RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too  

« 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