RECENT  POSTS:  » Sen. Manchin picks odd way to (D-istinguish) himself » Photo: Before city council votes on nondiscrimination, Charlotte anti-LGBT activists frame us as 'Homo-Nazis' » AG Holder: 'Marriage equality is an idea whose time has come.' » Viciously anti-gay activist Scott Lively to help us show SCOTUS what animus looks like; thanks, doll! » Audio: NOM prez equates his anti-gay fight with defeating slavery, conquering 'evils that were occurring in the Roman empire' » SCOTUS deals another blow to NOM; more to surely come! » Federal judge strikes Nebraska's discriminatory marriage ban » CA Republicans of 2015 do thing that will make CA Republicans of 2025 say, 'Yeah. Okay. so?' » NC activists choose name that sounds like Lifetime movie, plot that's discriminatory » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism  

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

12/18/2013

NOM's latest red herring completely sidesteps most pertinent legal point

by Jeremy Hooper

Check out this duplicitous framing:

Screen Shot 2013-12-18 At 12.41.06 Pm
[NOM]

What NOM neglects to tell you is that the reason—the only reason, I might add—that the man does not have to divorce his same-sex spouse before entering into an opposite-sex marriage in North Dakota is because that state does not recognize same-sex marriages as valid. North Dakota does not grant same-sex marriage or same-sex divorce. In terms of North Dakota state law, which is the only area in which the Attorney General was speaking, it's as if the same-sex marriage never happened.

If talking about two marriage equality states, a married person would absolutely have to divorce his or her husband or wife before he or she could ever marry anyone else of either gender. But apparently NOM doesn't think that's important. Which actually makes sense, in a way, since NOM seems to think that the civil component of marriage (i.e. the very thing the marriage equality movement is seeking) is the least important part of the whole conversation.

And of course what this really speaks to is the lack of sustainability within our current patchwork of laws, which vary from state to state and yet again federally. But NOM doesn't want you to think that way either. They want you to believe that one state's refusal to come around is reason to invalidate the sixteen marriage equality states' peaceful progress. That's because NOM is a truly terrible special interest group.

Pagebreak-354

**MORE: Zack Ford has a nice writeup on what the AG's opinion does and does not say: North Dakota Attorney General: Same-Sex Marriages From Other States Don’t Count [TP]

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