RECENT  POSTS:  » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel » A hill of beans: 'Ex-gay'-defending legal firm selling coffee to fund discriminatory endeavors  

« 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