RECENT  POSTS:  » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry » Video: AFA prez expounds on organization's movement-destructive ad by adding even more religious fervor  

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

03/24/2014

And what about the part behind the ellipsis, NOM?

by Jeremy Hooper

The National Organization For Marriage has yet to offer an official response to Friday's historic federal court decision in favor of marriage equality. This even though (a) NOM has responded to all of the other pro-equality rulings that came down last fall and this winter; and (b) NOM is perhaps more responsible than any other special interest group for making Mark Regnerus a semi–household name, and Mr. Regnerus' "research" was throughly discredited by the judge who wrote the Michigan decision. NOM should feel duty-bound to respond.

Instead, the intrinsically Catholic NOM has deferred to the state's Catholic Bishops. NOM's post reads:

Screen Shot 2014-03-24 At 5.53.29 Pm
[NOM Blog]

"No one gets us but us." "We are marriage experts even though we've never been in one" "Our personal theology should guide public policy." Yada, yada, yada. It's more of the same.

What's really interesting to me is the paragraph that NOM omits via ellipsis. That deleted paragraph reads:

“As this case will likely move forward through the courts, it is necessary to state clearly that persons with same-sex attraction should not be judged, but rather accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. We rejoice with those brothers and sisters in Christ living with same sex attraction who have found great freedom through Jesus' call to chastity communicated through the Church. We equally encourage those who are struggling in good conscience to live in harmony with the Church’s teaching about sexuality, along with their families, to continue praying and to continue seeking the Lord with the help and guidance of the Church. [Full statement]

Yup, that's right: it's all about gay people needing to take the "sexual" part out of homosexuality. And of course NOM omits this because they know talking like this harms their cause. The idea that gay people have no other choice than to be "chaste" is ingrained in the throughly Catholic DNA of NOM and has been espoused by numerous NOM operators, but NOM knows it's politically disadvantageous to talk this way, so they cut out that portion of the Bishop's statement. But NOM didn't omit it because the organization doesn't agree with it—let's be clear about that. No, no—they only omitted it because NOM likes to pretend that their cause is something other than what it really is: a personally-targeted attempt to stifle LGBT people's truths.

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