clinton and Wellstone voted for a DOMA bill? The fact they were on the wrong side of history on that issue and could not get past their prejudices doesn’t cancel out their other work. Early, please clarify for me how gay marriage will diminish or threaten my 28 year marriage. Please tell me why I should be afraid of the homosexual agenda. Conservative doorknobs use this issue to scare people. I don’t scare easily and rather relish the debate. Conservatives hate that. A frightened populace is a compliant populace. Tell me Early, why isn’t the ban on gay marriage discrimination?
For the same reason the ban on polygamist marriage is not discrimination…for the same reason that the ban on marrying first cousins is not discrimination.
Gay marriage THREATENS nobody. It merely lowers yet another social standards bar..and give equal credibility to a couple that cannot further the human race within a tracible lineage…the true goal of families.
Yeah, go ahead, give me the “married without children” argument…and I’ll tell you that there is no real legal benefit to being married unless you have children.
People do not choose to be gay, but they do choose polygamy. There’s a big difference there.
The ban on marrying first cousins is far from universal, even in the United States.
“Gay marriage THREATENS nobody. It merely lowers yet another social standards bar..and give equal credibility to a couple that cannot further the human race within a tracible lineage…the true goal of families.”
By this logic, sterile couples should not be allowed to marry. Nor should elderly couples. You really think a couple of 70 year old people should not be allowed to marry?
Polygamy, by the way, is certainly not banned because it doesn’t “further the human race”. To the contrary, polygamous marriages tend to lead to a lot of children.
Hmm, yes. Iowa: I bet the real discussion will center around judges and their ability to decide (or is it “create”?) legislation.
Also, re: legislation… will those legislators that voted for such bills be elected?
If all goes well, Minnesota might as well follow suit and really try to pass bills allowing gay marriage.
Or a popular vote? Maybe that would be best in Minnesota.
Vermont’s legislative vote followed a judicial ruling by several years. Any Iowa vote would also have to follow its judicial ruling by several years as well. The thinking on Vermont’s was that allowing several years for the hysteria to die down and people in Vermont to see that gay marriage did not in fact lead to a plague of pedophilia abandoned children left a lot of the bigots without a leg to stand on.
Thus, people in the suburbs and rural areas, who normally could cocoon up and avoid seeing anything different from them, have to occasionally deal with ‘problem’… and realize that it isn’t one.
NOM is pure shenanigans. Marriage is a social construct, created by man and — if you’re a religious person — sanctified by God, Allah, etc. If mankind created it, then mankind can redefine its parameters.
In any event, if you’re personally opposed to gay marriage because you’re a homophobe or think it screws up any children a gay couple might have, then that’s your right. It’s a free country. People can disagree. But to say that their relationship somehow threatens the stability of yours is ludicrous, plain and simple.
It’s a Republican game to make the focus: This will threaten my rights.
I bet that’s not what really worries the constituents over there on the right. I bet what worries them is this that you said:
… you’re personally opposed to gay marriage… then that’s your right
It’s probably more having to do with tolerance which has come to mean condone or accept, which those righters feel would then have to feel guilty about.
One thing for sure, a lot of folks care about this issue. Some even “hate”. Never mind that God is love…
Anyway, I’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in Iowa and Vermont. It didn’t go so well in California. And unfortunately we need Democrats in office now for a variety of reasons. Republicans are calling for dangerous and revolution, and can’t set a budget for the life of them.
Randy…
Is it NOT a fact that there are many gay people who chose to be gay? I think we have seen some in the movie star arena, for example. So, if it can be factually proven that homosexuality CAN be a chose…and there is factually NO genetic mutation that makes someone become gay, from birth, wouldn’t the obvious factual conclusion be that homosexuality is a choice?
We can pinpoint genes for many things, except homosexuality. We can pinpoint specific instances where people who were once straight became gay, and visa versa…are you following me?
But, regardless of the choice aspect, you failed to comment on any of the questions I posed. Gay marriage is being sought, and excused, for all of the wrong reasons. But, in the end, it will likely prevail because we live in a society that does not value family, structure, nature or morality.
Don, this is a huge logical fallacy. Just because we have yet to identify a “gay gene” doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. There are lots of aspects of human development that have yet to be tied to a specific gene. Also, recent research suggests that homosexuality may be tied to hormone exposure in the womb. This could mean that homosexuality isn’t a choice even if homosexuality isn’t caused by genetics. I stress the word could here. The truth is that we don’t know what causes a person to be a homosexual. All I can tell you is this, if you talk to any gay person in the world, they will tell you they can’t change who they fall in love with. It wasn’t a choice for them.
The other half of your argument, that it can be proven (by looking to hollywood) that being gay can sometimes be a choice, is dubious and irrelevant even if true. For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that you are right and some people chose to be gay. That does not prove anything. Some people choose to have red hair. Other people, myself included, have red hair through no choice of their own. It would be absurd to suggest that I chose to have red hair just because some hollywood celebrity dyed their hair red.
Zack, love doesn’t exist, so your argument is automatically invalid. You will have to find better evidence than ‘love’ if you are trying to convince any rational person than restrictions on same-sex marriage are discriminatory.
Jerel,
“love doesn’t exist, so your argument is automatically invalid”
That is your opinion, Jerel, so your argument is automatically invalid to anyone who disagrees with that opinion.
Nitro, actually, it is an unequivocal truth, not an opinion. So anyone who disagrees is only fooling themselves. Sorry.