We're giving you a mission
The so-called National Organization For Marriage has launched a blog. Their blog allows for comments. You are commanded to go now and take a quick, peaceful stand for equality:
Leave a comment: Emergency Iowa Action Alert!
Words are where we win this thing. Let's represent.
*UPDATE: We just noticed that they're actually moderating the comments. So if you leave perfectly peaceful comment that is unapproved, try to make a screen grab of it so that we can point out their attempts to shut out dialogue. That story, a frequent meme of far-right sites, is another good one for us to use against their movement.
**UPDATE2: Mike Tidmus also has an idea: Thwart the haters
Done and done. This is what I said:
Actually that notion:
“The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father” isn’t “based more on stereotype than anything else.” It’s based in common sense, natural law, and the very essence of the way God designed the family structure. Marriage is about moms and dads — raising their baby together."
is nothing more than a talking point. While I respect so-called traditional families, the studies that looked at this idea of raising children compared heterosexual two-parent families to heterosexual one-parent families. Same sex families weren't even looked at. Ms. Gallagher, I think, is aware of this.
All families that provide love and support should be supported. We have no business creating a caste system for families.
Posted by: a. mcewen | Apr 7, 2009 12:13:15 PM
Well, it has been a half an hour since I posted my comment, and the "moderator" still hasn't approved it. Here is what I posted:
Brian, if marriage were entirely about raising children, then we should have laws which only allow marriage between persons who are actively raising children. The fact of the matter is that your assumption is fallacious. Marriage is entirely about protecting the person that you cherish most, and depend on - your spouse. And it is entirely immaterial in the eyes of the civil government whether that person is of the same, or opposite sex.
Our civil government requires that we protect and support our children. It is not optional. And, it should also offer to all of our spouses an equal measure of protection.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 7, 2009 12:20:54 PM
Done here also; comment #14. I said:
I think the more relevant part of the decision is where the Supreme Court stated that this is a CIVIL matter, not a religious one. Our US constitution guarantees the freedom FROM religion as much as it guarantees the freedom OF religion, and just because some groups (even the majority) believe same-sex marriage is wrong doesn’t mean the CIVIL contract should be removed.
It'll be interesting to see if it ever makes it on the site.
Posted by: Ken | Apr 7, 2009 12:24:21 PM
How do you make a screen grab? I would like to be able to do this, but I am not so tech savvy. Maybe point me in the direction of a place that explains how.
Posted by: Piper | Apr 7, 2009 12:30:10 PM
I just posted a comment as well. I disagreed with their particular post but did so ina respectful manner. My comment is also awaiting moderation.
Posted by: Carrie | Apr 7, 2009 12:30:11 PM
I politely shared this quote from veteran culture warrior Cal Thomas:
“Iowa law requires a two-year process to amend the state constitution and with Democrats controlling the legislature and homosexuals a significant part of the party’s base, it is unlikely the ruling will be overturned.”
Of course, I couldn't resist adding: "You've lost!"
Posted by: Mike Tidmus | Apr 7, 2009 1:04:59 PM
Done and I have the "grab".
Posted by: Frenchy | Apr 7, 2009 1:05:10 PM
I have posted and saved the screen shot. Where do I send it?
Posted by: Troy | Apr 7, 2009 1:48:09 PM
Here's what I posted, respectful as I could make it:
"Civil marriage is not solely about child-rearing and it is not at all about gender. Civil marriage is first and foremost about love, commitment, and the right to be legally recognized as a couple. Everyone deserves to have access to their chosen spouse, and they deserve the protections any family would have under the law should they choose to raise children.
Marriage equality is on the rise, and there is no fair or legal argument against it, but it's never too late to respect others. Live and let love."
Posted by: L.A. Fields | Apr 7, 2009 2:50:41 PM
"The government doesn’t exist to parrot the religious beliefs of a single demographic, regardless of its size. In fact, the Founding Fathers strove at every level to frustrate the formation of a majority. This is because they recognized that the rights of the minority matter, and that the minority should not always be shouted down.
"Those who attempt to stop the arc of the moral universe from bending toward justice will find their effort ultimately wasted. Fighting against equal rights will only make you an embarrassment to your grandchildren. That is not the legacy you want to leave behind."
Just lemme know where to send my screencap. :)
Posted by: Garet | Apr 7, 2009 3:09:34 PM
When I posted mine, it was the only comment on the page. Did they delete all of them?
"There is nothing ‘common sense’ about the idea that children can only be raised by a mother and a father. Study after study has shown that the only difference that children of gay parents encounter is the stigma from people that will not accept the idea that other types of family exist. Gay marriage will never go away….just accept it."
Posted by: Andrew B | Apr 7, 2009 4:48:51 PM
I have just written my post to that page and have saved my comment. As a 23-years married heterosexual woman in Ireland, I am a member of two groups who are fighting for marriage equality in our island.
I am thrilled by the news from both Iowa and Vermont and applaud all your efforts and especially the civility in the way you respond to these bigots.
Just for your info, this is what I wrote:
'I would ask your members to please note that the judicial and legislative efforts of the gay movement towards marriage equality is being watched closely in countries around the globe, as are the methods of those who are trying to block these efforts.
As a heterosexual Irish woman who has been in a happy marriage for 23 years, I am astounded by the bilious rhetoric and base false witness being exhibited by the so-called ‘pro-marriage’ groups such as yourselves, Focus on the Family, Americans for Truth and so forth in your biased and unjust stance against those who simply wish to marry and protect the persons they love and their families.
I applaud the sane and just judiciary of Iowa in their recent affirmation of the civil right for gay people to enter into full and equal marriage, and also those of the legislature in Vermont who have seen that the marriage of two people who love each other, whatever their gender, should not be blocked by those who seek to impose their religious beliefs and personal bigotry on civil law.
I am truly praying for you and all those in your organization that the veils will fall from your eyes, so that you may see how much you have strayed from the humble and compassionate spirit of Christ in your dogged and misguided adherance to selective dogma written by MEN for their fellow MEN over two thousand years ago.'
Posted by: Helen in Ireland | Apr 7, 2009 4:58:42 PM
Everyone: Be sure to hold onto your comments, or at least make note of what you said. if they don't post them, I'll round them all up and point out their unwillingness to hear from those of us who are truly affected by their actions.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 7, 2009 5:03:41 PM
Here's my letter to the legislators: and Comment. Will send you screen grab.
Please DO NOT support HR 6
I am writing to urge you NOT TO support HJR 6, the constitutional amendment on marriage. Specifically, I am urging you to vote NO on the amendment to bring HJR 6 to a floor vote before the end of this year's legislative session.
The recent decision from the Iowa Supreme Court makes one thing crystal clear:
MARRIAGE to a partner of ones choice is a RIGHT OF ALL.
Do not support HR 6.
Dr. L Dorsey
Posted April 7, 2009 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Thanks to the IOWA Supreme Court for being so clear headed about Constitutional law for all IOWANS.. Here’s hoping all attempts to repeal this EQUAL RIGHTS Law will fail.
Posted by: LOrion | Apr 7, 2009 6:20:39 PM
Here's my comment:
"Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is on record as saying that as long as he’s Majority Leader, there will be no vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage"
It's awaiting moderation, listed as #1. They must have deleted all the previous comments. It's just a statement of fact, not an opinion. We'll see how it goes.
Posted by: Bill Ware | Apr 7, 2009 6:34:19 PM
All - there are interesting "talking points" on their site that tips their hand. You know that your "movement" is in trouble when you have to rely on talking points. Read, and use:
Posted by: Sykler | Apr 7, 2009 7:39:55 PM
I left a comment at the site and used the email form, either they are deleting the comments as they come in or there's no way to see comments left by other people, hopefully they are getting inundated with comments opposing them. I did take a screen shot of my comment.
Posted by: Kathryn Miller | Apr 7, 2009 8:00:07 PMcomments powered by Disqus