Winning the Freedom to Marry? Cue the Attack on the Gays!

Computer-generated clouds roil on an apocalyptic backdrop as fake lightning flashes. Actors stiff as zombies recite horror stories, punctuated by protestations that they are animated by love. Is this new political ad warning of the economic hardships confronting families, a call to action on health care or job loss? Is it an effort to unite Americans to help solve our shared problems?

No, it's the latest assault on gay couples seeking to build and spend their lives together in - cue spooky music - marriage

The ad was unveiled by the National Organization "for" Marriage ("NOM"), which ironically is against marriage for committed couples if they are gay. It's brought to you by the folks who brought California the 40-plus million dollar Proposition 8 attack campaign, including the same front-group for right-wing funders and church hierarchies, and the same political consultant/public relations firm. Now that the unanimous Supreme Court in Iowa and a super-majority of elected legislators in Vermont voted to end same-sex couples' exclusion from marriage in the past week, NOM and its backers are funneling the ad into states such as Maine, New Jersey, and New York — whose legislatures are all weighing the evidence that shows no good reason for denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples.

But beware: the NOM campaign is bait-and-switch. The real agenda here is not just resistance to marriage rights, it's undermining the broader civil rights laws that ensure that we can all participate equally in society, even if other people don't like us. Though they wrap it in marriage, the opposition is actually about gay - and they are attacking the idea that civil rights laws should protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation at all.

At a time when most Americans have had their fill of years of polarization and want to see us come together to deal with the pressing problems that hurt us all, gay and non-gay, could a negative ad campaign like NOM's work? Who would buy these obvious scare-tactics?

Alas, too many. NOM's public relations roll-out has already had some temporary traction in changing the subject from the merits of the case for marriage equality to the politics of this ongoing civil rights battle. And the agenda of the groups behind NOM is even more scary than just another cruel attack on gay couples' freedom to marry. The campaign to "defend" marriage (as if marriage needed "defense" against couples seeking to marry) and to block even partnership protections for gay families masks an effort to erode the whole idea of civil rights laws.

Consider what the actors in the NOM ad pretend to be:

• A doctor who wants to discriminate against her patients, despite civil rights laws and medical ethics that the California Supreme Court upheld - in a case having nothing to do with marriage.
• An officer of a New Jersey group that for years voluntarily operated a beachside pavilion with special tax-breaks that required it be open to the public - but then tried to turn down a lesbian couple. The case did not turn on marriage, since New Jersey doesn't yet allow gay couples to marry, but, rather, basic civil rights laws about open access to public accommodations.
• A Massachusetts parent who sought to dictate public school curriculum about the diverse families children will need to be aware of to thrive in a diverse world, and then wanted to remove her child from classes in a way that would have disrupted class and imposed unreasonable burdens on the school and other kids.

The law in California, as elsewhere, is that doctors can't discriminatorily refuse to treat patients — Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM incites fear. The law in New Jersey, as elsewhere, says that organizations running public accommodations such as restaurants or rental halls cannot discriminatorily exclude people — African American, Latino, or Asian, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM says that the discriminators are somehow the victims. The law in Massachusetts, as elsewhere, of course allows parents to teach their kids whatever they want, and even to send them to private schools or do home-schooling. The law also rightly sets rules for determining public school curriculum without having every parent, or special interest with an agenda, coming in and imposing their views on everyone else's kids — yours or mine, gay or non-gay.

These have nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM would have public schools pretend that gay people don't exist or, even worse, teach all kids that it is okay to look down on people who are different (including the parents of some of their classmates, and even other students themselves). The Human Rights Campaign issued a thorough refutation of the ad's deceptions. In a remarkable expose, HRC's EndtheLies.org website revealed the audition tapes for the NOM's attack ad, with actors stumbling through the scripts, reciting disproven claims about gay people as a threat.

All of NOM's actors are invoking as supposed arguments against the freedom to marry examples that, as HRC puts it, "involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don't want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does." But in a complicated world, where lots of people "disapprove" of other people's beliefs and lives, or race and religion, we can't allow our ability to have a job or a home, or get medical care or a marriage license, turn on whether our boss, landlord, doctor, or government clerk likes us. If we did, we'd have chaos. The point of civil rights laws is to make it possible for all of us to live together in one nation.

This past week, the Vermont legislature and the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court both offered reassurance that Americans can respect one another's religious freedom while protecting everyone's personal freedom and equality under the law. As Justice Mark Cady, a Republican appointee, explained:

[W]e give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles....The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

The millions of dollars that NOM and its backers threaten to spend fostering yet another cultural and political war against gay people and threatening civil rights protections would be better spent addressing the real problems facing all our families today. What's truly scary is they don't seem to be feeling that love.

Comments

[DannyEastVillage]

thx Evan for pointing out that it's the same sh, different day.

[poliguy70130]

While I am totally in favor of marriage rights for all, as a gay black male I must say that I find it both funny and sad when gay mariage activists use terms like "equality for all" and "civl rights". While the gay community as a whole seeks to demand the equal right to marry, they continue to ignore the pervasive inequality within the gay community. Racism in the gay community seems to be both widespread and accepted. Before we demand equal treatment from those outside of the gay community, we should first make sure that it is granted to those within our community.

[AdamX]

It is a right to marry. Why keep asking permission? Oh! Because of BENEFITS. Why don't we ever conduct the right discussion?

[johnbdonovan]

Exactly -- that IS the right discussion -- and the very reason why gay marriage shouldn't go into effect. They should do what they want but stay out of my wallet.

[BeninOakland]

Gee, john. Fopr gay people it is all aobut benefits, but for straight people, it's all aobut love? And it is OK for you to raid my wallet to sup[port your family, but not the other way around?

[michiganfan]

Huh?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what relevance your wallet has in this discussion.

[cre8ivecurt]

My love for my partner has absolutely nothing to do with your wallet and has everything to do with...lov­e for my partner. Keep your wallet...a­nd your insults.

[mercury613]

Last time I checked, everyone -- including gay people -- pays taxes. We are therefore entitled to equal benefits.

[Gidster]

The SCOTUS in Loving v VA, stated that Marriage is a fundamental human right. So yeah, I guess it is a right.

[ignoranceequalsfear]

Every politician who is against gay marriage and supports DOMA and laws like it should be publically asked to sign a pledge to coauthor a law to make divorce illegal to protect marriage. I doubt a single one would do it.

[The Ghost]

Anyone who believes that homosexuality is a choice is by definition bisexual.

[MoeB]

Exactly! I have been trying to make this argument on other websites to no avail. Logic dictates that if you see sexuality as being a "choice", then you must be in a position to make a "choice". Typically, the most *logical* response I get is "you're just saying that because you want to make me gay".

[Geshko]

Look up the Kinsey scale.

Everyone is bisexual..­. to some extent. Some moreso than others.

[SocialistDistortion]

I actually heard that commercial on the radio the other day. These folks claim that we're trying to force "secular" values on them and take away their civil rights...y­et these same pro life wingers are the ones who want to force prayer and religion into public schools, and tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies...I thought they were for small government??? I shudder to think what kind of state we would be if these zealots ever took control of the US government. We'd be the christian version of Saudi Arabia.

[JohnJames]

That's exactly right. Fortunately, conservatives are perennially crippled by the glaring contradiction between that all American ideal of expansion of freedom that they claim to hold so dear and, at the same time, their desperate hankering after theocratic authoritarianism - two wings flapping in opposite directions.

[PlaceboStudman]

Hey now, let's not insult the crippled (the disabled for all you PC whiner folks) by comparing them to conservatives!!

[Balancement]

The Christianity I always heard about dealt with feeding the hungry and clothing the naked--about "as you do to the least of these, you do to me." Imagine what the money being spent on this ad and campaign could do toward filling foodbanks and helping the homeless. NOM is not doing anything with this campaign that Christ asked his followers to do.

[SocialistDistortion]

"If anything, churches should be giving their money to you, not the other way around."

- George Carlin

[ProudLiberalDemocrat]

Iowa Supreme Court has it right - this is about the "Equal Protection" clause.

If there is some advantage given to married people, two consenting adults should be able to receive these benefits. Gay marriage is as justified as giving women the right to vote and allowing ethic minorities the rights to vote and to freely associate (eat at the lunch counter, as it were).

Folks opposed to gay marriage are simply being bigots. Get over it!

[JohnJames]

Anyone who's been paying attention to the religious right these past thirty years knows it's not just about marriage. That they feel compelled of late, in public at least, to claim they're only trying to "protect" traditional marriage is simply an indication that they recognize that the old fashioned unplugged demonization and hatred of gays no longer flies. The religious right has been opposing tooth and nail every bit of gay rights legislation no matter how modest since decades before gay Americans could ever even dream of a right to marry. There's a reason why it remains lawful in fully thirty states for an employer to terminate an employee on the basis of sexual orientation, to give just one example of their many successes. Their real goal is and always has been the return of gays to complete invisibility and 1950's style societal pariah status.

[PlaceboStudman]

Am I seriously the first person to point out that the National Organization for Marriage has recently changed their moniker to 2 Million 4 Marriage, and taken it a step farther by trying to appeal to hipsters and youth by shortening their name to....

Wait for it...

2M4M !!!

I mean, hello! You've all heard the stereotype that the most rabid homophobes are closet homosexuals. Doesn't this kind of give credibility to that stereotype??

I dont know about any one else, but I for one am having a good laugh at the whole debackle

[Lilybart]

These Christians are just weak. They have no faith in their god and no faith that their kids will have any faith. Why not just tell your kids that YOU don't think this is how God wants us to live, but Jesus said to love our neighbors and so, we will.

Why is discussing this in school harmful to Christian kids? If their God is real they know what the "truth" is. And if they are NOT gay, having gay people accepted as equal citizens won't make them gay.

[rcdcr]

Sadly, these people do not even have the good sense to be embarassed or ashamed of their actions. They actually feel 'Godly' in what they are doing.

Who wants to tell them they are grearing up for an 'eternity' of disappointment?

Let me! Let me!!!! I want to tell them!!!!

[Clavis]

Oh, no, teh ghey is so scary! They might try to kiss me and turn me gay! Which could never happen, of course, because I'm such a manly man... ugh, stop looking at me like that! Stop getting me excited, gay man! I'm not gay! I'm not! Stop turning me on with your pecs and your abs... damn... go away! I'm straight, damn you!

[Gidster]

LOL!!!!!

[michiganfan]

rofl

[TryToBeFlexible]

I am not a bigot. I think that christians have a right to their chosen lifestyle. I just object to the fact that they feel they have to rub it in our face all the time. No one cares what they do behind the closed doors of their churches, but it is just so embarassing when you see them in public, "testifying" about their beliefs. And, I would really rather not have to explain these lifestyles to my young children. And, think about the damage this must be doing to the delicate psyche's of their own children. Everyone knows that children do better with sane, reasonable parents, rather than nut jobs for parents.

[mollymac]

I LOVE your post! Very clever!

[Lilybart]

Try explaining Easter!! I gave her the spring solstice/pagan version about new life, rebirth and rabbits.

[SouthJerseySteve]

I used to tell my Jewish nephew (my entire family is Jewish) that when Santa and Mrs. Claus show their affection, they have baby elves to run the workshop. My nephew replied that he thought the elves lived in China and worked for Walmart -- so I told them that while the President got a dog, Santa got a bunny and sends him out to all the malls on Easter.

[kittyarmy]

LOL!

[Gidster]

Brilliant!!!

Several million points out of ten!!

[mikeHAWKhertz]

If you want to protect marriage, they should outlaw divorce.

[SouthJerseySteve]

How many religious leaders are twice divorced (Mr. Newt Gingrich)????

[kittyarmy]

Please don't give them any more ideas.