RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/24/2009

Filling in NOM's conveniently excised words

by Jeremy Hooper

Since fully fleshed out thoughts are the enemy of their cause, the National Organization For Marriage doesn't want you reading Iowa Governor Chet Culver's full comments on his state's fair-minded marriage ruling. This is why in their latest anti-equality video, they snip Culver's words so as to make him seem tyrannical and unfair.

We, however, are big fans of transparency, reasoned consideration, and taking time to actually think about what is being said before acting with a reactionary knee jerk. Which is why we've taken the liberty of reinstalling the 577 surrounding words that Maggie Gallagher and company removed from Gov. Culver's explanation as to why, exactly, he opposes any attempt to tyrannically overrule what a unanimous court found to be constitutionally sound. Enjoy:

DES MOINES – Governor Chet Culver today issued the following statement after reviewing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien:

“I have carefully reviewed the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision on civil marriage and discussed it with the Attorney General.

“Let me begin by saying that I recognize that the issue of same-gender civil marriage is one that evokes strongly held beliefs and strong emotions both for and against. These beliefs and feelings need to be respected. I hope that the views of those on all sides will be treated respectfully and will not be subjected to name-calling or fear-mongering, but instead will lead to rational discussion.

“At the outset, I want to emphasize that the question before the Iowa Supreme Court was one of civil marriage only – a state-recognized legal status constituting a civil contract. Civil marriage always has been, and will continue to be, separate from religious marriage that takes place in churches and places of worship.

“As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions. The Court does not have, nor should any court ever have, that kind of power over our religious lives. Our churches and places of worship are free to decide for themselves, as they were before, who may enter the sacred covenant of marriage. As the Supreme Court’s decision states, ‘The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.’

“Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision...

Picture 4-252

...to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.
“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

“I urge Iowans who hold beliefs on all sides of this issue to exhibit respect and good will. Our state faces many serious challenges. We are in the midst of a serious economic recession. Tens of thousands of our fellow Iowans are without work. We have suffered the worst natural disasters and most difficult recovery our state has ever faced. We must join together and redouble our efforts to work toward solutions that will help Iowans in this time of uncertainty. That is where, I believe, my focus and energies should lie.

“Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Iowans, all neighbors, united in the promise and faith of a brighter future for our state. Let us all work together toward that common goal.”

Governor Culver Issues Statement on Supreme Court's Decision [Chet Culver]

Paints a much clearer picture, dontcha think?

But we're actually a little surprised that NOM didn't include the last line of the next to last paragraph. After all, "my focus and energies should lie" would seem to be their organization's mission statement!


***Here's the ad in question, for those who have yet to know the joy:

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I seem to remember there being something important in the good book about bearing false witness.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Aug 24, 2009 10:47:06 PM

If NOM is so hell bent on traditions, why does Maggie continue to use her maiden name, instead of her husbands name, which is a tradition of marriage. Perhaps she's concerned "Srivastav" won't play as well to the audience she's trying to reach.

Posted by: Jane | Aug 25, 2009 8:14:28 AM

What a reasonable position. Focus on real threats, we don't want your church, we just want the courthouse and those religious institutions that are friendly to us. That's all most SSM advocates ask of our opponents, and Governor Culver seems to get it. No wonder NOM couldn't, to quote an over-quoted movie line, handle the truth!

Jane, that's interesting about Maggie Gallagher's last name. Last week, I read that about 50 percent of Americans think a woman should be legally required to take her husband's name at marriage, according to a recent poll. (http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/should-women-be-required-to-take-their-husbands-last-name-when-they-get-married-500992) Now, I regard this as blatantly sexist and overly intrusive, to say the very least. But Mrs. Srivastav seems to welcome that sort of thing. How about it, Maggie?

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Aug 25, 2009 10:04:40 PM

OMIGOD... You mean that someone actually married this person? Talk about Taming of the Shrew!

Posted by: Doug | Aug 26, 2009 12:39:21 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails