NOM's Latest Gay-Marriage Worry: Their Right To Deny Rights Might Be Denied

Hey, it's been a while since we've had one of those webvertisements from those panicky, anti-gay marriage, Cavity Creeps known as NOM, but here you go! "Think same-sex marriage doesn't affect your family?" the voice-over narration asks. And the answer of course, is, "No. I actually know, for a fact, that same-sex marriage doesn't affect my family, except that my family is sad that the gay friends of my family cannot get married, for no reason!"

But let's humor NOM, because that's what they live for, I guess. According to this ad, gay marriage has two effects on our families. One: our children might become aware of the existence of gay people, and the fact that they want to get married! Some teacher in California had the nerve to suggest that a gay wedding might be a "teachable moment" for her students. OH NOES! The great unraveling begins!

But, "it's not just kids who face consequences," the ad warns! As NOM says, "The rights of people who believe marriage is between a man or a woman will no longer matter." Uhm...but they don't really matter now! What "rights" are these? In a world where gay people are getting married, one's "right" to "believe" that's wrong goes on and on. Everyone, at one point or another, "believes" they should have the right to do things they want. It sounds to me that those who believe marriage should remain defined as being "between a man and woman," will simply be joining the rest of us in a grand American tradition known as "sucking it up and dealing with it."

Jonathan Chait took up the issue of these supposed "rights" and found them similarly nonsensical:

...Rudy Giuliani framed his own thinking in similar terms: "Marriage, I believe, both traditionally and legally, has always been between a man and a woman and should remain between a man and woman." (In Giuliani's case, he means a man and one woman at a time, though some romantic overlap may be unavoidable.)

Gay marriage opponents have made that formulation their mantra. It's a really strange way for them to summarize their argument, because it's not an argument at all. If we're debating health care, one side will have a line about big government, and the other will have a line about the uninsured or spiraling costs. If we're debating torture, advocates will mention the need to make terrorists talk, and opponents will invoke American values. Soundbites, by their nature, can't express much logical nuance, but they do tend to give you a reason to agree with the position.

The anti-gay-marriage soundbite, by contrast, makes no attempt at persuasion. It's like saying you oppose the Bush tax cuts because "I believe the top tax rate should be 39.6 percent." You believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Okay! But why?

NOM should read Chait's entire piece, because it seems to me that there are many things to learn from him. As for me, here's my teachable moment. MARRIAGE IS SPELLED M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E.

YES. Call your senator and ask him to "say no" to "same same sex marraige!"

RELATED:
Until Logic Did Them Apart [The New Republic]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[BeltwayInsider]

I've never quite been able to grasp the rational behind the argument that because "children are best raised in a family with both a mother and a father" that marriage between same-sex couples should be denied.

If we give the conservatives the benefit of doubt on this premise, it makes even less sense. If you have children who are "deprived" of having both mother and father by virtue of the fact that the couples raising the children are same-sex couples, why on earth would anyone who is the least bit interested in the welfare of these children want to put the children at further disadvantage by implementing legal barriers that ensure that the children will not be raised in a married environment?

If we use this same argument against other couples raising children, it would be met with extremely harsh criticism. For example, "Children are best raised in a family with adequate financial means". Sound’s reasonable? Okay - let's put in place a law that stipulates that a couple needs to be earning income that is above the poverty level before they can marry. Again, if families are already struggling financially, why on earth would anyone want to further disadvantage these families and their children by not permitting the parents to marry?

It makes no sense, and it looks a lot like conservatives are putting ideology above the true interests of the children involved.

[ramblin jack]

A world without homosexuality would not bother me one bit but if two men or women want to live together and have a marriage let them.

[stylenease]

Well thank you for permission to exist. I really appreciate it. }:(

[jamjim]

Hey check out this neat little music video based on the original NOM ad's audition tapes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ZKWs-mCaw

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

What about my right to be free of the dogma of ill-educated, literalist, fundamentalists?

[Ohioan730]

The Cavity Creeps! ROTFL!!! Okay, I'm going to read the whole thing now.

[4evryoung]

Home-schooling at it's finest!

[The Ghost]

God approves of BOTH polygamy and incest.

Solomon : "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart."
1 Kings 11:3

Lot breeds with his daughters with god's implicit consent:

32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Genesis 19:32-36

[hoobit]

The Ghost ~ since its inception, the bible has been read, cited, and lived *selectively.* (As, I would hazard, have been -and are- the texts and tenets of *all* religions that've ever existed or ever will exist.)

The RIGHT to practice one's Faith (or not) is guaranteed by our Constitution and in the subsequent laws of our land; our Constitution and the laws *derived from it* are applicable to ALL citizens...no matter what their *personal* religious beliefs might -or might not- be.

NO ONE can *legitimately* argue for *or* against an issue if the *sole* 'source' for the argument is the bible and/or is *any* religious text and/or belief. We all, we Americans, DO have the commonality of the right to practice religion as we individually feel called, but we do *not* have a common religion.

What we ALL have in common, is our Constitution. Any argument for equality *has* to be based in the rights guaranteed in *that* document; it applies to ALL citizens. *Any* civil liberties and rights arguments solely based in anything *other than* the Constitution (i.e. the bible), are red herrings.

Sadly, 'we' have let the debate on citizen equality become one of biblical quotes and counter-quotes; 'we' have given weight to the beliefs of one group of people (those following a particular religion or religions) AS IF those *personal* views were applicable to all. They aren't.

The Constitution *must* be the basis; it's applicable to ALL citizens.

[hoobit]

--3rd graph should be corrected to: "...argue for *or* against [this] issue if the *sole* 'source' ..."

[RachelMc]

u have to admit tho sometimes the bible is a good read but nothing i would take too seriously.

[regellner]

They want to protect their rights in regard to taking away the rights of others? This is just crazy!

In relation to the issue of civil rights for same sex couples, I have the following links of interest:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m5d27-Prop-8-court-decision-denies-civil-rights


Raymond Gellner – Charlotte Liberal Examiner at Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner

[zombie fairy]

"The rights of people who believe marriage is between a man or a woman will no longer matter."

I believe people with a two-digit IQ shouldn't be allowed to breed. What about my rights? Do they matter in NOM-ville?

[RachelMc]

then where will we get half of our govt from?

[mychagall]

From Sarah Palin. The most blatant hypocrite in US history. Also the dumbest of all time..

[Dustin Weida]

This old lie is still going around?

"I wouldn't let my kids go to a gay wedding. Sorry. It is one thing to say "I have this or that right" and another to say a stupid teacher is going to cram their beliefs down a child's throat."

This was a lie, all of the children that went the parents were told and they could opt out if they wanted to, and a few did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uteibPJQyw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1wM7xb6f1I

[zest]

They think that they are the top of the heap; it's still a heap.

[TryToBeFlexible]

In historic times, the catholic church burned heretics at the stake (after torturing a confession from them). So, I guess modern legal systems has basically stripped the catholic church of its historic rights to torture and murder?

[cindyw]

Odd remarks from Rudy, given his affinity for cross-dressing (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[Charl]

That nails it exactly... the real reason that the 'right' (term used VERY loosely) are worried is that they will now lose the right to be bigoted! Heavens... they will now have to find something or someone else to make inferior in their desperate quest to feel 'superior', since it seems that they are hell-bent on being superior to at least one thing to justify their being!

[cobraxus]

to say you oppose gay-marriage on religous grounds is your personal right.to say you want to make gay-marriage illegal on religous grounds is unconstitutional.