12/07/2012
NOM hitches its desperate boat to far-right, exceedingly anti-intellectual military meme
Another morning, another instance of the National Organization For Marriage arguing to "protect" against something that no one on our side is seeking.
This time it's military chaplains who are in the discriminatory organization's focus, with NOM president Brian Brown claiming in an email blast that military chaplains might be forced to marry couples if we don't pass an unnecessary bill that some of the most reactionary members of Congress have proposed:
Senators Roger Wicker and James Inhofe have introduced these provisions in the Senate as a stand-alone bill, the "Military Religious Freedom Act of 2012," but the Senate leadership has blocked their efforts every step of the way.
But even if the Senate never votes on the Wicker/Inhofe bill, we can still protect the Defense of Marriage Act and the religious liberty of our military chaplains, who could otherwise be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies as part of their official duties.
We have one chance, but we need to take action immediately.
TAKE ACTION: Defend Marriage and Military Chaplains under Attack! NOM Marriage News [NOM]
"One chance"?" Ugh. I am so damn tired of the anti-intellectualism.
This ridiculous "chaplains might be forced to perform marriages" meme began last year, when the Defense Department made it clear that military chaplains could—I repeat, could—perform same-sex marriages on military bases IF THEY WANTED TO DO SO. When the government clarified that ability, the most anti-LGBT members of Congress (led by Todd Akin, funnily enough) jumped at the chance to exploit the intelligence of the American public. They immediately took the option—the option, let me repeat—and acted like it was force. These anti-equality opportunists, already pissed about Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, began yelling from the rooftops: "THEY'RE GOING TO FORCE RELIGIOUS PERSONNEL TO MARRY GAY SOLDIERS!!! AAAAAHHHHHHHH!"
It's one of those claims that should be too ridiculous to even dignify, something Leader Pelosi made clear when she was asked about it at the time. But the patent ridiculousness never matters to the far-right factions that hope to insult and exploit the lower information citizen. They turn a choice into a requirement. In their twisted script, a freedom becomes a deprivation of the same. And even though no religious person is ever forced to perform any kind of marriage ceremony for most any reason, oft-maligned and frequently stigmatized same-gender couples are portrayed as the ones who are going to break that whole system for everyone. Even though we aren't seeking such a right (who the hell wants to be married by someone who doesn't want to marry you?!), they just go ahead and say that we are. The overall message: "Those mean, militant gays strike again!"
It is egregious behavior that takes a steaming dump in our reasoned discourse. This is precisely why NOM, an organization that has become a veritable outhouse for such behavior, is so quick to jump on the deceptive meme.
------------------
------------------
12/06/2012
Americans know anti-gay discrimination is problematic (*despite 'values' groups' efforts to diminish concerns)
When it comes to the ongoing conversation about equality and who is winning it, this is some hopeful new data:
Gallup recently asked Americans to weigh in on discrimination against gays and lesbians and a majority, 63%, describe such bias as a "serious" or "very serious" problem. Even more LGBT Americans, those who directly encounter prejudice in its various forms, agreed: 88%.
Read more: Gallup: 63% Of Americans Say Anti-Gay Discrimination 'Serious' Problem [Towle]
This is a clear repudiation of the "victim" role that the other side has aggressively adopted in recent years. Groups like NOM and FRC have worked day in and day out trying to make their groups and personalities seem like the ones harmed, harassed, and hurt at the hand of the "homosexual agenda." Not only are Americans not buying that spin, but a healthy majority of this poll's respondents indicate that the very work that these same groups call a cause is (a) the true negative and (b) of heightened concern.
Fascinating.
Group that argues against us (In court. Of law) claims gayness should be treated like drug addiction
Homosexuality is like smoking, drug addiction, and adultery, according to a new graphic that the Liberty Counsel is pushing. Full image at link:
Liberty Counsel: Gays Are Damaging To Society ‘Just Like Smoking Or Drug Addiction’ [Think Progress]
It's as if the other anti-gay legal group, Alliance Defending Freedom, pays LC to make them look more mainstream.
Who knows? With so many legal fights ahead, maybe that's the "pro-family" side's new strategy.
National Organization for [Business Owners' Unbridled 'Right' to Discriminate]
Maryland's fairly passed Question 6 read like this:
Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
Nobody ever promised vendors that they would have the right to discriminate at will. OBVIOUSLY. But leave it to the ever-fallacious National Organization For Marriage to take the above text and act as if it is false if it doesn't guarantee such vendors such a right. In reaction to a local business that has chosen to end its wedding-centric commerce rather than fairly accommodate any same-gender couples who might come along, NOM writes:
The ballot shown to Maryland voters used 25 words to described (sic) the redefinition of marriage but over 70 words claiming false religious exemptions for people and institutions who disagree with redefined marriage.
Sure enough, as we warned, citizens in Maryland who disagree with redefined marriage are now being forced out of the public square and are NOT protected under the redefining marriage law passed in Maryland.
SOURCE: NOM Blog
As you warned? AS YOU WARNED?! Well then you warned with a factually incorrect, purposely forked tongue, NOMMERS! Because no one on our side—NO. ONE.—was claiming that local businesses would be free to sidestep standing nondiscrimination laws that pertain to public accommodations! We wouldn't have made that claim because that claim would have been legally ludicrous.
This is the perfect example of nothing ever pleasing the NOM crowd. Since the religious exemptions that our side fully supported do not grant them the unfettered right to discriminate at will, this NOM writer is telling readers that those religious exemptions are "fake." And since one local business is being told that he is not going to be free to tell otherwise qualified same-sex couples that their money is no good simply because they are gay, NOM is all like, "see, see—we told you so!" even though they are positing a counterpoint to a point that we never made! They are just so desperate to be proven "right" that they are concocting a wholly false scenario that puts hidden motives into what is a cut and dry legal situation—one that would apply in many instances regardless of whether or not the particular jurisdiction has marriage equality or not.
Business owners cannot just discriminate whenever they want, so long as they ascribe a faith motivation onto that shutout. That is not a hard concept to understand. There is not even the beginning of a debate here. NOM is just so desperate for traction in the aftermath of its devastating four-state losses that the organization is trying to mine controversy out of fair-minded obviousness.
LDS Church feigns unity; still reduces our orientation to 'attractions', fights our right
The Mormon church has launched a whole new campaign and website asking gays to "stay with us." This from the church that worked overtime making sure that California's same-sex couples didn't stay with each other legally and that still refers to LGBT people as making "lifestyle choices."
Promo video (not a parody; really):
Video: Dan Savage picks up one significant piece of paper
Seattle PI:
**BTW—Dan is wearing a Liberty University tee. Ha!
Equality returns to Pacific Time Zone; 'Slog' documents history
Just a heads up. Go check out The Stranger's Slog blog for some great coverage and heartwarming pics from the beginnings of marriage equality in Washington state:
Dan Savage and Terry Miller
"What we are doing today is living up to the founding ideals of this country." [Slog]
Couples, who are currently at the licensing step, will be free to marry on 12/9 (and everyday thereafter). Fittingly, that's also the first full day of Hanukkah (starts at dundown on the 8th), a holiday all about perseverance, family, and letting your light shine no matter how forcibly some might try to keep you down.
ADF confuses itself with Webster's, own echo chamber with America
The anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) is passing around this graphic on social media:
Well that'll show us! They name a limited reality that doesn't match fact, make it look like an official definition, couple it with a properly pink/blue pair of stick figures, then slap their logo on the whole shebang? Then f*** me—I gotta out of this debate! How can I ever compete with such compelling discourse?! So strong. So powerful. It's completely destroyed everything I know to be true. Game over. I'm taking my heretofore legal marriage and giving up on the whole thing, both personally and politically. A sad day for pro-equality activists everywhere. The ADF just won. [::le sigh:]
I kid. This exceedingly silly attempt to define by limitation is as myopic as the organization that created it; it's as aggressively ignorant as all of the other talking points that this movement wrongly considers to be persuasive.
The truth is that the ADF can have, hold, and share whatever limited definition they want. They do not, however, have the power to create their own legal vocabulary that we must all blindly follow. The constitution follows a higher standard than whether or not one of the stick figures is wearing a dress.
