Mostly they’re all complaining how they were out-spent on this one. For a group that slung around enough cash to pay for signature gathering etc., to run ads on radio and television, do massive mailings and things of that nature I find it fit for the goose and the gander.
In essence they cannot spin this. As hard as Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher et al try they can’t come up with anything else but “it was the money”. It’s really kind of sad when you think about it. As I posted earlier, I think we’ve hit the tipping point for full equality in matters of marriage. And the bigot cavalcade knows they’ve lost not just the battle but the entire war effort.
And we’re now at what, 1/5th the nation where equality reigns? That kind of parallels Loving v. Virginia when you think hard about it. Back then only a handful of states allowed interracial marriage. And then it rocked toward the U.S. Supreme Court in the case mentioned in the last sentence.
Right now we have Prop 8 and numerous DOMA challenges awaiting writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. As I mentioned in a prior post, those justices do not live in a vacuum. They’ve got to see the handwriting on the wall on this one.
If one wants to talk about the absurd, perhaps we should talk about NOM a bit.
Here is the comment I posted on that NOM Blog. I wonder how long it’ll stay up but I’ve already replicated it across facebook and here on my blog:
It irks me that I have to state the obvious; but you are a HATE Group. SPLC is just giving you enough rope to hang yourself.
You just don’t understand that civil rights cut both ways. It allows you to spout your religious bovine effluent that influences your views, and it allows me to marry the person of my choice. Pretty simple in a civil society. The thing is, you want an unbalanced society where the rights of one group trump those of another.
But I’ve noted NOM’s central tenet is the children. All of you at NOM are fearful that if kids find out that there are in fact gay people around and that those gay people are really no different other than who they love, that we LGBT people will become more acceptable.
You abhor that fact so much that you’ll all make the most ridiculous statements concerning the consequences for the children but yet you won’t address Maggie Gallagher having a child out of wedlock, or better yet that you will not comment on childless couples be it age or other.
It shows your hypocrisy regarding marriage and children. In essence it boils to the fact that you HATE LGBT people. That’s right you hate us. You can put on your smarmy sweet smile and offer us drinks on a hot summer day, but at the base of it all, you’re all haters. Every last one of you.
And yes, I did call out Gallagher on her child out of wedlock. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
But this is no ordinary trial. This is a trial in a case where thousands of ordinary citizens have already faced a wave of hatred for participating in democracy. On Oct. 22, the Heritage Foundation released a report titled “The Price of Prop. 8,” which concluded that “supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.”
I must first make it clear, the people who supported such a discriminatory measure as Prop 8, or Question 1 in Maine, deserve my hatred, my ridicule and my scorn for they are bigots. It is one thing to personally dislike the fact that gay people can marry, it is entirely another when you sign your name to a petition, donate money, or allow usage of your visage in ads for the opposition.
Those who did the above acts need to understand then when one signs a petition or donates money, we all have the RIGHT to know that they did so. It’s all under the public records doctrine.
However I feel I must tell Loathsome Gallagher something: While your side suffers those slings and arrows, we gay people have experienced the exact same thing from bigots like you and your ilk. Regarding the death threat, I suspect that one is simply wishful thinking, a tempest in a teapot if you will, whereas we gay people have been murdered for even looking like we’re gay. When is the last time a religious bigot suffered that fate?
Maybe it’s because I surround myself with educated people. That’s right Maggie, educated. Your only claim to fame is that you’ve written as a family policy expert, I think Goebbels would be proud of you, repeat the same lie over and over again and it becomes the truth or at least so it is in your mind.
But so long as I’m around, I’m not going to let you get away with it.
Right now I’m reading Dick Meyer’s “Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in New Millenium”. It’s a very interesting book in that it boils down just what is wrong with society in the U.S. right now.
But one part really struck me. He mentions feeling based judgment. I’m seeing some of this coming from the National Organization for Marriage, an oxymoron if there ever was one.
They feel that it is morally wrong for members of the same sex to marry. Their recent ads play on the poor children, having to understand why Heather has two mommies, or David has two daddies.
The real motive behind their campaign is explained by this quote form the book.
The idea of choosing goods and values individually, by taste, and preference, is what truthiness is all about. It actually has a philosophic pedigree. It is called “emotivism” a term resurrected by MacIntyre from early nineteeth-century British philosophy. In After Virtue, MacIntyre defines it this way: “Emotivism is the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and, more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling.” So in this view there is no difference in saying “the death penalty is wrong” and “I don’t like the death penalty.” “Gay marriage is immoral” is just another way of saying “I don’t like gay marriage.”
Now I have to go request MacIntyre’s “After Virtue” from the library. But it also exposes the arguments of groups like NOM, FoF and AFA. They’re operating purely on emotivism.
Expressions of preference, attitude or feeling. This precisely defines the crime committed by Maggie Gallagher and her associates and the anti-gay crowd.
I’m so glad I’m reading this book now because this will definitely play into my testimony on Thursday night. I know that NOM is already planning to pack the house, but I’m planning to hold seats too.
Of course those preferences and feelings come directly from their religious leanings. What I can’t reconcile is that you have a large group of Christian clerics in support of gay marriage, yet you have Gallagher who is opposed but she’ll never ever say why she really opposes gay marriage. Instead she’ll cite bogus studies, talk about the harm to the children, etc. It comes to my studies of the Bible, the NOM group is an Old Testament group. They see God and his law trumping all. But they will use deceptive tactics to make that point because they know the religious argument is no longer credible.
The wing nut crowd generally points to a few passages in Leviticus while ignoring all the others, and occasionally you’ll see a New Testament reference from 1st Corinthians. The source material is pretty thin and they’re guilt of taking it all out of context.
This makes what Gallagher and ilk like her disingenuous and wrong.