Leave a Comment Sagesse
Alvin McEwen and simple answers to NOM’s complicated lies
May 31, 2011
By Adam Bink
South Carolina blogger Alvin McEwen, who has done some great work on NOM and the right-wing anti-LGBT movement, today wrote a great “guide” to refuting NOM’s own talking points, titled
Marriage Equality – Simple answers to NOM’s complicated lies
In it, Alvin debunks NOM’s own talking points used at rallies, press releases, blog posts, everywhere. Examples:
NOM – “Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage.”
Truth - No religious group (or any individual for that matter) will be forced to endorse anything. Those are just words used to scare people. And tax exemption controversies have nothing to do with marriage equality, but rather how far should religious exemptions go if religious charities demanding these exemptions are using tax dollars. For example, is it fair for Catholic Charities in Illinois to have the right not to allow gays to adopt children they care for even if these charities are receiving over $30 million in tax dollars (after all, the gay community does pay taxes).
NOM – “Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
Truth – This is a lie. The nonpartisan webpage Politifact found that this claim was inaccurate. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, same-sex intimacy is not in the curriculum. Even those who oppose marriage equality, such as Marc Mutty – who helped lead the charge against it in Maine – said that this claim is hyperbole geared to motivate people through fear.
In reality, conversations about same-sex households probably happen already in schools amongst the students themselves. Again, according the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home. It’s safe to say that a vast number of these children attend public schools. Is it fair for them not to be able to talk about their families?
The whole thing is worth browsing through, and maybe add some of your own.
Filed under: NOM Exposed
10 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Carol | May 31, 2011 at 5:05 am
Do the students talk about same-sex relationships among themselves? Of course they do.
Anecdotal evidence: In the late 90's, my son had an incredible middle school social studies teacher who was adored by all his students, past and present. To my eyes, he was an obviously gay man. At 11, my son was convinced otherwise, because the teacher had referred to his mother in law. Within 2 years, my son and his friends had figured out the situation on their own.
2.
Janet | May 31, 2011 at 5:42 am
Schools teach children about sexual reproduction.
They do not focus time on other sex acts.
3.
Sagesse | May 31, 2011 at 7:32 am
This is REALLY interesting.
The United States of Justice Kennedy: Noah Feldman
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/how-it-b…
4.
Sagesse | May 31, 2011 at 10:04 am
Progressive Military Chaplains Fight Back
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/3…
5.
Sarah | May 31, 2011 at 10:48 am
#4 Sagesse: I really appreciate all of the articles you post here. That was yet another one that made my heart smile and just hope that others will here the reason in the argument!
6.
Sagesse | May 31, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Family Research Council Hate Reel
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/05/family-resea…
7.
Sagesse | May 31, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Fighting without funds: Federal money pulls out of the war on bullying
http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/05/31/fightin…
Cutting spending on the backs of the vulnerable and the non-voting.
8.
Sagesse | May 31, 2011 at 9:55 pm
The biggest lie: "There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
The Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights. The right 'to marriage' is a couple right. The fundamental constitutional right is the individual right 'to marry'. A person is born with the right to marry. Sometime later, that person decides to marry, chooses the partner they want to marry, and that partner chooses them. Their marriage creates a family, which, in the traditional NOM model does not yet include children.
The interest of the state in civil marriage is essentially an interest in protecting and supporting families. Some protections affect the couple (survivor rights, inheritance rights, various public and private spousal benefits) and many more support their children. The fundamental right to marry provides LGBT couples and their families with access to the protection and support that the state provides, through civil marriage, to families.
The related lie: "Protecting traditional marriage protects children." DOMA laws (allegedly) protect the children of married, opposite sex couples. DOMA laws, by denying marriage to LGBT couples also deny their children the support and protection that civil marriage provides. Children do not choose their parents, and the children of LGBT couples are being penalized because of who their parents are: they are being denied the equal protection of the law.
9.
Joe | June 1, 2011 at 1:56 am
Lawrence v. Texas:
"Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as … preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."
Hmmm. I wonder what "other reasons" Justice O'Connor was talking about when she wrote the above.
10.
Sagesse | June 1, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Does NOM intentionally ignore the campaign finance laws of every state where they stage an anti-equality push?
NOM, Family Council register to begin fundraising for marriage battle
http://minnesotaindependent.com/82212/nom-family-…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.