« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
03/18/2011
National poll bends our way; National Org. For Marriage wishes their treasured illegality wasn't so aptly noted
A new WashingtonPost-ABC poll indicates majority support for marriage equality:
Five years ago, at 36 percent, support for gay marriage barely topped a third of all Americans. Now, 53 percent say gay marriage should be legal, marking the first time in Post-ABC polling that a majority has said so.
Slim majority back gay marriage, Post-ABC poll says [WaPo]
Which is a good thing. Not a comfortable lead, one certainly well within a margin that'd lead national voters to commit an electoral error. But it's a positive, nonetheless.
So of course since it's positive for gays, it means that NOM is all kinds of "nu uh" about the findings. Though what's interesting this go around is how, exactly, Brian Brown is framing his pushback:
Opponents of same-sex marriage took issue with the poll, which asks respondents: “Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?” Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, argued that the term “illegal” could be inferred to mean that violators could be imprisoned, which most Americans would consider harsh.
We say interesting, because the concept with which Brian admits to have a problem is the truth. Actuality. The factual lay of the land. Because these are the undeniable stakes of this debate: Whether it's legal or illegal to marry a same-sex couple under state and federal law. That's the discussion on the table. Illegality is what Brian, Maggie, and the rest of the NOMmers want to place upon our relationships.
The problem is that Brian is so used to the contrived "protect marriage" waters in which he swims that he doesn't seem to be able to see the genuine point on which his life's work hinges. Or at least isn't willing to admit the truth in public, injecting claims of bias into what is actually a straightforward assessment, the same way he and NOM insert mud into most every aspect of what should be a far-more elucidated dialogue.
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
