NOM's Latest Strategy

[jbrowder24]

So much of this makes me sick:

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage was recently a guest on the radio program Religion, Politics, and the Culture to talk about her organization’s strategy to prevent states from legalizing same-sex marriage and to pass anti-gay marriage amendments in states that don’t already have them.
In the interview, she said that when marriage amendments are referred to as efforts to “ban same-sex marriage,” NOM’s efforts lose around 10 points in the polls.

Appealing to marriage amendment supporters, Gallagher said that they should talk about how gay and lesbian couples cannot have children.

“Just say, ‘I think marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these unions make a new life and they connect children to their mother and father,’” she said. “‘So it’s a bad idea for the government to step in and change the definition of marriage.’”

She said the messaging that tests the best with the public is one that says gays and lesbians should live how they choose.

“The one-liner that tests well, that I find less satisfying, is the idea that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose but none of us has the right to redefine marriage,” she said.

On how not to talk about banning same-sex marriage, she said it’s best not to mention that marriage amendments would ban gay marriage.

“I don’t like the phrase ‘ban same-sex marriage’ because I think it’s not true, and it also suggests that in respecting and protecting the historic understanding of marriage we are doing something that is pointed at hurting gay people,” she said. “So I always take the trouble of saying that we want to support and protect laws defining marriage as between husband and wife.”

She continued, “And it’s certainly true if you test the language ‘ban same-sex marriage’ that it produces probably a ten point drop in public support.”

“It also misleads people because then they go into the voting booth and they say marriage is the union of one man and one woman, they vote ‘yes’ but the ban language implies to some people, at least, that we are criminalizing as opposed to simply refusing to change our public and government’s understanding of marriage,” she said.

She said, “Our point of view is not that gay marriage should be banned, but same-sex unions are not marriages and therefore there is no reason to treat them that way.”

http://www.americanindependent.com/18792...x-marriage

[TimmyThink]

‘I think marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these unions make a new life and they connect children to their mother and father,’” she said. “‘So it’s a bad idea for the government to step in and change the definition of marriage.’”

This is one of the most ridiculous I have ever heard, I swear some people are like stuck in 1945. I think this lady should come visit my town, go to the downtown Tim Hortons to see all the teenage mothers loitering in the parking lot. It doesn't always take marriage to create new life, sometimes it only takes alcohol and a lack of better judgment.

[Genersis]

*Sigh*:frown:

Nasty
Organised
Mormons 'n' co.

[marshlander]

It's just as remarkable for its contempt for the intelligence of ordinary people as it is for any notion of fairness. What an unpleasant point of view.

[East]

I used to try to reason with these people...yes...I would confront them and remain composed and decent in an attempt to forge an understanding but it was always disheartening at best and f*cking scary if I really chose to accept what was in front of me. Most of those people remind me of lizards and I think they are reptilian.

I would ask them if they thought the good folks who... with an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY... opposed interracial marriage were all in heaven now and the people they condemned were in hell ...and if those "good folks" are in heaven...you know...the ones who unleashed a hell on earth to their fellow man because they fell in love with the "wrong" person.....who the hell would want to spend eternity with those bastards? I also pointed out that the exact same arguments were used to oppose interracial marriage. I have yet to have one of them even address this very valid point...

They never learn.....too bad their biggest supporters are men and women who have their own inclinations they suppress.....until they get caught., Grrrrrrrrrrr

[fredv3b]

I believe that is an admission that NOM is loosing the argument on banning same-sex marriage, that's why they need to change the argument. Also I don't see why the American public should take advice on sexual morals from a woman who was once an unmarried mother.

[BiJane]

Complete and utter hypocrisy...sigh...
Ah well, what else to expect from NOM?

Trivia time! I'm on the mailing list of AFER, the HRC, and Freedom To Marry (pro-gay), as well as NOM, just to keep track of everything (and hijack the emails they send out).
The first three have all informed me about NY's decision. NOM just don't seem to want to admit it.

Ah well, let's all respect the definition of marriage. Fifty two wives, and legal beatings, ah, the sanctity of unchanging definitions...
*pet peeve*

[rakmatis]

Why not just ban all marriage? Then straight couples can only get civil unions as well so civil unionshave to give the same benefits as current marriage.