RECENT  POSTS:  » Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans » Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief » Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking » NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case » Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If you feel like you hear about another marriage case every day, here's why » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition  

« 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