RECENT  POSTS:  » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house » AL Chief Justice Roy Moore calls marriage equality worse than segregation decision » And by opposition 'from all sides,' FRC means exclusively from the (R) side » Video: What it looked like when that thing happened today  

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

04/18/2013

Desperate to link gays to polyamory, NOM claims 2011 story as new

by Jeremy Hooper

I've been noticing the National Organization For Marriage attempting to link the wholly (and obviously) separate conversation of polyamory and theoretical legalization of such marriages with the topic of marriage equality for same-sex couples (as in two people). But yesterday, NOM really showed its agenda-laden colors.

Check out this snip, an intro from a NOM Blog post:

Screen Shot 2013-04-18 At 9.21.16 Am-1
[NOM Blog]

Only thing? What NOM says is "coming out of Canada [yesterday']" is actually a commentary piece that appeared in the uber-conservative Washington Times on January 17 of 2011! It has nothing to do with the Slate commentary that NOM leads with and has zero to do with marriage equality for same-sex duos. But NOM staffers, as I said, sees this whole polyamory card as maybe something on which they can hang their increasingly flailing hat, which is why they so hastily found and linked to this 2011 story. So desperate; so telling.

The truth: Marriage for polygamous couples, like marriage for anyone, will be decided on its merits. Same-sex couples have made an able case in the courts of both public opinion and law, which is why we are winning. As Americans (or Canadians), we all have the right to make just about any kind of public case that we want. Because marriage exists as an institution, any single human being can make a case to marry anything he or she wants, in just about any number or structure. We all have free will. However, if there is a "slippery slope" of possibility (and there is, insomuch as any concept comes with its own inherent potential for further discussion), then it's marriage itself that slickened it—not same-sex marriage. But possibility does not equal merit. Same-sex couples and allies have more than met the smell test, ably stating the legal reasons why the gender of the groom/bride/taxpayer is not a valid reason to limit civil marriage rights. Anyone else wishing to make a case must also form, articulate, build support for, and ultimately prove their case. If there is legality attached, then said case might prevail. But if there is no legality, no link, precedent, biblical root (and there is ma nor one with polyamory), or DeGeneres is going to aid the legal team.

I expect to see NOM ratchet up this desperate attempt to force gays to answer for this unrelated notion. My suggestion: Don't take the bait (even if they do find a news story less than two years old)!

**

*On a related note: This attempt to force gays to answer for polyamory is an example of why so many Americans get so tired of the far-right, socially conservative movement. It's not just the push for discrimination and attempt to overstep into our lives—it's also the constant stream of anti-intellectualism! They turn commentary and thought exercise into liability. If someone tries to have a public dialogue, they're reliably like, "SEE, SEE, SEE—WE TOLD YOU!!!!" before then running to attach whatever fear they can mine out of the scenario to the nearest political opponent they can find. It is so reductive and so intensely detrimental to our public discourse.

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