Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Hey, NOM: why not support marriage?

NOM Exposed Right-wing

By Adam Bink

Courtesy of Jeremy at Good As You, here’s the highlight of NOM’s latest e-blast:

201101280822

Nice. You might try seeing the film.

Jumping over to their blog, we see this:

It’s a typical Hollywood fantasy.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the kids are not doing that well.

“What’s the matter with kids today? A great deal more than you might realize,” begins a USA Today editorial, “One-third are overweight or obese. Nearly a third drop out or can’t finish high school in four years. All told, 75% are in such a poor state that they are ineligible for military service for reasons ranging from health to drugs to criminal records to lack of education. Last month came bad news about the rest: 23% of those who try to enlist fail the basic entrance exam.”

Hmm. Okay. To what does NOM attribute this calamity?

And as USA Today, to its credit, points out, a lot of that is due to the decline of marriage as a child-rearing institution. Quick, what’s the proportion of children born outside of marriage?

Answer: a record-high 41 percent.

As USA Today concludes, “Our view on kids: When unwed births hit 41%, it’s just not right.”

But of course, NOM doesn’t support marriage in support of raising children if the parents are of the same sex. And that’s the real infuriating bottom line- NOM addresses those receiving its e-blasts as “marriage supporters”, but NOM isn’t a marriage supporter.

So why not support child-rearing by married parents of any gender? Because that doesn’t fit NOM’s worldview. I wonder if Brian would rather these kids be raised in foster homes or orphanages than with caring, loving parents, of which one is perhaps a biological parent, be they wed or unwed.

It’s sad when doctrine is more important than children.

And this really gets me:

Many, many single moms struggle–and succeed!–to be good mothers, and some fathers sacrifice a lot to try to stay close to their children when they are not married. I am a child of divorce; I know that.

But I also know this: Without a powerful commitment to marriage, the job of parents becomes immeasurably harder, the number who succeed becomes smaller, and the children grow up in a world where the prospects for reliable love look bleaker and bleaker. Many suffer, and some are permanently damaged.

So again, Brian, why not support marriage?

82 Comments

  • 1. Kathleen  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:36 am

  • 2. atty79  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:47 am

    What's most revealing about NOM's shock-statistics is that "the kid's are not fine" without the help of marriage equality. Another way of putting it, relationships by opposite gender couples are having a negative impact on children, according to NOM. That's happening all on its own, without the supposedly-evil marriage by the same gender.

    I point this out because NOM and its ilk focus on marriage equality as the bane of the family. It seems like opposite gender couples are causing the "problems" NOM is pointing out without our help.

    Maybe if they focused on building relationships instead of destroying them, NOM could actually achieve its goal of promoting marriage and helping children. As Adam said, this would include promoting marriage equality.

  • 3. John B.  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:52 am

    And in their latest blog post they quote extensively from Jenny Hope, “the longer a marriage lasts the more the rewards [i.e., mental and physical wellbeing] accumulate – the only catch being that the relationship has to be loving and supportive….. Marriage cheers you up, improves your diet and helps you live longer, researchers say.
    It brings better mental and physical health, reducing the chance of premature death by 15 per cent, according to major studies in seven European countries. Marriage and other forms of partnership can be placed along a sliding scale of commitment, with greater commitment conferring greater benefit,’ he added. That marriage generally indicates a deeper commitment might explain why marriage is associated with better mental health outcomes than cohabiting. Cohabiting relationships tend to be less enduring."

    So, NOM, given that you seem to agree with and approve of these comments, remind us again why you don't want to let us get married? And why you and your allies would prefer, if we gay people can't "choose" to be heterosexual, that we should instead spend our lives alone and without being in a loving partnership of and kind? Doesn't your blog post boil down to "nyaa nyaa, look what we have, you can't have it and we won't let you!" (Submitting my question to the NOM blog but don't hold your breath waiting for them to post it.)

  • 4. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:09 am

    My reaction exactly.

    “What’s the matter with kids today? A great deal more than you might realize,” begins a USA Today editorial, “One-third are overweight or obese. Nearly a third drop out or can’t finish high school in four years. All told, 75% are in such a poor state that they are ineligible for military service for reasons ranging from health to drugs to criminal records to lack of education. Last month came bad news about the rest: 23% of those who try to enlist fail the basic entrance exam.”

    And this has what to do with same-sex marriage? How is this circumstance changed if LGBT couples are allowed to marry? How does all the money NOM raises and spends on anti-equality campaigns make the lives of children better?

    Maroons.

  • 5. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:18 am

    Watch the video.

    Marine Corps plans for ‘don’t ask’ repeal
    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/01/mari

  • 6. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:23 am

    Ok, time for something that nobody out there seems to be talking about. Yes, kids will do better in a stable environment, but that doesn't always mean a two-parent home. Psychologists are telling us that it is better for the children that parents with irreconcilable differences split up rather than try to stay together for the sake of the kids. It's better that they split up!

    "Another divorce study conducted in Canada and published in the current issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family found that the demise of a marriage is most harmful to a child's mental health before a parental split, rather than after.

    "By analyzing four years of data on almost 17,000 children younger than 11, researchers at the University of Alberta found that before the divorce, children whose parents ultimately break up are more depressed, anxious and anti-social than kids from stable marriages.

    "The researchers concluded that the common notion that parents should stay together for the sake of their kids is a fallacy that can do more harm to children than good.
    http://family.go.com/parenting/article-mm-77932-d

    I believe (IANAPsychologist) that there are several big factors to the divorce problem. People being bad at discerning love from lust, is one. The notion that people need to "do the right thing" and get married if they've created a child is another. Getting married too quickly, before you really have gotten to know your future spouse; not having the knowledge/experience to run a household; inability to cooperate/work as a team or failure to look at a marriage as a partnership; incompatibility with actually dealing with and raising children.

    Brian, Maggie, Louis: can either of you tell me which of these factors affects only LGBT couples? No? I thought not.

    My brother just married his fiancee of 4 years last June. His pastor required that they go through marriage counseling with him before he would marry them. I ask why in Hel's good name, if they see there's a problem with couples not knowing how to cope with marriage or each other, would they wait until someone is engaged to start teaching the couple what it takes to be married? Why isn't it part of Sex Ed? Why isn't it mandatory curriculum in public schools? I think marriage skills are generally more important to your average worker bee than being able to remember how to work quadratic equations or spout that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin without knowing even what a cotton gin even is.

  • 7. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:35 am

    All marriage/couple/family relationships have really, profoundly, substantially changed, beginning in the 1960's. They're complicated. NOM can't begin to deal with 21st century reality for couples and kids and families when their ideal 'traditional' marriage hasn't existed since the Cleavers and the Huxtables.

  • 8. Ed Cortes  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:36 am

    ditto

  • 9. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:39 am

    Wow. Just wow!

    Lea T., Transsexual Model, Takes First Turn On The Runway (PHOTOS)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/lea-t-tr

  • 10. Ed Cortes  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Isn't it a drink like "slow" gin?

  • 11. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:48 am

    My original response to this when I read it the other day was this:

    Not only has Brainless Brian Brown Suit shown how completely stupid he is judging a movie without even seeing it….but look how publicly disrespectful he is about the FACT (not fantasy) of 2moms raising two kids together…..also with a hint of BIGOTED conjecture towards. surprise surprise, someone else’s religion that doesn’t fall lock-in-step with his…..

    “Breaking news in Hollywood: The Kids Are All Right has been nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture! Big surprise.”……..(me) What does this have to do with marriage?

    You haven’t seen the film, but feel you are qualified enough to criticize it…yeah ok…Why the exclamation point after “by British Jesuits”?….careful, your bigotry is showing. Then there is the quintessential belittling, degrading, insulting, & demeaning of 2 moms raising 2 children together, which is a FACT, as nothing more the “fantasy”. So Brian Brown who is attacking families?….Oh right, that would be you…..

    But it all comes back to this….WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MARRIAGE!!!!….I’ll tell you what…nothing…that’s what…NOM=FAIL!!!!…… : I …Ronnie

  • 12. Ann S.  |  January 30, 2011 at 2:18 am

  • 13. Tomato  |  January 30, 2011 at 2:42 am

    I'd like to know which "seven European countries" were in the study they reference. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it included countries with marriage equality. Oh, and universal health care.

    NOM doesn't complain any more about how allowing marriage equality was going to increase the divorce rate (oooh, cuz those gay folks are sooooo non-monogamous), after we've seen the divorce rates FALL in states with marriage equality.

  • 14. Carpool Cookie  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:05 am

    "“What’s the matter with kids today? A great deal more than you might realize,” begins a USA Today editorial, “One-third are overweight or obese."

    Great. Now we're blamed for making kids fat?

    I wonder if we'll be billed for their braces, next.

  • 15. Regan DuCasse  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:21 am

    Yeah, I got this e-newsletter from Brian Brown, and he's really not too bright.
    First of all, yes…he's comparing a FICTIONAL cinematic family and their conflict to something that's not a general, nor common reality in same sex parent families.
    Second, he's citing statistics that have nothing to do with same sex couples and parents, but EVERYTHING to do with the failures of heterosexual parents and couples.

    This is the same pretzel and stupid logic that requires that states discriminate against gay couples who don't have children, because ONLY those who can or want to or intend to have children deserve to marry.

    Despite the FACT that NO STATES discriminate against ADULTS on this basis!

    Brian Brown must not only be stupid himself, but the people he's addressing must be as well.

    I saw The Kids Are Alright, and the introduction of the sperm donor father, was a matter of curiosity for his children, but he INSINUATED himself into their lives and caused problems.

    The Annette Bening character put him in his place by telling him that this was HER family, not HIS. HER children, not HIS.

    And this fictional male character seems more typical of the straight males that Brian Brown won't lecture to because they'll tell him to mind his own business: straight males who have little conscience about their children, their support or location.

    Straight men can be VERY indiscriminate about who they make deposits into. If the jails, welfare and foster rolls are loaded with children who have been abandoned or who don't get the proper financial and custodial support they deserve, blaming gay people for that isn't right or fair and won't address the problem.

    I've directly gone to Brian Brown and told him about the domestic violence and gang membership problem throughout our society that endangers children. None of which can be attributed to gay people at large, or even to a minor degree. That his energies were better served THERE, than denying GOOD gay parents the ability to fully protect and support their children.

    That's when he stopped talking to me altogether.
    It's easy, low hanging fruit to complain about gay people, than it is to police his own to any demonstrable change for the better.

    So, not only is he stupid…he's worthless to real issues that damage families and children and he's harmful to good gay parents who DO make a positive difference in our society.

  • 16. Peterplumber  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:29 am

    ♂♂

  • 17. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:40 am

    This is dumber than Dan Quayle going after Murphy Brown.

  • 18. Cat  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:41 am

    From Wikipedia: Scapegoating is the practice of singling out any party for unmerited negative treatment or blame.

    A medical definition of scapegoating is:
    "Process in which the mechanisms of projection or displacement are utilised in focusing feelings of aggression, hostility, frustration, etc., upon another individual or group; the amount of blame being unwarranted."

    Of course NOM is really only interested in collecting fund$, and they use us as the scapegoat in their scare-people-into-donating-money scheme. Anybody outside their target audience is a candidate scapegoat. That's how you stay in power. However, by spewing this kind of nonsense I hope they only speak to their base of NOMbies, and just scare away any people who can think for themselves.

  • 19. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:42 am

    Just one more point:

    All told, 75% are in such a poor state that they are ineligible for military service for reasons ranging from health to drugs to criminal records to lack of education.

    So eligibility for military service is your touchstone? Fine. DADT repeal has been approved. Deal with that.

  • 20. Ed  |  January 30, 2011 at 4:14 am

    ok….the liberty council brief?? What a joke…..They claim gay men outnumber lesbians, then cite joseph nicolosi for that.

    What a joke…..

  • 21. Michelle Evans  |  January 30, 2011 at 4:42 am

    Wow. Never expected something like this from Gen. Amos. Considering his vehement objections to repeal, I was expecting to hear that he resigned from the USMC when repeal was passed. This video shows he actually does care about his country and our military. My impression of him has improved a lot because of this.

    Heck, even McCain has said he will back the DADT repeal law now. Maybe there is hope for the country yet, if only groups like NOM and the FRC would disappear, or on the other hand, as pointed out here, they should actually embrace marriage and thus marriage equality, then the world would be a much better place.

  • 22. Michelle Evans  |  January 30, 2011 at 4:46 am

    Yes, back when us women were "in our place" cooking and cleaning and making babies. And always there to support "our man" no matter what the circumstances. All while looking gorgeous, of course. :-)

  • 23. Matthew  |  January 30, 2011 at 4:57 am

    I read the whole post over no NOMs site. His critique was seething with judgment and venom.

  • 24. Michelle Evans  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:02 am

    Thanks for the link. Lea is great, but hardly the first. Probably one of the most visible trans model was Caroline Cossey, who used the name Tula in her modeling. One of her most famous roles was as the first ever trans girl in a James Bond movie, For Your Eyes Only.

  • 25. karen in kalifornia  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:06 am

    Why don't Brian and NOM support marriage equality?
    They don't like gay people. Any other questions?

  • 26. Kathleen  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:09 am

    Remember that amazing "It Gets Better" Video by Randy Roberts Potts, Oral Roberts's grandson? Well, there's an off-Broadway play in the works based on Randy's story. Here's a bit more information http://tinyurl.com/46v3yob

    For those who missed the video the first time around, here it is. It's long, but stick with it to the end.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYa0wi4XzeI

  • 27. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:17 am

    And don't forget being completely financially dependent, so if one's provider died or just left, the wife and family were up the creek.

  • 28. Rhie  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:19 am

    ugh….

  • 29. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:22 am

    You're right, the whole post is quite dreadful.

    It's a movie, you morons.

  • 30. JonT  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:23 am

    NOM is definitely not a marriage supporter.

    Nor do their actions indicate that they really give a crap about The Children™.

    They are a religious organization dedicated to imposing their narrow worldview on an increasingly secular population.

    But then, we already knew that :)

  • 31. Rhie  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:27 am

    The only changes I can see are positive:

    – There are thousands more loving homes that can be tapped as foster or adoptive families. The CPS in this country is overextended underfunded and undermanned. The addition of more families won't fix the underlying problems, but can help protect more children now.

    – The children already growing up with parents of the same sex have the security of knowing that they are legally protected. They can see their parents make a formal commitment to each other either in person or in pictures.

    Even if children can't understand the complex social and legal arguments surrounding this issue, they do understand they are considered less and their families considered less than others. Being put on the same level with others will give children a sense of security.

  • 32. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:28 am

    Very powerful. Wow.

  • 33. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:29 am

    From Scotusblog on LCR DADT appeal

    "Under the new schedule, briefing is expected to be completed by mid-April.

    It is doubtful that the Pentagon will have completed its preparations by then. And, in any event, the repeal law does not go into effect until 60 days after Congress is formally advised that the military is ready for the change. It thus seems likely that the Circuit Court could have a ruling on the constitutional question before repeal actually occurred."

    Not sure the decision would precede repeal, but it would be interesting.

    Month delay of “don’t ask” appeal
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/01/month-delay-of-

  • 34. Rhie  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:30 am

    Because a lot of these bigots honestly believe that LGBT relationships aren't healthy, aren't real, aren't loving, aren't anything except a twisted fantasy.

    It's evil and it's wrong of course to think that but with this as their premise the rest of their comments make a twisted sort of sense.

  • 35. Marlene  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:31 am

    That's the main complaint I had about The Cosby Show, in that you never if ever saw both parents at work, or see Claire having to spend late night at the office on an important case, or with an important client.

    If Cliff's supposed to be this great OB/GYN, why didn't we see him having to get up in the middle of the night when a patient's gone into labor at 3am?

    This is about as realistic as the fictional propaganda shows of the 50s, which pressured women of the day to be compliant little housewives. Michelle's on the mark with the last part!

  • 36. Rhie  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:34 am

    And then only on TV.

  • 37. Rhie  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:36 am

    I do know happy monogamous heterosexual couples. From what I can see, it's because they take the time to enjoy and work on their own relationship. They don't waste that time and energy attacking other couples.

  • 38. Rhie  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:38 am

    Actually, you did see both. But, not enough. The only reason I remember those bits are because I've seen every episode more than once on late night TV.

  • 39. bJason  |  January 30, 2011 at 6:02 am

    Spot on – 100%!

  • 40. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 30, 2011 at 6:32 am

    Yep, "slow" is exactly the right term when dealing with NOMbies.

    "It is a curious fact, and one to which no one knows quite how much importance to attach, that something like 85% of all known worlds in the Galaxy, be they primitive or highly advanced, have invented a drink called jynnan tonnyx, or gee-N’N-T’N-ix, or jinond-o-nicks, or any one of a thousand or more variations on the same phonetic theme. The drinks themselves are not the same, and vary between the Sivolvian “chinanto/mnigs” which is ordinary water served at slightly above room temperature, and the Gagrakackan “tzjin-anthony-ks” which kills cows at a hundred paces; and in fact the one common factor between all of them, beyond the fact that the names sound the same, is that they were all invented and named before the worlds concerned made contact with any other worlds.

    ~Douglas Adams

    This proving that NOM is not from this planet at all.

  • 41. Shelly & Simie  |  January 30, 2011 at 6:36 am

    does any1 know the website for nom?? I really really want to go 2 their site 2 ask these all important questions 2 find out how they think? We want to challenge them 2 b more open minded & get their heads outa da sand!!! We need to add posts like this to their site & keep joinin after they expell us from the site by using different joining names lol who's with us???

  • 42. Peterplumber  |  January 30, 2011 at 6:39 am

    http://www.nationformarriage.org/

    or
    http://nomblog.com/

  • 43. Tyler  |  January 30, 2011 at 6:43 am

    Hey guys, Freep this poll: http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/3572578-417/sex-ce

  • 44. Sheryl Carver  |  January 30, 2011 at 6:51 am

    Based on my own experience & reports from others who posted polite but pointed comments on NOM's sites, it's unlikely that more than .01% will ever get out of moderation. Unlike this site, "unfit for publication" according to NOM clearly means "anything that could possibly shine a light of reason & logic on NOM's rhetoric."

  • 45. Kathleen  |  January 30, 2011 at 6:54 am

    passed along on twitter and facebook.

  • 46. Matthew  |  January 30, 2011 at 7:07 am

    Yeah I post regularly on the nom blog. I keep having to make free hotmail accounts because anybody who uses polite reasoned arguments gets banned.

  • 47. Jenny  |  January 30, 2011 at 7:29 am

    This "logic" is so flawed and backwards that it doesn't even deserve to be called "logic". You just can't argue with that level of stupid.

  • 48. Sheryl Carver  |  January 30, 2011 at 7:45 am

    I believe some studies have shown that the more sons a woman has the greater the likelihood that each successive son will be gay. Based on the Xmas photo of BB's family, he & his wife have at least 3 sons. (Possibly 4, as I have no idea about the baby.) Whether or not the studies are correct, if the Browns have an L G B or T offspring, I feel very, very sorry for that poor child.

    All LGBT kids who are unlucky enough to be born into a fundamentalist family have it extra tough, but it must be even worse for those with a parent who is high-profile & earns his living by working tirelessly to maintain & even increase discrimination against LGBTs.

  • 49. Papa Foma  |  January 30, 2011 at 8:11 am

    This article and everyone's comments are great – but yesterday's Pepsi Poll went by so fast, that many of you missed an opportunity to participate in getting funds for LGBT causes at little effort on your parts. Flip back an article and help out!

  • 50. Nicole  |  January 30, 2011 at 8:26 am

    I don't believe these people are stupid. I believe they know exactly what they're doing. None of them truly believe these theories make sense. They just don't give a damn about children or families. You can't claim that you give a damn about kids, and that you'll protect kids by attacking kids. I'm not sure what life did to them, but they just want to destroy families.

  • 51. Rhie  |  January 30, 2011 at 8:33 am

    Oh, I think that is true for some people – particularly the heads of these organizations.

    But I know that there are people who actually think that these arguments make sense. They truly believe they are protecting children because they buy the lies about LGBT being a threat to children. I know this because I know people who honestly believe this. I used to be one of them.

    It's not stupidity. It's willful ignorance and self-deception. That's worse than stupidity.

  • 52. Nicole  |  January 30, 2011 at 9:47 am

    I think blog posts like this make me more giddy than most folks here I think.

    I don't believe for a second that NOM is taking away marriage because they care about tax benefits of LGBT people. They're trying to use the government as a means to influence culture. They can't contain their giddiness when "the people" vote in their favor. That's why when an organization labels them a hate group, I believe that kind of stuff stings them worse than anything a federal district judge can say.

    The Academy is a huge source of American culture. When they award a pro-LGBT movie FOUR Oscars, it's a cultural slap in the face of all the anti-equality folks. To them, it represents a way of saying that their homophobia does not represent mainstream cultural values. It has nothing to do with marriage, but by golly it cuts them really deep – they HAVE to say something.

  • 53. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 30, 2011 at 10:18 am

    And they are misusing the facts to justify denying the validity of my CT marriage license, and to deny the legal recognition I should have for my marriage here in NC? I am beginning to think that these people are suffering, not from delusion, but from dementia. At the very least, they are megalomaniacs!

  • 54. Ray in MA  |  January 30, 2011 at 10:33 am

    That;s rediculous… it let's you vote over and over again (watch the numbers go up when you repeat)

  • 55. Ben  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    Matthew: http://mailinator.com/ — you're welcome 😉

  • 56. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 30, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    I've voted twice now! :) Once more tomorrow…

  • 57. Joe  |  January 30, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Which is why I've said time and time and time and time again, they're not the National Organization FOR Marriage. They do nothing about divorce. They do nothing to encourage healthy marriages. They do nothing to encourage healthy parenting. Their sole function in this world is to -deny- people marriage, so they're really the National Organization AGAINST Marriage.

  • 58. MJFargo  |  January 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Brian Brown has never really been good at connecting the dots. He must have had a miserable time in kindergarten. The issues of conflict in "The Kids are All Right" are exactly the same as those in most marriages (which may have been the point; as a member of the gay mafia, I wasn't consulted before Hollywood okayed the script). But when I saw I thought, "Since this isn't a 'classic Hollywood fantasy,' the NOMer's are going to have a field day misrepresenting everything this film has to say." And so…here they are.

  • 59. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  January 30, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    Let’s see, the education issue couldn’t be a failure of our education system could it. And, those breakfasts and lunches they serve at school (well, there are some healthy options, but they are just that options) couldn’t be contributing to the obesity of the children. Oh, and lets not forget cutting those PE classes. Hmm don’t think those issues have a thing to do with marriage equality. And, when BB used the word the word fantasy about 2 mothers raising children, I almost spit all over my keyboard. my son (now 31) went to elementary school with a boy with 2 moms, guess they’d be delighted to know they are just a fantasy. These people will never join the real world (unless it financially benefits them).

    Anyway, just love (NOT) the way he goes from one subject t o another as if they were related.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 60. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    LOL!

  • 61. Andrew_SEA  |  January 30, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Just like everyone else, I find it truly amazing that people do not call out the lies for what they are.

    Here in the state of Washington, we had a vote on Referendum 71 which was dubbed the "everything but marriage" piece of legislation.

    It passed. Public vote. First of it's kind in the nation.

    I am open and out in all facets of my life: home, work, volunteer activities, and charities. My conversations with people were interesting on this very topic since many asked what my opinion was. (as in – want the inside scoop – ask your local homo)

    I mentioned that there are organizations claiming to protect , yet when you review their web sites and look for information regarding exactly what they are doing proactively "for the cause", there is empty air.

    The group here in our state only had "prevent gay marriage" listed. What I pointed out in my conversations was, as they specifically used the "children" issue, what are they really doing to help the children? Actual programs that benefit children regardless of family or ??

    The only thing listed was not helping, but stripping people of rights that have no bearing on the topic they state they are trying to help.

    So I can't marry – exactly how does that affect the full adoption agencies? How does that affect kids not having a loving hetero home – or any home for that matter?

    There was nothing, nada, zip listed. Once we talked about this, most people looked at me and it was if a light bulb went off above their heads.

    I argued that if you are going to ask for donations to work on "x", would you not show any progress in the matter? As a donator – would you not be concerned where your money is going? Is it going to pay a person's salary, or is it going to actually HELP the topic that the charity/org is claiming?

    How can you be a National Organization for Marriage, when you do nothing FOR Marriage?

  • 62. Tweets that mention Hey, &hellip  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:19 am

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DADT IS DEAD, Testimony. Testimony said: Hey, NOM: why not support marriage?: http://wp.me/pLuL9-2aV […]

  • 63. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:35 am

    This video was tedious for me at first…but I appreciated your encouragement to watch it to the end …thx for sharing Kathleen, stories/people like this open up expand my capacity to love more and judge less.

  • 64. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:37 am

    When they talk about "protecting Children", they mean

    •If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex "marriage" and homosexuality are perfectly normal.
    http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/talkin

  • 65. Ann S.  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:41 am

    "If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal."

    My stars!

    ::clutches pearls and faints dead away::

  • 66. Ed Cortes  |  January 31, 2011 at 1:02 am

    That's a great way to start a morning! I Had a great laugh thinking about that image!

  • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 1:12 am

    I tried it too…..not a valid poll when allows you to vote multiple times.

  • 68. anonygrl  |  January 31, 2011 at 1:31 am

    You know, I so dislike the phrase "talking points". It typifies, for me, what is wrong with the conservative side of this debate.

    Talking points are glib, smooth answers for frequently asked questions. They are ways for people who don't really know what the issues are, deep down, to stay on "target" with their answers when caught up in a debate.

    But they don't do what WE do, I think. Talking points never get to the heart of the matter. They never address what is really going on under all that plastic blather.

    So NOM's talking points include the idea that the phrase "banning same sex marriage" works against them. But by saying that and quickly turning their folks to "no right to redefine marriage for the rest of us" they avoid the actual ISSUE at hand.

    The issue is that WE ARE BANNED from getting married. What that means to NOM and their talking points is that heterosexual marriage is "special and unique and should not be sullied by homosexuals." Nice, fluffy, unsubstantial and unimportant bigotry, that makes them better in their eyes than we are.

    What it means to US is that our families risk being torn apart when one partner dies and the state takes away our children, overturn our wills, deny us death benefits, and so on. It means that when our partners' get sick, our insurance can't cover them, or if it does, it is often at a prohibitive cost anyway. It means that no matter what we do, there is always the risk that we have missed some little piece of paperwork somewhere and will not be allowed to make medical decisions for our partners of decades.

    And that is why when we talk, it is not "talking points". At least, that is how I see it.

  • 69. Andrew_SEA  |  January 31, 2011 at 3:09 am

    Peter,

    True… but I think it is a really slippery slope.

    Key words are "will likely be…."

    Sounds like a "woulda, coulda, shoulda" and not a definate fact.

    Do we then legislate based off of fear of what "could be" without the facts?

    One could argue that as a parent raising children, your job is to teach the child about the world around them.

    The world is not all friendly and nice. Concepts like murder, rape, genocide, terrorism, etc: are difficult things to talk to any age appropriate child about. But you are the parent – this is your job.

    The issue is that when it comes to LGBT, many het parents get the "icky" feeling when talking about it.

    So – let's see… I am giving up my rights so Mr. and Mrs. Redneck Het doesn't get the "icky" feeling in doing what a parent should: teach their child about the world around them and their morals and values.

    What I find particularly disturbing is the trend that perents feel it is society's obligation to teach their child morals and ethics that they themselves are absent from.

    If you went to all the trouble to have the sex and it produces a child, then there are responsibilities in raising that child. Sex is the fun and easy part. Guiding this little soul on a path to be a responsible adult in society is where the real work is.

    Using LGBTs as a scapegoat from your responsibilities and denying them and their families the same protections you enjoy is basically selfish and irresponsible.

    All due to that "icky" feeling.

  • 70. Kathleen  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:50 am

    What they're worried about when it comes to "teaching the children" is far more fundamental that any concerns about curriculum, per se (though that comes into it). They fear that married same sex couples and gay families will be represented as, and treated as …. prepare yourselves… .= NORMAL. Shriek!!! Heaven forbid!!!

    That's what they fear. That, and the fact that their views are being relegated to the dustbin where all such bigoted views get tossed when a society evolves and becomes more enlightened in its treatment of its citizens.

  • 71. Mouse  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:29 am

    By "study" they mean "shit we made up that sounds good to our sheep."

  • 72. Mouse  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:33 am

    But if you attack other couples, it might make your pathetic failure at love and life and decency seem not so bad once you've reduced all the happy people to your level of train-wreck.

  • 73. Mouse  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:38 am

    They just know two things:

    1) You get more buy-in if you label yourself pro-something than anti-

    2) Their target audience doesn't mind/notice if they lie to them.

  • 74. Mouse  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:47 am

    Yes and no. Some people hope against hope to be accepted by their hateful families; knowing that your dad was Brian Brown would make it easier to give up on that and surround yourself with people who aren't horrible instead. They can make a clean break from the abuse of a broken family devoid of love because there's no chance of it being anything else. It's kind of like the rip-the-band-aid-of strategy; it might be terrifying and hurt like hell up front, but if you survive it, you come out stronger.

  • 75. Hank (NYC)  |  January 31, 2011 at 6:31 am

    When you're blinded by hate that is all you see. No matter how they try to spin themselves into a positive lite – the bottom line is they are HATERS. Blinded by Hate, Fear and the unknown.

    It is much easier to point the finger at everyone else than take any responsibility for what is happening to you.

    They continue to choose to be a victim and to hate instead of dealing with their own issues and those of traditional marriage.

  • 76. fiona64  |  January 31, 2011 at 7:04 am

    Sloe gin. It's made from sloes, a type of plum.

    /nitpick

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 77. fiona64  |  January 31, 2011 at 7:06 am

    I was immediately reminded of that.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 78. Rhie  |  January 31, 2011 at 7:09 am

    I think you are unfortunately on the right track. It is just miserable!

  • 79. Ed Cortes  |  January 31, 2011 at 7:38 am

    I knew the spelling (That's why the quotes around slow), but never had heard of sloes before! Thanks for the info!!

  • 80. Jon  |  January 31, 2011 at 11:00 am

    What has NOM done for my straight marriage?

    … (crickets) …

  • 81. Michael  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Radical anti-gay pressure group NOM is (again) speaking hypocritically. When it comes to same-sex families, we are worthless, because there is no man and woman sleeping together in our homes. But when it comes to heterosexuals, ONE Mom or ONE Dad can be just fine. So, are they for man/woman marriage or not? When you try to re-engineer society based on lies, it sometimes gets hard to keep it all straight.

  • 82. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 1, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    !!!!!!!!!!!!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!