RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

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

05/22/2014

NOM's 'March for Marriage' cosponsor states, as fact, that same-sex marriage 'will lead to group marriage'

by Jeremy Hooper

They've gone beyond the slippery slope fears. The Coalition of African-American pastors, a partner of the National Organization For Marriage and a cosponsor of NOM's upcoming March for Marriage, is now going ahead and laming that group marriages are, in fact, in the pipe and that we marriage equality advocates are trying to hide that "fact":

They understand their own weaknesses. They realize that any discussion of a societal redefinition of marriages is a slippery slope to practices and couplings that the public is not willing to support. They know they're not going to get same sex marriage passed if the public realizes that it will lead to group marriages.
[SOURCE: CAAP fundraising email, which also promotes NOM's march]

Well of course the public won't get behind us if they "realize" that! It will lead to so much confusion about how many wedding gifts you're required to buy. Two toasters? Three waffle irons? Who wants that headache? Especially if there's only one cake.

Fortunately, despite the social conservatives' mind-numbingly anti-intellectual attempts to pin any and every possible variation of marriage onto us, the fact is that same-sex marriage advocates have that one and only limited cause pertaining to the institution, with any potential variance (and as long there is human intuition, there is of course potential, with or without SSM) left to that particular movement to justify under law. Any that do succeed will do so because of merit, not because we gay folk are the keys that open Pandora's Box. If marriage is such a box, it is so because the institution itself exists, not because we are included within it.

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