Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 7)
How extreme is the National Organization For Marriage? Well get this. Back in 1996, when that awful Defense of Marriage Act was passed, NOM's Maggie Gallagher actually spoke out against it. Because she found it to be -- get this -- TOO TIMID:
Maggie's syndicated column, 9/15/1996:
So what Maggie really wanted was something like a federal marriage amendment, which surely would have stripped away things like domestic partnerships and civil unions as well. Which really makes us wonder: If left to their own devices, in what "non-timid" way would NOM really hope for their Maine cash to be spent:
$1.1 million of the $1.4 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine in October came from a single source: the National Organization for Marriage. In fact, the Washington, D.C., organization has bankrolled more than 60 percent of the campaign to ban same-sex marriages in Maine.
Money fueling battle over gay marriage [Bangor Daily News]
We certainly don't wanna find out!
The National Organization For Marriage: This group is extremist. This group is unfair. This group is hellbent on destroying anyone who gets in the way of their narrow path. At this point, this group (coupled with the Catholic church, to which NOM is strongly tied) essentially is Stand For Marriage Maine (the group pushing the 'Yes on 1' side) .
We have one week to defeat this group. What will you do to help?
*EARLIER: Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 1) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 2) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 3) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 4) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 5) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 6) [G-A-Y]
If Maggie gets her way, the next step would be public stoning to murder gay people.
Posted by: Michael | Oct 25, 2009 5:54:13 AM
If Maggie's family really were following the Bible, they should have stoned her after she gave birth to an illegitimate child.
Posted by: Mykelb | Oct 27, 2009 4:05:06 PM
The easiest way to debunk such a miserable excuse for an article is to comb through and put her arguments through rigorous impartial tests for correctness. As an example, her 7th paragraph:
Claim: "It means the federal government believes people are no longer entitled to have negative moral views about homosexuality."
Analysis: this is false. People are entitled to whatever views they like. They may even believe "morally" that homosexuals should be stoned per the book of Leviticus; however, federal laws do not and should not derive from one specific religious text.
Claim: "Or at least that people are no longer entitled to act on these views."
Analysis: false again. People who believe homosexuality or gay marriage are wrong, DO and WILL ALWAYS have the freedom to not partake in these. However, it is true also that societal norms, as well as individual liberties, do not and should not derive from the wishes of one specific set of people, whether they happen to have a narrow majority or not. Especially when such rights would have a tremendous positive benefit for the group they represent, and would have zero negative effect on the group in opposition.
Posted by: Drakar2007 | Oct 27, 2009 7:10:34 PM
Maggie is so illogical. She says in the article "the right to sex," in another article she said "two dudes" getting married.
It's a tactic to undermine the emotional integrity of gay relationships and make them seem purely sexual. I hate how people think being gay is about sex, it's not at all, emotional attraction is at the core of sexual orientation.
Posted by: Casey | Nov 1, 2009 1:30:22 AMcomments powered by Disqus