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


Lies about schools + certified hate group = moral victory?!

by Jeremy Hooper

camenker-labarbera-yes-on-oneWhat helped tipped the balance toward bias in Maine? Well according to Peter LaBarbera, it was the contribution of Brian Camenker, the leader of a SPLC-designated hate group:

In the final days of the campaign, Americans For Truth and MassResistance worked with Maine pro-family stalwart Paul Madore of the Maine Grassroots Coalition to educate citizens on the role of outside radical homosexual groups in the “NO” campaign. Madore ran a print ad featuring Brian Camenker’s popular article, “What Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ has Done to Massachusetts”; it reached 500,000 Mainers. And Madore’s press conference last Wednesday — though curiously disavowed by the pro-traditional-marriage “Yes on 1″ group, Stand For Marriage Maine (SFFM) — received wide media coverage. That, combined with some hard-hitting ads by SFMM targeting the promotion of “homosexual marriage” in Maine schools, may have tipped the balance against the “gay marriage” law.
‘Gay Marriage’ Loses in Maine, Kalamazoo Passes Pro-Homosexual Ordinance, GOP Sweep in Virginia [AFTAH]

"Official" misrepresentations coupled with rogue extremism? Well, it's as bad of a theory as any.

*Oh, and there's more. Matt Barber weighs in on how his side defeated the "hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle," and he too credits Camenker and company for bias' triumph. Pam has that: A few words on Maine and the dying hog of homophobia [PHB]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

All that anger from Prop 8 is back!! I can't beleive that the people of Maine bought into the lies and ignorance of Maggie and her minions! I think the problem is that the playing field is so small each time this comes to a vote. If NOM had to spread it's money to more than one or two places, they wouldn't have enough money to make a difference.

I have an idea, though. In all the states that HAVEN'T voted on our rights, let's do what that guy in California is doing: Start a petition against divorce! If we can get people to vote on that (you know it wouldn't pass), the argument to "protect marriage" wouldn't be so strong.

Posted by: John in MN | Nov 4, 2009 8:53:51 AM

John in MN, that thought occurred to me this morning too. If they really want to protect marriage they'd be asking for a ban on divorce!

Posted by: keltic | Nov 4, 2009 9:03:04 AM

Hmmm - I worked hard on my comment, got a

"We're sorry, we cannot accept this data"

comment when I tried to post it, and my comment disappeared. On top of the Maine result, though, that's just a small irritant.


Posted by: dave b | Nov 4, 2009 10:52:20 AM

The main argument that both NOM and SFMM have continuously used is that same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage because it denies children the right to be raised by and loved by their own biological parents. You have heard Maggie Gallagher say this over and over ad nauseam.

I posted the following question on the SFMM Facebook awhile back…

“Divorce also denies children this right. And using the religious-right's own numbers, where they say the overall percentage of the population that is gay is somewhere around 2-3%, not all of them are in committed relationships and are raising children. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that all of them are.

When taking into consideration that the average divorce rate is around 57%, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which one of the two, same-sex marriage or divorce, would have the larger impact by a significant magnitude on denying children the right to be raised by and loved by their own biological parents.

So why then do we not see groups like the Mormons, the Catholic church, NOM and SFMM trying to ban divorce, not to mention with the same fervor we see them going after same-sex marriage with?”

… it was deleted almost immediately of course.

I agree with the previous comments, this argument needs to be exposed for what it is: prejudice and bigotry, plain and simple. A push to ban divorce would never be successfull, of course, but the effort would sure get people talking...

Posted by: Mitchell Devlin | Nov 4, 2009 11:06:39 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails