RECENT  POSTS:  » Maggie 'always-the-victim' Gallagher did nothing to earn her anti-gay reputation » Anti-gay activists still don't realize 'recruitment' claims make them look ridiculous » Florida pro-discrimination activist John Stemberger's history leaves no room for LGBT people » Read: Federal Judge strikes down Florida marriage ban; stays ruling » Video: Southern Baptists promote upcoming anti-gay (and pro-'ex-gay') conference » The marriage debate per anti-LGBT, pro-discrimination activist » AFA's daily prayer equates homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia » GLAAD: What FRC's exploitation of Robin Williams' death is really about » Scott Lively's new mission: Making America's churches super-duper extra anti-gay » BYU protects the sanctity of pre-printed greetings  

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

10/06/2013

Anti-gay voices failing, NOM now promoting marriage equality advocate

by Jeremy Hooper

NOM apparently thinks this speaks to its anti-equality cause:

Screen Shot 2013-10-06 At 4.26.31 Pm

Thing is? Ms. Ooms is actually a supporter of same-sex marriage. In his 2010 book, The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn specifically noted that Ms. Ooms is one pro-marriage voice who is very much in support of marriage equality.

But more than just being supportive, Ms. Ooms is also a critic of the divisive NOM agenda. As early as 2004, Ms. Ooms was speaking to the press about the "protect marriage" movement's divisive agenda. At the time, she pointedly said of same-sex marriage and the then-fervent push to ban it, "There are so many reasons why marriage is threatened. This is certainly not one.." This statement is a clear repudiation of NOM's founders, Robert George and Maggie Gallagher, who were the ones leading the charge to push marriage bans.

Moreover, in the 2002 policy document where Ms. Ooms brandished the quote that NOM cites, titled "Marriage and Government: Strange Bedfellows?" Ms. Ooms made a point to note the skeptical view "that treating marriage as exclusively a heterosexual institution discriminates against gay and lesbian unions and their children." So right there, even in the very source document that NOM is using, it's clear that Ms. Ooms feels some commitment to ensuring the welfare of homes differ than the one she posited as an "ideal." This is why in the words immediately following the text about two married parents (which, I should note, she wrote before same-sex marriage was legal in any US state), Ms. Ooms goes on to note this reality of our world:

However, for many children, marriage is not a feasible or desirable option for their parents. Thus, the second goal is to help these parents — whether never-married, separated, or divorced — to be financially responsible and cooperate, whenever appropriate, in raising their children. These are not alternative goals. Children need us to pursue both. [SOURCE]

This is not someone who speaks for NOM. In fact, this is a person who is likely quite uncomfortable with the highly exclusionary NOM agenda and its reliably reductive practices (e.g. pulling a quote out of context and making it sound like it's meant for discrimination).

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