National Organization for Marriage: "A Gathering Storm"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, Apr 10, 2009.

  1. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Don't let the organization's title fool you. The National Organization for Marriage is a very anti-gay marriage "grassroots" political action organization, a group who's mission is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it", a group that spearheaded the start of the Proposition 8 campaign in California to ban same-sex marriage.

    Please watch their new upcoming TV ad, "A Gathering Storm":

    YouTube - NOM - Gathering Storm


    With the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa last week and Vermont this week, the N.O.M. released a statement:


    "Today is indeed a sad day, but let all of us who understand that marriage is the union of a husband and wife redouble our commitment to ensuring that same-sex marriage does not spread throughout our nation, that religious liberty is protected, and ultimately that marriage is restored in these states as well for the sake of our children and grandchildren."

    --------------------


    The National Organization for Marriage sharpened its campaign tactics during California's Prop 8 battle by pouring donation dollars into a television commercial bombardment (anti-gay marriage commercials I must have seen at least 3 dozens times during the weeks leading up to November 4):


    YouTube - Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened

    YouTube - Proposition 8 commercial


    The group's president, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, a "leading voice in the new marriage movement", is the author of three books, "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially", "The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love" and "Enemies of Eros: How the Sexual Revolution is Destroying Family, Marriage and Sex".
     
  2. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    There will come a time when the vast majority of people will be as appalled by the promotion of institutionalized hatred and prejudice as I am watching these now and they will be amazed that such commercials were ever allowed to air.
     
  3. thadjock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,675
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    LA CA USA
    time = context

    wasn't so long ago we turned dogs and firehoses on black people just because they were black.

    good will win over evil
     
  4. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    I fail to understand how providing marriage equality to any couple for the legal contract of civil marriage affects the religious status of the marriages of others.

    Crooks and Liars has the audition tapes for this vile enticement for hatred. The outtakes are funny/sad as the 'actors' tried to act victimized.

    Personally, I would support civil unions if these were exactly the same as how the states recognize religious unions. But, I understand the point of not wanting a 'second class' status.
     
  5. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    sparky: I'm searching for that "Gathering Storm" outtake reel, but NOM had it removed from Crooks and Liars due to "copyright infringement"



    nick8: I hate when these political groups exploit kids! Trinity helped do this by posting those 2 little girls with their "letter to the president" (Little girl, to President Obama: "Why do you and Congress keep failing this country over and over and over and over....")

    In the second commercial posted above, the little girl comes home from school with a schoolbook entitled "King and King":

    Little girl: Mom, guess what I learned in school today?

    Mom: What sweetie?

    Little girl: I learned how a prince married a prince - and I can marry a princess!

    (cut to mom's horrified reaction)

    Professor from Pepperdine University: "When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, schools began teaching 2nd graders that boys can marry boys. The courts ruled parents had no right to object".


    isn't this the kind of stuff Anita Bryant did back in the 1970's? YouTube - Anita Bryant Pie in the Face
     
  6. Penis Aficionado

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    This all just goes to show the absurdity of "marriage" as a contract with the state.

    If people want to imbue marriage with mystical significance, that's fine -- they can let their church either sanction or condemn their choice of partner. But the government should have absolutely no interest in who lives with whom, or what they call that relationship.
     
  7. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    The ads are poorly done and like sparky said, the first ad fails to explain just what is being lost by the people complaining. The reason they don't state it is because they don't dare admit the truth.

    The only thing that they'll lose is institutionalized bigotry.
     
  8. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    Ya know, the part I bolded is what REALLY pisses me off!!!

    Religious liberty means that each church is able to define it's own moral standard, and that people may choose the church that best fits their own belief system. My church (which isn't really a church at all - I'm a Wiccan) is fully accepting of gay marriage. Yes marriage. Not Civil Union, not Commitment Ceremony (which has always sounded to me like a ceremony to celebrate having someone committed to a mental institution),but MARRIAGE. The Episcopal Church, many Lutheran churches, the Unitarian Universalists, the North America Reform Jews and others accept, condone, and perform same sex marriages. Opposing same-sex marriage, does in fact restrict religious liberty!

    Legally disallowing same sex marriage has indeed created a group of religions whose beleifs are accepted by state and federal governments over the beleifs of other religions. This, by the way, is unconstitutional.
     
  9. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    To play devil's advocate for a second; imagine the positions were reversed and some, or even most 'religions' together with the 'state' supported same sex marriage over the beliefs of some 'religions' which didn't. Would such a situation not represent the 'state' accepting one group of religions over another - and thus be equally unconstitutional?

    If such was the case, then the only scenario where same sex marriage would be permitted (in a context of religious liberty) requires the unanimous consent of all religions. Since this will likely never happen [or at least any time soon] is it not therefore more expedient to remove any and all [spurious] 'religious liberty' aspects from consideration entirely?

    This leaves only civil rights, and by any sensible interpretation of the constitution I see nothing therein that would offer compelling grounds for denial. It seems to me that any constitutional infractions lie less in a de facto favouring of some religions over others, than in allowing religion to be a consideration at all.

    I'm just thinking out loud really.
     
    #9 dong20, Apr 10, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2009
  10. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    Dong,

    I understand your argument, and respectfully disagree.

    If the government endorses same sex marriages, it does not force any religion to endorse or accept them. While the government allows members of different religions to marry, and accepts the marriages as valid, the catholic church will not recognize such marriages. If the US government were to decree that marriage between members of differing religions was not federally recognized it would favor the catholic church, while showing bias against religions where such unions are approved.
     
  11. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Well, the position of the US government would happen to coincide with that of the Catholic church.
    Which Catholic leaders would like, of course.
    But does that really favour the Catholic church?
    Is it an example of bias necessarily?
    I can't see why ...
     
  12. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    No. The state does not discriminate against Catholics when adjudicating divorce, which is strictly forbidden by church doctrine, and it's already "trampled" on the religious rights of Christian Scientists when it intervenes and demands medical care for their children and/or prosecutes parents for neglect when they haven't done so.
     
  13. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    If religion were purely a religious matter, then yes, I'd say dong20 was making a valid point.

    Marriage in the US is a legal contract executed between two people who choose to enter into that contract. The state may authorize clergy to perform marriages, but they are not necessary to the process. Marriage can be completely secular in the US and legally is just that. The only thing that estops two consenting adults to enter into a contract of marriage, is their sex. This is the only contract in the USA where the government restricts recognition of that marriage by the sex of the people involved in the contract. That's absurd.
     
  14. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Anti-bigamy, anti-polygamy, anti-incest laws?
     
  15. MovingForward

    MovingForward Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    YouTube - Response to the Lies told in "NOM - Gathering Storm" ad

    This youtube clip has some of the auditions in its response
     
  16. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Perhaps I wasn't clear (it was late). I was speaking only to the specific argument that JBT raised and that was deliberate; i.e. that the state not recognising same sex marriage amounted to tacit state support for one religion over another. Now, unless the state position happened to be purely coincidental then my argument was - were the state's position reversed how would that so very different?

    To the above posters, to restate, I was referring solely to the issue of same sex marriage. The use of divorce etc are valid (more on that in a moment) counterpoints but IMO, insufficient rebuttals when viewed purely in the narrow context of JBTs original assertion.

    For further clarity, I wasn't endorsing JBT's original premise, as it happens I don't agree with it - I was merely positing an alternative perspective.

    In a broader context I do believe that JBT and Bbucko's examples (and there are many others) tend to render arguments that there is a generalised state favouring of one religion over another argument somewhat risky. Thus by extension, they tend to render JBTs initial assertion; that it is so in the case of same sex marriage equally risky, IMO.

    Exactly, it's not. If it were, then I would argue that the state absolve itself entirely from any and all involvement in the innstitution, granting it the same legal and constitutional significance as for example, Confirmation or Bahmitsva.

    In the real world, while I have no significant issues with a tacit acknowledgement that (in part) it does have a religious meaning for some at least - denying same sex marriage even partly based on that ackowlegement is where any constitutional issues would appear to lie - not in any favouring of one religion over another - based in part for the arguments above.

    Indeed. If marriage is deemed to be a contract which coincidentally carries an optional religious aspect should its parties choose to acknowlege and include such - and I believe that to be the case, then the state has no sensible basis for denying any consenting adult from being party to such a contract, irrespective of sex.

    That one or more religions may deem such a contract invalid is surely irrelevant in a constitutional context. After all, as Bbucko suggests, religious considerations have no bearing on the granting of a divorce, or more accurately its legal validity. Divorce in effect, is merely the termination of a [marriage] contract, so why on earth should religious considerations have any bearing on the legal validity of its inception?

    They shouldn't and so I agree, that they do is absurd.
     
    #16 dong20, Apr 11, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2009
  17. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    With the exception of incest, are these not more in the nature of dependencies than standalone legislation, i.e. they only apply when marriage is entrered into - and they're not expressly or explicitly applicable in a context of gender or sexual orientation - as opposed to former sodomy legislation, for example.

    In other words, would such considerations not apply equally to same sex marriages?
     
  18. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Of course they would. But I was responding to Jason's statement:
    Then I responded:
    And anti-bigamy and anti-polygamy laws do stop a group of adults from entering into a contract of marriage.
    That's all I'm saying.
    I'm not sure how anti-bigamy and anti-polygamy laws would affect same-sex couples.
    If a member of a (legally-sanctioned) same-sex couple wanted one or more additional same-sex spouses, maybe those laws would forbid it.
    Any lawyers in the house?
     
    #18 D_Gunther Snotpole, Apr 11, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2009
  19. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    Here are some more audition tapes for the NOM ad.
     
  20. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    NOM has already had them pulled. Seems they don't want people to know that the "affected" in their add are nothing more than paid actors. How deceitful and insincere fro a goup that seems to want to force "christian" values on the whole of the American public.

    They make me want to vomit.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted