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


Non-winning org. faults non-discriminatory opponent for non-controversial tweet

by Jeremy Hooper

Those of us who wonk out on this LGBT political stuff often use the phrase "marriage states" as a shorthand reference to the eighteen of our fifty (plus D.C.) where marriage equality is a legal reality. The flip of that is "non-marriage states" when we reference those who have yet to catch up to history's right side.

It's not some secret attempt to change people's thinking. No one is hiding it. It would never occur to most of us to mask this shorthand jargon, as most of us would never believe our opposition to be desperate enough to try to turn it into a thing.

Enter the increasingly desperate NOM. In the pro-discrimination organization's most recent blog post, an unnamed writer is seriously trying to fault Freedom To Marry, the pro-equality Velma Dinkley to NOM's carefully masked rights thief, for using "non-marriage states" in a tweet about current polling. The anonymous NOM writer asks:

Did Freedom To Marry Mean To Say This?

In any case, we think they said what they mean.

We're talking about a tweet from the truth-bending same-sex 'marriage' activist group touting a new (bogus*) poll that claims new majorities favoring redefining marriage. [*They only released the result of a single question, so we have no idea what information came before or after that might have conditioned respondents; we also know nothing of the nature of the sample.]

But the bit that got us was that phrase, "even in non-marriage states."

First-of-its-kind poll shows majority support for #marriage even in non-marriage states. See how we've moved forward: http://t.co/Tt31oo9AtI

— freedomtomarry (@freedomtomarry) January 30, 2014

In what states? So much for same-sex 'marriage' being merely about 'equality' and not about fundamentally redefining the very essence of marriage: now states that uphold the institution of marriage as it has been known and affirmed since the beginning of civilization - as the union of one man and one woman - are "non-marriage states."

According to Freedom to Marry, the only true marriage, we guess, is the very recent and unprecedented figment of marriage as a genderless civil contract between two persons (that is, for now), and distinguished by... well, who-knows-what other criteria?

FULL: Did Freedom To Marry Mean To Say This? [NOM]

It's almost too childish to even dignify. NOM is seriously accusing this Freedom To Marry tweeter of some sort of covert attempt to declare that all of the states without marriage equality are actually devoid of marriage altogether. Even here in NYC, I can smell the desperation wafting over from NOM's K Street office.

Also downright hysterical coming from an organization that calls itself "pro-marriage," "pro-family," and "pro-life." By NOM's own logic, their usage of those political phrases pit everyone who doesn't share NOM's view as against marriage, family, and life. This is obviously not the case, since people like me are working in this movement precisely because we want to protect our marriages (I have a great one), families (I have a growing one), and, by extension, lives (I'm a big fan of mine!). The FTM tweet is just a benign shortening more befitting Twitter's 140 character format; those politically charged phrases that NOM and related groups use are, in fact, designed to put their opponents on the defensive. Though somehow I think the irony of their faux outrage will be lost on the NOM staffers.

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