E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe blogosphere is abuzz with the story that broke last night, when the Human Rights Campaign released internal memos from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest and most visible anti-same sex-marriage group, calling for the use of a racial wedge strategy to fight campaigns for marriage equality.
“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies,” one of the NOM memos says.
“The documents, marked “confidential,” were unsealed yesterday afternoon in Maine by court order, as part of that state’s ongoing ethics investigation into NOM’s campaign finances.
The memo spells out specific steps to enact, including:
Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”
Here is an excerpt on NOM’s Hispanic strategy:
"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."
NOM also spells out its plans for the 2012 presidential election:
"From a political angle," the NOM document says, "this strategy will require electing a pro-marriage President in 2012." Strategies for defeating, ("sideswiping," as the document calls it) President Obama include "expose Obama as a social radical," and "raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level."
NOM is a 501(c)3 and cannot endorse presidential candidates, but the former chairwoman of NOM’s board, Maggie Gallagher, endorsed Santorum in January.
Public opinion has moved considerably in the three years since the memos were drafted. The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (conducted Feb. 29 through March 3) shows a plurality favors same-sex marriage -- 49 percent say so versus 40 percent who oppose. That's a reversal from 41-49 percent in October 2009.
Among African Americans, a majority (50 percent) said they were in favor (41 were opposed). That's a big change from October 2009, when just a third (32 percent) were in favor and a majority (53 percent) were opposed. Among Hispanics, in the most recent poll, 55 percent said they were in favor, 30 percent said they were against. That's also a change from October 2009, when the margin was tighter (45-40 favor to oppose).
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign -- which supports efforts to legalize same-sex marriage -- criticized NOM. “Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” Solmonese said in a statement.
NOM posted a statement on its website today, saying it is "proud of [its] strong record on minority partnerships."
It added: “Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”
NBC's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
NOM is the new word for GOOD. There is no stronger "family" culture than the Hispanics. This is an excellent strategy and one that should be shouted from the heavens. The word should be spread and the Hispanics will be a supportive group.
So it turns out that George Zimmerman is a registered democrat. Huh.
Man, talk about a narrative fail. Where's Karen Finney, one of the most amusing MSNBC talking heads? Maybe she can explain Martin's Twitter screen name.
Well at least Finney and Zimmerman both voted for Obama. I do wonder though, you think he'll vote the same way next time?
So Ben, you think Latinos will cooperate with republicans when it comes to advancing the cause of the bigoted anti gay platform, and then you will cast Latinos aside derisively when they in turn ask for support for the dream act. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't sound like it's going to work, does it Ben?
Spankit what the heck does your rant have to do with the subject matter?
Stay on task!
Duh! is that I say to this piece. I am surprise this was not enacted a long time ago. Minorities on a whole are very religious and hence conservative on a host of social issues (homosexually being one). Certain social issues are tolerated, because they have better things to do like...trying to make a living, but if packaged correctly they will get behind it. We will see how this work out for NOM. I still think live and let live, but welcome to smaller and less invasive government, right?
Keep spinning NBC. Like the opposite of this hasn't been discussed in liberal back rooms?
Hardly. Let's see -
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments over the biggest POS legislation in decades (soon to be sh*t-canned)
....and Trayvon Martin's mother wants his name trademarked....WTF to that?!? LOL
I hardly think anyone cares about NOM, but hey, fire away Ms. Raab.
I couldn't care less if Feisty DumbFux wants to marry a billygoat or a transgender he/she.
Knock yourself out baby!
Spanky,
Since libs see everthing in purely racial terms.... and if Obama is half white (white mom with a black dad), but considered to be a true blue brother /100% black by libs ... doesn't that mean that Zimmerman who has a white dad and hispanic mother (half white) should be considered 100% hispanic by the libs?
So why are libs promoting a race war on hispanics?
Why are the New Black Panthers putting $1,000,000.00 dollar bounties on chicanos?
They aren't even in the NFL.
And don't you think it makes sense for Lib politicians (House or Senate) to take over the Saints issue when they seem so quiet about New Black Panthers?
And if Obama takes the national stage to up the ante .... says Trayvon looks like him .... does Obama mean he looks half white?
Do you understand how all this inflaming racial issues makes sense .... I hate to ask a lib?
Ben, so black and white families aren't as good as Latino because Latino's are more likely not to support their gay family members? Sick and bigoted.
NOM's tactics are unethical to say the least. I wonder how blacks and hispanics are going to feel knowing they were being played.
The whole gay thing is such a non-issue. It just feels like another "back to the future" moment.
Hell, even Dick Cheney actively pushed for Maryland to promote same sex marriage laws.
Oh yes, Eric, I mean the Dems and libs would never even consider such mean tactics....right????
What a gaggle of nut jobs! The Supreme court will probably toss out the mandate, making freeloading libertarians and Republicans free to get sick and make their neighbors pay for their freeloading a$$s. Reagan signed the law mandating hospital to take patients for free. You all don't understand it's not really free? You all talk out of so many sides of your face I'm surprised your air heads don't fly off.
bob-1805084, You are a talking point regurgitating air head, nothing in your post is in reality. Are you paid to regurgitate that nonsense or are you really that ignorant?
Hey skiddy, what exactly is the opposite of that?
I'm sure this will work.
The Republicans may want to deport my parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, and strip me of my citizenship because I'm an "anchor baby", but I'm going to vote for them because they hate male florists.
..or..... I'm black, but I'm going to vote for the rich, white, guys because they hate interior decorators.
Makes perfect teabirther sense.
Mike, going to the hospital is not free and never has been. You are accepted in no matter what, but then billed full price later unless that particular hospital has a special program. When I was in college full time and had to go to the hospital on my way back from visiting my family in Utah, years later I ended up paying for everything plus fines and fees for being late causing the total bill to be three times what the initial hospital bill was. I even got myself into a bad situation because I CALLED THEM to repay them after I pulled my credit report and realized I had been charged (thinking exactly what you thought, that it was free because I was at least a full-time student). They wanted an immediate $1000 and then $500 per month. I told them I could afford $200 per month, but they said no-go and then attached my wages causing me an extremely difficult financial burden at the time.
So you are dead wrong. It's never free, and they have no heart when they finally get back in touch with you, no matter WHAT the situation was at the time when you had to go to the hospital.
Yes, bigotry comes in all sort and manner of organizations. And, I'll wager that the leaders of NOM are all proclaimed Christians, for a self-serving purpose, of course!
Killing the health care law will kill Americans. Most people don't go the the ER until it is too late for many conditions. People need a relationship with a physician to maintain good health, something the ER experience doesn't bring. Sure, let's worry about the rights of those who would refuse to get a health care plan until they enter the ER. Many of those people will find an early grave in a potter's field.
Katheryn,
You might think the" whole gay thing is a non issue ",but in MN we will have a constitutional amendment to vote upon in the Nov. election.
It is called" the defense of marriage act. " by their supporters. Our Republican legislature decided that in spite of a MN statute that defines marriage between and man and women, they want to put it in our constitution. They said they were afraid of the activists judges and activist legislatures. I personally think that adjective is a oxymoron
NOM has been the major source of funds besides the MN Catholic Conference, and our state Mn Family Council group in promoting folks to vote yes. Money has begun to pour into the state and the ads and vitriol will soon follow.
In MN ,the latest poll is that it is at this point failing. Most Minnesotan are not in favor of this amendment. However it will make sure the social conservatives do turn out at the polls in Nov. in MN.
The Supreme Court may take issue with some provisions of the Healthcare Act, but they will refrain from striking it down, entirely. It will be sent back to Congress to be revised, and then passed again.
Further, if NOM thinks that African Americans will get behind any group fostering even more bigotry and hatred, they got a big azz surprise coming -- which of course, will be no surprise to any person with an ounce of intelligence. However, you will see one or two every now and then, who will support anything and anyone they're instructed to support.
It is interesting that no one has commented on this paragraph from the story:
Hopefully that ethics investigation will lead to the organization losing its 501(c)3, just as any other "non-profit" tax-exempt organization that involves itself in ANY form of politics should lose its status. Tax the h#ll out of them. Both the LDS and Catholic churches should lose their tax-exempt status for their efforts in CA and elsewhere to defeat same-sex marriage proposals.
THE SINGLE most PATRIOTIC action the NOM can take is to DIVIDE THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY...?
TREASON, revoke the 501-c3 status & treat them like ACORN, as an EXTREMEST GROUP, hell maybe TERRORIST !
They're probably safe on that score, as they're an issue advocacy group.
Not that it was Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger who filed the lawsuit that brought this disclosure. Kudos to him.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/03/nom-strategy-exposed-fredkarger-demanded-got-answers.html
I can never understand why these holier than thou "do-gooders" on either side of the fence can't just sit back in the knowledge that the rest of us (who don't agree with them) are all going to hell and be happy with that?????????
So Spider... (Wait a second, I need to clean the coffee off my keyboard from laughing) Um. Spider. Tell me all about how the liberals are gonna pit conservatives against each other. They going to pit the uber-religious, gun toting whites against the white, gun toting, uber-religious types? With all that diversity I can see how you could easily drive a wedge between all the different sects in the Republican party. Hehehehe The pharse "thick as thieves" comes to mind....
Skrekk
"They're probably safe on that score, as they're an issue advocacy group."
Any group that spends more than a $1000 to help get a incentive on a ballet is considered a political group and will lose it non-profit status. Also they have to disclose the donors, which is what the lawsuit is all about. Funny don't you think, the people who are happy to give money to stop civil rights don't want anybody to know it was them. If their so proud of what they do why sue and spend all that money to hide the names. Couldn't that money be better spent trying to stop the 'evil gays' from being happy?
NOM might be ignorant bigots, but they're not entirely dumb - they're mostly organized as a 501c4.
Correct, although the reporting requirements vary from state to state. NOM has failed to comply with most of those legal requirements, and they've lost every legal case so far.
The so called NOM "pro-marriage" group is anti-gay marriage..........makes them anti- marriage PERIOD!!!
I recently recieved this video clip of NOM members during lunch at a NOM conference. What a bunch of ANIMALS they are. Hope this helps to expose them and reveal them for what they are.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMWi7CLoZ2Q
HISPANICS ARE WHITE. There is no "hispanic race" Did any of you conservatives finish high school?
Strange, Spanky... because out of the hundreds of posts I've read on dozens of stories about Zimmerman/Trayvon - I have yet to come across any general narrative indicating that Zimmerman was either a Republican or a Democrat. Sure, there were a lot of other insults, but not those in particular. Keep building your strawmen though, one might stick.
Maybe revive the old Protestant vs Catholic thing? That was pretty hefty stuff back in the day.
Can't we finally put this garbage down?
1. Separation of Church and State, a policy loudly supported by those who support same sex unions, as well as those who support freedom of religion.
2. "Marriage" is a religious term used to denote the union of a man and a woman which has also been adopted into secular legislation (due to convenience) to describe the social contract of two people in a spousal arrangement. This word seems to be the major sticking point.
3. The simple answer is- Expunge the term "marriage" from all federal, state, and local secular legislation and documentation. Replace the religious term "marriage" with the term "Civil Union" and apply said term "Civil Union" to all persons seeking to engange in a 'spousal arrangement' wether they be same sex, opposite sex, or two intelligent adults from any species capable of making a concious decision to do so.
4. Give all persons covered under the newly inserted "Civil Union" term the same rights, responsibilities, opportunites, and obligations under the law concerning taxation, dependency, etc..., et al, ad infinitum....
and at that point, Get Over IT!
And how much energy has NOM spent combatting the real threat to marriage: divorce? None, that I can tell? Bigots.
the term Marriage is a secular term. the religious term you are looking for is Holy Matrimony.
@Ben,
Yes Hispanics have strong family values and would support your ideology up until the point when Republicans start to deport their family members. I think they care more about their actual family members than who is getting married down the street. Just another example of a bankrupt ideology from the right.
Isn't NOM cute? They haven't noticed that the tide has turned and more Americans are rejecting their bigotry and ignorance.
My, how very current of them...
Is it any wonders these idiots live in the dark ages?
NDD:
Hardly the word I would use.
"Is it any wonders these idiots live in the dark ages?"
Refering to the President in such a manner is rude, isnt it?
The President whose position is, that marraige is exclusively between a man and a woman.
Say Bob in Vagina - I see you're running late for your 'probe' appointment this afternoon...
Best scurry along now - you know how much you hate it when the 'probe' is cold! ;o)
I don't know, bilweeler: NOM always reminds me of a two year old having a tantrum. They want what they want when they want it, but they can't give any cogent argument as to why we should all live in the little dark fantasy world they inhabit.
I'm hoping they get their rear ends kicked in MN this fall.
The funniest part of their comment? That a President who believes that the Equal Protection Clause means something is somehow radical!
It's amazing to me that the NOM looks for support from the Latino community. Later, the same people who belong to that organization will fight Latinos in other organizations that push for an "English First" amendment, and for tougher immigration laws, and will fight like the devil against the dream act. What a bunch of two faced teabaggers!
And would that not be Obama's bigotry and ignorance as well since he has held the same position?
So Obama, 41% of blacks and 30% of Hispanics are idiots living in the Dark Ages?
Bigotry is a bitch, huh .... just so easy to turn bigotry on bigots.
Yes, of course Bob; President Obama has been out campaigning with NOM for Amendments to state constitution to forbid same sex marriage.
You want to come down from whatever planet you are on and join us in the real world, bob?
Wow, Feisty, resorting to name calling? What's wrong, no refute so you name call? Yours is the typical lib response.
...says Skiddy in a pejorative response....
Wow!...I had the SAME EXACT thoughts regarding all of the folks in favor of MOB RULES in Florida & FR
Justice for our Justice System!
So that bunch is against same-sex union? Well, I am AGAINST a straight couple walking down the street holding hands and stopping to smooch. Or hanging on to each other like they do.
I am AGAINST a guy and a gal shacking up and being proud of it. Then a baby comes along-- a bastard child.
If they are against gay marriage, don't do it. But don't deny others of happiness-- which is what they want to do.
Ms. Susie,
Are you aware that our president, Mr. Obama is opposed to gay marriage? No matter how I or anyone else feel, gays will not marry as long as he is president.
Just saying.
Let's see, pornography and religious liberty. Looks as if Rick Santorum got the NOM memo. Newt's got the racial wedge part down pat. I'll bet if we look closely at what the GOP candidates have been saying for months, we could check the "All of the Above" box because they'll been using these talking points in one form or another.
Michael, gays can already marry in many places, and the President couldn't stop them if he wanted to.
And he has always said that he is open to the possibility of changing his mind on it.
And he doesn't want to, and never said he would try to. He expressed his personal opinion, and that's all. But Bob and Michael would like to have you believe otherwise. It's hard to believe they walk upright.
Perhaps Michael could explain the difference between gay civil unions and gay marriage--oh, never mind, there is no difference other than marriage is the term most associated with church weddings. In the eyes of the law where passed, they are the same.
When the Iowa Supreme Court gave its ruling three years ago, it legalized gay civil unions but allowed churches to determine whether or not they would marry gays.
looks like Michael quickly added a picture to his profile to counteract the one that everyone saw of him as a basement dweller.
Susie-2759697
Did you notice how those who speak the loudest against gay marriage are the same people who have been married 3-4 times, and had bunch of girlfriends during their marrage(s)? Or get caught having sex with men in public bathrooms? Or got caught hiring prostitues? Or bailout on their family and don't pay child support?
the sanctity of marriage...
Sorry Baylie, You're looking at the wallpaper in his mom's basement.
Wayne-1656909
I should have not looked at that picture - I have nightmares of a serial killer now.
Bale, Bale, Bale,
What is it about me that you get so obsessed over? My Charm? My Humor? My Cunning Sense of Political Aptitude?
Everytime I have a topic to discuss, you want to talk about me. I'm flattered, but you must stop this. There are serious issues at hand here and we cannot spend time wiping your drool over me.
Anywhosers.......I merely stated that Obummer and I share the same opinion on gay marriage and everyone is ok if you have a (D) after your name but not an (R).
Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm"''
Hey.....Q for ya....based solely on your thread of course,
Where did Bill "Blue Dress" Clinton fall on homo marriage? Anyone? Hillary?
Tony "Fruit of the Loom" Weiner?
Eliot Spitzer?
Marriage predates all known religion. If you get married by a captain on a ship, or by a judge in a court house, it is called marriage. Holy matrimony is the church thing, though you still have to legally be married by the state. The part that is before god is the Holy matrimony part. No church would be forced to marry gays. To separate them by the use of words in the extreme rights last ditch effort to try and spot the inevitable, we will not stand by and allow segregation and repression. It sometimes takes us longer than it should, but there is more good in humanity than evil.
So Michael, if you and President Obama's opinion on gay marriage is the same, I guess yours is evolving too and that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and you would no longer defend it.
That is very groovy of you.
The times (and the polls) they are a'changin'. This is going to be a mute point in the very near future. The bigots and homophobes will have to go back in their closets. Game, set, and match!
Michael, most national politicians still have to have an official position against gay marriage for political reasons. But that will change, eventually, as the electorate changes. The younger generations are already voting for marriage equality.
Yep...it's partnered up with a minority of blacks, a minority of hispanics and a minority of the country.
Face it NOM....YOU are the minority....and getting more and more "minor" every day....
No, they're not the same at all. For example, civil unions have no federal recognition at all, and no interstate or international recognition.
No, that's not what happened. The Iowa Supreme Court didn't say anything at all about civil unions, but it did say that both gays and straights have equal access to marriage.
What churches do isn't marriage, but a religious ritual (ie, "holy matrimony"). It's completely irrelevant to one's marital status.
I keep telling you the reason the religious extremists scream so loudly against homosexuality is because most of them are gay and just hiding behind religion rather than accepting themselves for who they really are. This refusal to accept their gayness causes them to develop a deep seated hatred for themselves which manifests itself outwardly as extreme homophobia, Ted Haggard is a perfect example of this.I knew Ted was gay the very first minute I saw him, there was no doubt in my mind. I have many friends who are gay they all said the same thing.
Wow Michael, you even know what brand of underwear he wears! Got a little closet fantasy going on there?
Gays aren't the same as blacks and I wish gays would stop piggy backing on them. Get your own claim to fame! Apparently, you don't have one. Without the hard fought struggle of African Americans, for racial equality, gays would have nothing to compare themselves to except for struggle for a larger closet.
The 14th Amendment seems to apply to both.
But I'm not surprised that a hate group like NOM would try to use race as a wedge issue to pit one minority group against another.
@Shrek,
The supreme court has virtually never extended suspect class status on the basis of sexual orientation; which is not an immutable aspect. Even if it did, being gay is not an ethnicity and there is no test for it.
Does anybody really think that NOM gives a damn about same sex marriages? If they can squash that fine, but they are obviously just a right wing conservative neocon funded group to keep the right in power and oppose democrats. Just another faction in a multifaceted attack on the progressives so that the right can say "Who? me?" when they divide the country even further to promote their agenda.
Not immutable? Seriously? So everyone is equally attracted to both genders and just picks one?
I must be a freak...I've never been attracted to my own gender...not for a second. I never questioned or doubted my orientation, never made a choice or decision, and know for an absolute fact that I was born the way I am. Why would I think anyone was lying when they say they have the same experience? I wouldn't. Why would you?
Oh wait...I can answer that...it's because I don't have an agenda where I'm trying to falsely accuse others of being deliberately different just to piss me off...and you do.
Neither is religion.....which actually IS a choice...all it takes is someone's word, and it's protected.
The point is to not target others for exclusion based on harmless differences...not on whether they were born that way.
I suggest you read the 14th Amendment, especially the part about "equal protection". So far the courts have found the denial of same-sex marriage to be a violation of due process and equal protection, and they've done so with using heightened scrutiny. In other words, bigots like you have already lost the argument.
Being Catholic and being female aren't ethnicities, yet both receive equal protection of the law.
@Shrek
being a female is a gender, also:
Gays are not a suspect class.
"NOM" really should be NOOCPHR (National Organization for Only Certain People Having Rights), as they're not really "defending" marriage at all. We don't see "NOM" calling for helping married couples, or taking measures to discourage divorce, or doing anything about abusive relationships, or even doing anything about affairs and adultery. Nope, they just want to keep certain people they hate from ever getting married.
Don't give me that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" nonsense. We come as a package deal, my "sin" is a part of me, so if you hate my sin, you're hating me.
In the final Orwellian twist, if anyone tries to stop their persecution of "sinners", they get all huffy and accuse you of persecuting them. In a religiously free nation, no one is allowed to force their religious rules on others, My rights trumps your religious dogma.
do any of you really care what two other people do with their sex parts?
@CM
That's nonsense and one of the reasons why i feel homosexuality should still be labeled a mental illness: inability of homosexuals to distinguish their sexual orientation from their self esteem. Sexual orientation no more defines the entirety of a person than their skin or hair color. It's part of their makeup, not who they are. You're basically arguing that you can't be loved apart from some attribute. That's like saying a person doesn't love you if they wrinkle up their face because you have stinky breath. No, it's mainly your breath that is offensive. Once you brush, all is mended. A person can love another human soul and dislike homosexuality.
@American,
So there is absolutely no time when genitals are objectionable?
Michael1969,
All of the above...you complete me.
You know what's funny, nowhere in my post did I make a list of guilty Republicans. Just sed "those who" to descibed them - but you automatically came up with a list of 2 Democrats. It just tells me that you had to be the hero and rescue the great name of the Republican Party. I guess, because of many examples, everyone associates hypocrites with the Family Values Party - even you Michael.
Now, Bill Clinton never came across as a preacher of family values. I don't recall him ever trying to suppress Gays, women, minorities. Yes, he signed the DADT but it was almost 20 years ago - different times from 2012. At least for some of us - while some others want to go back to 1912.
Weiner got to reap what sowed. Sending a picture of one's wiener was stupid, he paid the price. Again, Weiner did not come across as a "Family Values" and "Sanctity of Marriage" kinda a guy.
I'm really talking about them Bible waiving hypocrites that will not allow 2 guys to marry because a piece of paper that opens access to over 1000 laws that married people benefit from, is a SIN. While they preach about 1 man and 1 woman, they F*CK around their families.
Michael, help me understand why are people like you so offended by 2 men or 2 women getting married?
Why do you think that's relevant?
And it seems you're a little weak on legal theory since "sexual orientation" would be the suspect class, not "gays", and sexual orientation is indeed a suspect class in California and is beginning to be treated with heightened scrutiny in the 9th circuit.
Almost as good as the Democrats "Always call them 'extreme'" marketing strategy.
When you have no merits of your own worth promoting the easiest approach for most simpletons is slander of the opposition.
Obama said it's his PERSONAL belief that true marriage is between a man and a woman.
He IS NOT trying to push his personal opinion into making a law against same sex marriage.
The "Obama is against gay marriage" argument is pretty silly, and only used by the ignorant(or those trying to convince the ignorant).
Obama isn't making gay marriage an issue with his Admin.
I thought conservatives and rightwingers would be praising Obama, for leaving it up to states
That sounds like a lot of mealy mouthed cowardice to justify your hatred and insecurity.
Do us all a favor and educate yourself on the concept of "informed consent".
Time to revoke NOM's non-profit status.
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
NOM's against gay marriage makes them anti-marriage PERIOD!!!
"That's nonsense and one of the reasons why i feel homosexuality should still be labeled a mental illness:"
It only turns into a mental illness when you refuse to accept the fact that you are gay, like Haggard, Foley, J. Edgar Hoover, Santorum and so many others.
I'm sure this type opposed interracial marriage in the 60s. Just imagine these guys in a room trying to think out ways to create hatred and typing it up in memos.
Religious liberty? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Why do these people even exist? If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry a person of your same gender. But where do they get off trying to impose THEIR "morality" on everyone else. Also, can someone please explain to me in LOGICAL terms how allowing two gay people to marry will break up my marriage to my wife? Are they afraid that one of us will leave the other for a gay person? Really? This is beyone idiotic.
By who? The supreme court doesn't recognize gays as a suspect class.
@Lolfattyknowsnothing
So all homosexual behavior -- to include forced sodomy -- always has informed consent? Come back when you have a counterargument.
ItIsWhat!t!s
Hmm...then based on that...you would be mentally ill? You seem rather rabidly attached to your "straightness"...so much so that anyone who isn't straight like you...you think is mentally ill. It's pretty ironic since psychiatry was considering putting "pathological bias" into the DSM as a mental illness...that's extreme bigotry....which you have been displaying here in spades. So that would make you the one with the....um....issue.
Don't be disingenuous...unless you swing both ways, we ALL identify with our orientation and it DOES define us, probably more than any other attribute. It determines who we are attracted to, who we fall in love with, who we marry, who we raise a family with and grow old with. If you don't think that's important...just pretend your mate is the same gender as you....and ask yourself if that doesn't rock your self-image a little.
No they can't. That's a flat out lie. You can't love something you think is offensive...and orientation isn't something you "brush away"...it's an actual part of all of us....and it goes a long way to defining who we are, because it defines all of our most important intimate relationships.
When you tell someone that something so integral to who they are..is offensive to you...that isn't love. It's bigotry born of fear and ignorance. And you can't "love" a fictional, invisible piece of someone (soul) while despising everything else about them. That's just a sorry attempt to not look hateful...and it doesn't fool anyone.
@NotKidding
Everyone is born with a sexual orientation, and steers their sexual behavior based on it, to include bisexuals who are attracted to both sexes. Yes, heterosexuals do pick just one. Are you trying to tell me there are no cases where someone identified themselves as heterosexual and later became bisexual or gay? Sexual orientation no more defines the entirety of a person than skin or eye color. Give me a break.
How do you know that for a fact? Can you remember all the way back to the day you were born? I don't think anyone can. The only honest statement you can make is that you know for a fact you were born a certain gender. You can remember coming out of the womb right?Has freedom of religion always been protected? No, that's a tradition native to America. Almost every other land has had some form of religious persecution. Homosexuality has statistically been linked to the spread of diseases, so it's not harmless, and on what are you basing that people are born gay?
@Not kidding
Yeah, yeah, Go ahead and rattle off incoherently. Psychologically speaking everyone suffers from symptoms that can be accorded to any illness. The differential factor is the degree to which a person can function in life. Homosexuality was labeled as a ego-syntonic mental illness where the sufferer, the homosexual, sees their illness, homosexuality, as essential to their sense of self worth. Homosexuals do not seem to be able to function whenever homosexuality is attacked, therefore I consider that to be justifiable. Take for example the statement:
Sexual orientation no more defines the entirety of a person than their skin or eye color, but gays can't see that apart from trying to view homosexuality as essential to their self worth. In addition, how is it possible to express sexual orientation apart from sexual behavior?
They don't love the bad breath, they love the family member. I'm not buying the bigotry quip it's just a weak way of saying you have no argument. Everyone is in some obstinate to their opinion. Homosexuals don't scare me, and there are plenty of reasons to dislike and disagree with homosexuality. That's not ignorant. You're basically saying anyone who doesn't agree with your view is ignorant, which in my opinion, makes you more of a bigot than anything else. I was going to take apart your diatribe line by line, but I don't have to because you proved my point.
Clearly I made the mistake of assuming you'd try and argue honestly. Come back when you actually understand how informed consent works.
How can anyone think that two dudes kissing is ok? I mean really, thats gross. You have got to be kidding me.
As do lesbians and gays.
Don't confuse orientation and behavior.
It defines the most personal, intimate part of who we are...and in that sense, it absolutely defines us...far more than pretty much any other factor, aside from gender.
I know for an absolute fact that I never made a choice about what gender to be attracted to. I just was. It was never a question. Everyone I've ever talked to in my life has said it was the same for them...no choice...just the way they were. Absent any choice...why wouldn't you believe it was inborn....unless you had some other reason (other than honestly looking for the real answer) for wanting to believe it wasn't?
And pretty much every other industrialized nation.
Nope...only the most religious countries have problems with that...(and we are actually the most religious of all the industrialized countries). The other countries have far fewer problems than we do with it. History notwithstanding.
Untrue. Sex has been linked to diseases, not orientation.
All the evidence to date. Including anecdotal, scientific and plain old common sense. Why would children who are gay and tormented for it...kill themselves? Why not just "choose" not to be gay? Why would anyone choose to be ostracized, discriminated against, beaten, bullied or killed...when all they had to do was make a different choice? Unless they can't choose differently because (like me, and like everyone else on the planet) they never made a choice to begin with.
Why would you think people aren't born with their orientation? What do you base that on?
Was there something you didn't find coherent?
Really? Or are you just saying that when normal behavior becomes exaggerated, or abnormal, then it's classified as an illness? That's not quite the same as everyone "suffering from symptoms" though.
First off...I would hope it's ego-syntonic...just as any other orientation should be. That's the only sane way to be. Secondly, homosexuality was erroneously classified as an illness before it was properly studied. It is now known that it is not an illness, psychiatry has admitted their mistake and not one reputable medical or psychological institution now considers it to be an illness. The fact that you keep insisting it is...only shows that facts have no place in your thinking. Every study has shown that there is no appreciable psychological difference between gay and straight people.
Not function? What are you talking about?
I'm straight...and that, along with my gender, absolutely defines me, more than any other factors. It determines who I am, who I love, who I live with, what sort of family I have, what sort of relationships I have...and places me in society as part of the majority, or part of a minority....and (in this backwards country) can determine whether or not I have the right to openly serve my country or even marry the person I love. How is that NOT definitive?
Oh...so this is why you want to separate out orientation from someone's sense of self....so you can claim it's no great loss to try and eradicate it. Nice. Dishonest and futile...but nice try.
I actually laughed out loud at that. When you claim people are "offensive" and should be treated differently under the law for something that is simply none of your damn business...that is bigotry. Live in denial if you want...but it is what it is.
But what you fail to see...is you are free to dislike and disagree with it all you want. No one cares what you choose to think or feel about it. What's important is that we don't get to make oppressive laws against people just because we don't like them. Otherwise....the majority of this country that supports gay rights, could make laws against bigots...and you'd be in trouble.
Do you know what the word ignorant means? It doesn't mean "stupid"....it means lacking information. Lack of understanding, lack of knowledge, lack of familiarity. All bigotry is born of ignorance. I wasn't calling you names, I was stating a fact.
You have been on a crusade to try and prove there is something "wrong" with being gay, and you freely ignore any facts to the contrary, proving that your intent is to spread bigotry, not arrive at the truth.
@NotKidding Unfortunately the individual you were attempting to reason with is unavailable. Please call back when he is ready to care and/or think. We are sorry for this inconvienance .
Wow! Who is this ItIsWhat!t!s guy?
The evidence that some people are born gay is pretty clear. All you have to do is open your eyes (and your mind). I've seen pre-puberty kids who were definitely gay but hadn't realized it yet; then saw them a few years later when they had reached puberty and the lights had gone on.
Some people choose to be gay. So what?
Exactly, it truly seems to be beyond some people that a leader can have a personal opinion yet not make that personal opinion as part of his/her agenda for the good of the whole.
QFT - and this ties into what I said above.
Why do we give these morons a forum to spread their hate?
Oh, BIG DEAL!!! Democrats have done this for years, that's probably who NOM got it from.
NOM complains that gay marriage passes because out of state influence, but they go running up to New Hampshire an exert that out of state influence when it suits them. Human and Civil Rights are not up for popular vote. Marriage is a religious institution. The state has no business in the marriage business.
Severe marriage completely from the government. Allow registered partnerships for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. If a man and a woman want to be "married" they can go to their local church or if they're atheist have a secular ceremony with their friends. If an institution wants to marry gays, its their choice. But, for all those tax breaks and inheritance laws, just make the couples register as a domestic partnership. Don't call it marriage and make it equal under the law for every couple.
SpyderGirl
Marriage is not a religious institution. Are you saying that everyone has to be married in church? Are you delusional? Now you are going to tell me that everyone has to have a religious ceremony in order to be recognized as being married????
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship (a social relationship). It is often viewed as a contract.
The state IS in the business of marriage because marriage, by definition, bestows rights and obligations on the married parties:
Now if you choose to have your religious ceremony in your white dress, that's your business but it is not your business how everyone else is doing it.
Divide and conquer is not a new strategy, no matter how nice the words utilized to describe it sound.
bayllie has it right. Marriage is a civil contract. You can have all the ceremonies you want withing your church but without that little piece of paper from the state they are not legal marriages. All you hear is how gay marriage will destroy the union of marriage but there is never anything said about how this would happen. I've never met anyone gay who was interested in what went on in my husband's and my bedroom and I wasn't interested in what went on in their's. I think people should keep their noses out of other's bedrooms
Gay marriage, bring it on.... as long as it's followed by legalized polygamy.....Why? Because I'm gonna have me a harem of 18yr olds with low self esteem. And when they get old and fat I'm going to kick them to the curb and get new 18yr olds... just like Hugh Hefner (who I'm sure is a fellow Democrat).
And you can't tell me that it's wrong because that would make you a bigot... because it's none of your business what I do in my bedroom. (sarcasm...did I really need to write that...did anyone actually think I was serious?)
I always have to shake my head when I see sentiments like this....someone so brainwashed by religion as to actually believe that religion "owns" marriage. All religion does is put on a dog and pony show. No religion can legally marry anyone, without a state issued licence and state-granted authority.
I'm an atheist and I don't have a "registered partnership"....I'm married and when the ceremony ended, the officiant said "By the power vested in me by the State of ________, I now pronounce you man and wife." I had a state issued license and received a state issued certificate of marriage. Religion is a totally optional accessory, but you can't get married without the state.
Separate but equal? It's hard to believe any thinking human being is still peddling this idiocy. No one, other than government officials who must apply the laws equally, is ever required to marry anyone they don't want to. Catholics aren't forced to marry divorced people. Jews aren't forced to marry baptists, and mormons aren't forced to marry scientologists.
The tax breaks and so on represent the legal and financial inequality, but courts have recognized the value of the word "marriage" and it's meaning in society...and concurred that the only reason to arbitrarily withhold that word from one segment of society, is bigotry. People like you have never come up with a single reason why it should be withheld, aside from "we don't like them, and don't want them to have what we have".
If you want to legalize polygamy (which is an entirely different subject) then you will have to do what LGBT has done: spend decades campaigning and garnering support, fight it in court and try to have the laws changed. It will cost millions, but if you really think that you are being discriminated against, it's a good cause.
I have no objection to polygamy, as long as it only involves non-related consenting adults. I think the government has an interest in preventing it, because of all the marriage benefits and the nightmare of determining what spouse is entitled to what...not to mention the chaos if one wants a divorce and how to divide the marital property, the child custody and support issues. But as a "moral" question, as long as no one is being harmed....what consenting adults do, really IS their own business.
As an aside....anyone discussing gay marriage who brings up polygamy (or bestiality or pedophilia or any other completely unrelated topic) is only advertising the fact that they have no valid argument against gay marriage.
justsayingisall
this is why people like you should not be able to talk. Gay people are not fighting for equal rights when it comes to marriage because they want to experience a Hugh Hefner-like relationships. That is not even a good point - it's actually very ignorant.
. They are fighting for marriage because under the law, they will be entitled to be protected by over 1000 laws that comes with marriage.
Now if Romney wants to fight for the right to have bunch of wives, I don't see why not. As long as he is not marrying someone by force, and that someone is of legal age, I could not care less. The only thing the state would have to work out is how to bestow rights and obligations on the married parties. For example, if deseased, who gets what? But that's a totally different issue.
NotKidding,
When I brought my Marriage Certificate issued by my church to change my last name on my license, they told me they could not use it. I had to have a state one - which I did obviously.
I love how people assume that church has the monopoly. If it was not for my family, I would have been happy with a ceremony performed by a town clerk but I'm weak so I gave in. To me, it's just a piece of paper, a formality. The real marriage is defined by how you actually treat each other every day.
ItIsWhat!t!s
I was originally going to leave this to the others, but your comment about how gays are link to a spread of disease, it utter stupidity. The only reason that homosexuality can be linked to a rise in disease is because they may make the same mistakes as straight couples! There is nothing about a gay person that is truly different the heterosexuals apart from who they are attracted to and who they choose to love.
They aren't going to solve anything. Those who favor same sex marriage will continue to do so and those opposed will continue to oppose it.
If we would spend as much time worrying about OUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS than we do about other people we'd all be better off.
baldeagle11
Perhaps you should actually read the article. If you did so you would see that your statement is inaccurate. The article clearly shows that many more people from various racial groups have a growing support for same sex marriage.The only reason race comes into the equation is because NOM is trying to make this a racial issue, so they broke down support figures for certain groups.
While i agree that people should focus a better concern for their own business, those of us living in the U.S. live within certain common laws which makes us all in this together. In essence, we are all in this together and have a certain responsibility to others and their concern as well as our own.
In fact since 71% of Catholics support marriage equality, it's no surprise that more Latinos support it than blacks do. But support in both demographic groups is increasing rapidly since the vast majority of young folks aren't bigoted.
It might help to remind people that a black gay activist, Bayard Rustin, was a pivotal and primary figure in the history of black civil rights. Rustin is the reason MLK became a nationally prominent figure.
Apparently NOM's 2009 strategy didn't work.
African Americans will not support this group. There will be a few here and there (like Cain and C. Thomas types), but most absolutely will not get behind such a group. We're not that vocal about it, but we know better and will not make this a "voting" issue.
What does that say about a group who would use such tactics? It says a lot, and we hear it loud and clear.
Just wondering who put NOM in charge of who gets civil rights? Just because they believe a certain way does not mean they get free rein to interpret rights for people. Must be Saint Orum that gave them that right, ya think? Becasue I know darn sure that my God did not give NOM the right to decide.
Drip, drip, drip. Another conservative group left behind by changing demographics. Hey, NOM, say hi to the Republican party when you get wherever it is you're going.
Of course, this is from the same mindset that thinks Latino voters are a homogenous group. Puerto Ricans don't care about citizenship, because they already are. Cubans don't care because they get it automatically. Most of the Latino ethnic groups don't even like each other. Cubans hate Mexicans, Mexicans despise Central Americans. And almost all voters, regardless of heritage, vote with their wallets.
Then can someone please explain to me why so many working class and working poor people continue to vote Republican, against their own best interests?
If I explained that in detail I am sure some would be offended, but from what I see in my area religion has a lot to do with it, and of course misinformation by their "leaders" who sell them lies about their motives and plans. Throw in fear-mongering, threats of evil deeds by anyone but religious candidates, and another splash of misinformation and a bit more religion and there you have it.
Note please that I am not saying all who vote Republican and wouldn't benefit from it are anything that is insulting about them as people or voters. It is a strategy by candidates and the party that works like a charm here in the south...sigh.
And not all Latino people eat burritoes. LOL
"Religion is the opium of the masses" goes the famous quote by Karl Marx.
You put forward very valid points. I might also add that the life situations of many under-informed and under-educated Republican voters are so bad that they seem to have a need to feel superior to SOMEONE, and conservative leaders are masters at manipulating the emotions of those people. That's why instilling the fear of "others" not like themselves works so well. Homophobia and racism are effective tools and people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al know this. How else can you explain people latching on to Rick Santorum like a leech and applauding when he said that Obama was a snob because he wants people to be able to go to college or trade school for further education so they can better themselves and get better paying jobs so they can support their families? What's snobbish or elitist about that?
Also, in Maine today, Democrats called for an investigation to find out what the LePage administration knew about a computer glitch in the MaineCare system, that led to skewered numbers when the legislature was forced to consider cuts to Medicaid. Between that and the same sex marriage strategy being uncovered, It's a regular Watergate up here!
The Democratic Party's strategy for at least the past 30 years is a "racial wedge" strategy. In case you hadnt noticed.
You seem confused about which party used the "southern strategy".
skrekk: You're the one who is confused, especially about a "racial wedge" strategy. Isn't it wonderful how the Democratic Party was able to terrorize blacks for nearly one hundred years after slavery was outlawed in the south and they still get them to vote for their candidates today? Hahahaha.
Btw, Martin Luther King was a Republican...
Bob the Janitor, you're the one who is confused or rather are ignoring only half of the history. Those dixiecrats you're talking about became republians once civil rights legislation was passed in the 60's. The two parties switched sides on civil rights.
So what if MLK was a republican at one time?
Bob is still living in the dark ages. I bet he's a Santorum supporter.
"Isn't it wonderful how the Democratic Party was able to terrorize blacks for nearly one hundred years after slavery was outlawed"
Have you noticed there aren't any democrats in the South anymore? What was once the Democratic "solid south", is now Tea Party land. When LBJ and the democrats supported Civil Rights legislation, the southern, redneck, racists deserted the Democratic party in droves (See: Nixon's Southern Strategy). All the southern bigots, like Rick Perry, switched from Democrat to Republican.
The Republicans wanted the hillbilly, racist vote. They courted the hillbilly, racist vote, and they got the hillbilly, racist,vote.
You know them now as the GOP "base", and the GOP can't win squat without them. That's why your presidential candidates are a bunch of wack jobs.
Hey Bob,
As you well know, the Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats who perpetuated the abuses you're listing ALL switched parties during the GOP's "Southern Strategy" realignment.
Did you think we didn't notice?
But don't let the truth get in the way of your propaganda, by any means. I believe that's a requirement of membership in the GOP these days, and you wouldn't want them to suspect you of not being a loyal foot soldier.
Seriously, you bring up the Wedge Strategy and the teabaggers literally ignore it like it never existed. How can a full-grown adult have such a disconnect with reality?
No African American or Latino in their right mind would be fooled by this tactic and get behind any group fostering bigotry and hate. We've seen it before.
After all, who do think they'll turn on when they finish with the gays?
SMH
Bob in Virginia,
Are you NUTS?
That's the craziest thing I've read all night.
Bob in Virginia - you're joking, right? The GOP has been the most racist; most anti-women; anti-gay; anti-everything party for the past 10 years! Wake up and smell the coffee or at least take off the blinders!
Is this like Jesse Jackson's driving a wedge between bla cks and whites?
Really? Awful lot of whites marched with Jackson on various issues, as well as with Dr. King.
Yeah. Darn them all for thinking everyone, regardless of skin color, should be equal in the eyes of the law.
Pedestrian, they actually hate them both -- Jackson and MLK. Only, they're afraid to say too much about MLK as it will expose them for what they really are.
I remember as a child, watching the civil rights marches on television. Shameful part of our history, but our history, nonetheless. Give 'em a few more years. They'll be launching out right attacks on MLK -- it's just a matter of time.
They've started already, Kat. Remember Beck's little charade at the MLK monument?
Jessie Jackson was a member of the Rainbow Coalition.
If he was divisive it was dividing decent whites from the bigots.
Herman Cain can be the NOM brain-washer to recruit African Americans.
Marco Rubio can perform the same to recruit Latinos.
Good luck to the recruiters.
There!
I think Clarence Thomas is fighting for that title. Not sure who would win in the Thomas/Cain matchup?
Haven't heard Uncle Thomas utter any words since his confirmation hearings....
"this is a high-tech lynching"... he cried!
Shame on you, Chilled! Uncle Tom was a hard-working, honest man! How dare you compare him to the likes of Clarance Thomas!! You owe Uncle Tom an apology!!
@ kat-1015719
Too funny, but......My bad kat, I apologize!.....
kat - chilled -- both two thumbs up in my vote. That was too funny!! I offer, "
NienNine Cried .. one "Atlas Wept" - a perfect 10!!.More news never to be seen on First Read or MSNBC:
"Onyango Obama — the president’s illegal alien half uncle — admitted to sufficient facts today in his drunken driving bust and his case is being continued without a finding for one year — but he must surrender his license.
Obama, 67, was ordered to give up his license for 45 days, effective today, a Framingham District Court judge ruled. He left court without speaking to the press.."
And this is the President's fault because.....?
Because... they have the same last name...
*gasp*
I suppose they can't deport Uncle Omar like his Aunt Zetuni either. Their lives would be endangered.
I knew there had to be a reason, Feisty. Last name must be it.
Haven't you heard NDD - Uncle Obama has dinner at the White House every Sunday with the family! lol
This place reeks of desperation from the right wing nuts!
I know! I'll open the windows to air the place out! Get some fresh spring air in here!
Guilt by name association who would have thunk it .......Wow
Obama/Biden 2012
Rob and Bob
do you have anything to say about the article at hand? If not, then please stop bashing our president and his family on this thread, and save it for elsewhere. Theres a nice long article about Obamas uncle on www.boston.com. You can comment there.
Must be a bad day for the right. If we play the guilt by association game, Jeb Bush is to blame because his brother George used to be a very, heavy drinker. Wonder how often Papa Bush got George off the hook?
Bush's niece go in trouble for prescription drugs. Bush's daughters got in trouble for underage drinking. Bush was an alcoholic.
This is all Obama's fault.
Bob in Virginia again,
Are you trying to make some point with the story about the President's half-uncle?
"Homosexuality is an abomination." sayeth the Lord. Don't worry homo's you will enjoy your time in hell I'm sure.
@Spadez At the risk of feeding the trolls... might I ask WHERE in the bible is that quote located?
Spadez - I believe there is also the verse "judge not lest ye be judged." So, I guess you'll be there in hell welcoming them!
I have a very large family...and I don't agree with everything they do or say and wouldn't want to be judged on their behavior, particularly since some of them are bat-@!$%# crazy (my father-in-law thinks glen beck is a moderate). But if someone was biased enough to want to do that (and desperate enough to reach for any ridiculous thing they can find to discredit someone they can't discredit on real issues)...then that's a two way street and we should be in awe of that uncle....because he's related to the President of the United States....pretty damn impressive.
Did'nt an earlier SCOTUS, back in the 60's I believe, declare marriage a "basic human right?
They said this when overturning laws against inter-racial marriage.
This organization can say whatever the Hell they want, however their tax exempt status needs to be revoked IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
I'm going to boycott their cookies too
I think those cookies are made with lard. Have you seen Maggie Gallagher lately? Brian Brown is closely catching up to her. Apparently working hard to deny equal rights makes one extremely hungry. Or maybe it's just karma having fun?
Given all the good work the Southern Poverty Law Center has done over the decades advancing the cause of black civil rights and the high esteem in which the SPLC is held by the civil rights community, I wonder how homophobic black folks will feel about being on the same side as an organization like NOM which the SPLC formally identifies as a hate group?
It's a lot like siding with the KKK.....especially since NOM's primary donors even wear robes and funny pointy hats.
In the documents NOM also stated their intent to "sideswipe Obama". I'm sure that will be a winner with black & Latino voters.
"the president's illegal alien half uncle" who cares
Now we know why crazy Ricky Santorum started talking about pornagraphy. He is following the NOM playbook.
Is it any surprise that a hate group like NOM would use a racial wedge strategy?
Once again the Harper Valley GOP is behind undermining happiness. I find it difficult to believe that one can love their neighbor as themselves and deny their neighbor the same happiness, stability and love that they say they have. Their marriages can't be too fulfilling and stable if they are easily threatned by anothers. Anyway, I hope same-sex couples treat each other better than many of the "straight" couple marriages I've seen. My advise to people who have difficulty with other people's lives and happiness: see a therapist.
NOM is running scared. They know they're running out of time and if they don't pull their movement and base together to do their damage now, they will fade to an obscure fringe group in the few years ahead. Some day when marriage equality is the law everywhere in the nation, people will look back at this quaint fringe group and compare them to the flat earth society.
NOM has proven in the past to be willing to use dishonest means to acheive their ends. Remember the altered photos, to make it seem like they have more people at their rallies?
This is just sad, especially considering the way gay people and black people have worked together in the past. Martin Luther King JR's speechwriter and right hand man was Baynard Rustin, a gay man. Some of the first integrated watering holes were gay bars and for many women of color who are told by the mainstream media they are not attractive, gay men are often the first to praise their unique beauty and boost their self-confidence.
What is also sad is that in the black church. there was not this virulent hatred and gays and lesbians have had their role to play. As long as they were not shoving it anybody's face, many black churches tolerated and even welcomed the voices, talents and skills of gays and lesbians. It is because family is important to blacks and Latinos that the idea of casting out their own children, blood relatives is unthinkable to many. NOM obviously does not realize that homophobia drives gay men underground into sham heterosexual marriages which only brings heartache and desperation which leads to dangerous pressure-valve release in unsafe, clandestine sexual encounters, which leads to black women being endangered.
What has NOM done exactly to help minority families and straight marriages? Nothing! Have they helped our families deal with the stresses and strains of hard financial times and racial discrimination? Have they helped our men deal with the burdens of being a minority in America and how it impacts their self-esteem in relationships? Have they helped married couples learn how to communicate better, deal with stress and be more supportive?
Whether gays get married or not, these issues will STILL affect black and latino families. But NOM is content to make up lies and make people believe that somehow gays and lesbians, NOT economic hardship, sexual incompatibility, parental baggage, male-female communication issues, inexperience, emotional immaturity, low self esteem, the stresses of parenthood and trying to be mongamous against one's human nature, that threaten their marriage.
Ya, they're just deniers, denying the complexity of humanity. I'm glad they're losing. Maybe some of them will learn something.
hahaha a anti-gay bigot group stooping to despicable levels to deny equality to good, and innocent people, shocking. Every anti-gay hate group stoops to lies, and despicable tactics to persecute gay people.
how people like this still exist amazes me.
I am an independent, but an Obama supporter - but I don't believe this organization alines with the sentiment of all republicans, esp that of voting republicans who are fiscally, not socially, conservatives. But people like Ricky are spewing this type of garbage to the public; and in poor rural areas, who have less access to education and who are not subjected to a progressive society, they will feed into it and continue yet another generation of hate and intolerence.
why does anyone care what another person does behind closed doors - get over it and just stay out of their business already.
Because the GOP can't win any elections without the redneck, hillbilly, evangelical vote. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. They're called "the base".
sam-298381
LOL, the Democrats can't win any elections without pandering to minorities and poor people, They're called "the Base".
There is no appreciable difference in income between democrat and republican...both have rich and poor members. However....the red (republican) states tend to receive more in federal benefits than they pay out....and the blue (democrat) states tend to pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
So the poor that the democrats "pander" to....are republican poor.
" minorities and poor people, They're called "the Base".
No, they are called Americans. (as are the "redneck, hillbilly, evangelicals")
The biggest difference is there's no inherent disgrace in being a minority or a person of limited financial means, who are identified here as the Democratic Party's "base." There's plenty of shame in being a redneck bigot or a hypocritical evangelical, clinging to and cherry-picking from Bronze-age beliefs, who are identified here as the Republican Party's base.
It's legal in Canada and the sky hasn't fallen. Go Canada! The true Land of the Free.
As is the case in several European nations. All the scare-mongering by religious zealots can't disguise the fact that none of the horrors they claim would happen, actually ever did happen - no rise in promiscuity, no "teaching gay sex" in the schools, no increase in the divorce rate relative to the marriage rate, no disasters or "smitings" from a supposedly wrathful God. When same-sex marriage was enacted, life went on as before, the only difference being more people became happily married.
You know what is really a threat to black and Latino families right now? Increased poverty and the drug and criminal elements in the hoods and barrios. When a man has been laid off from his blue- collar job and cannot provide and feels emasculated and worthless it affects his marriage. When a woman has to slave two or three jobs and there is no time for romance, communication, it affects her marriage. When fathers are not around because they are either dead or in prison or have to travel to other states to find work, it affects the entire family. When values of empathy, manners and courtesy learned at home are eroded the minute a kid walks out his door and is confronted by the gangsta culture, it affects families.
NOM says they are so concerned for black and Latino families, really? Why not tackle some of these issues? Because I cannot see how Tyrone and Big Daddy getting hitched or Rosita and Carmen getting hitched are going to either add or subtract from these already existing problems.
Where does NOM stand on the really important sins, like "coveting your neighbor's servant" and worshiping false idols. You know, the important sins that made the top 10 list?
#1 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength; love your neighbor as yourself.
I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Though I'm not a supporter of gay marriage, I'm not really in any position to tell anyone what to do. It's their choice. They can accept whatever happens good or bad.
A religious conservative group acting in a nefarious manner that would embarrass their Christ? Oh Pashaw! They would never do such a thing. This is just a liberal conspiracy to supposedly unveil how evil religious political groups really are. And as we all know, believers in baby Jesus would never do such a thing. It is libelous I tell you!!!
So, if gay sex is so bad, why didn't it make God's top ten list? Apparently, gay sex is not nearly as bad as "coveting" your neighbor's man servant, or "worshipping false idols".
Shouldn't the GOP focus on a constitutional amendment banning "false idols", and "coveting" before they worry about lessor offenses (in the eyes of God and Jeebus), like gay marriage?
Tell me about! It's about time I had me some of that gay sex. It's been a while!
Well, according to the Old Testament "lying with man" is considered "an abomination", the same as eating seafood without fins or scales - eating clam chowder, crab Louis, and shrimp cocktails are also abominations.
But really, what has sex got to do with it? Marriage is not required to have sex, and banning "same sex marriage" won't decrease the amount of gay sex going on at all. On the other hand, legal gay marriage does decrease promiscuity a bit.
Being gay is not a sin. Gay actions are. If you can be clean, and gay, there isn't a problem in my book. However, my beliefs are that gay sex and the sort are wrong. I can't force this view on other people, but I can let them know (respectfully) what it is.
Here's a helpful hint on how to respectfully denigrate your fellow man's humanity - just say:
I'm sure most gay folks will appreciate your input.
It's still made the list of abominations XD
As did wearing mixed-fabric clothing, and eating figs.
What a silly cult you have.
I dont think the GOP is against gay relationship because they are the one always getting caught in them. They are just against them getting married so the will not be tied down to one relationship.