RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

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

08/20/2011

NOM's Jennifer Roback Morse: 'Anal sex is icky'

by Jeremy Hooper

National Organization For Marriage affiliate leader Jennifer Roback Morse pinpoints three primary reasons why she is standing against same-sex couples' civil equality. In a post defending that Florida teacher who took to his Facebook and referred to same-sex marriage as a "cesspool" and "sin", Morse writes:

6A00D8341C503453Ef014E8A72Aed5970DIn my humble opinion:

1. Kids need a mother and a father.

2. Men and women are not interchangeable.

3. Anal sex is icky.

To everyone who agrees with these or similar sentiments, I strongly suggest you speak up while you still have the chance.

Taking the opportunity to speak freely while it is still legal [NOM's Ruth Institute]

Another day, another NOM staffer proving that their motivations are about the private relations of people and not just the public policy of marriage. I wouldn't say NOM staffers are getting "icky" -- but they're certainly getting sloppy.

So wait, does this mean that if their marriage work fails, NOM's next effort will be to put sodomy laws back on the books? To govern everyone's bedrooms? To get "icky" written into the constitution as an acceptable basis for denying rights? I mean seriously, what next? Because here we have a key NOM personality flat-out admitting that her work is guided, at its root, by personal detestation for certain people's sex lives. Why should any of us (of any orientation) believe that NOM will stop at its key talking point, "People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us,” when the group's spokespeople are going directly after people?

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails