Thursday, December 19, 2013

Out of options, NOM desperately tries to tie marriage equality to polygamy - again

The folks at National Organization for Marriage have (yet) another post in the pipeline today (not on their blog yet) disingenuously connecting marriage equality to polygamy. On Monday, I wrote about Tony Perkins mischaracterizing a federal court decision in Utal. At the risk of repeating myself, what NOM and Family Research Council are saying is that equality advocates lied when they said that marriage equality would not lead to polygamy. Ergo we are deceitful. Ergo marriage equality is baaaad. Take that you [fill in the blank]! Even if true (and it is not) it is a contorted logic chain.

Their "evidence" is the fact that the judge in the Utah matter cited Lawrence v. Texas. While Lawrence found that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, it's really about privacy. The state has no right to infringe on the intimacy that we enjoy in our homes.

In their new post titled ”Children Merit Nary a Word,”  Brian Brown makes this astonishing claim:

Our concerns that gay marriage would lead to polygamy were dismissed by same-sex marriage activists as being extreme, yet the decision by federal Judge Clark Waddoups' <sic> relies on the same legal arguments advanced by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas — the same legal rationale used by courts to impose same-sex marriage and one of the chief arguments utilized by Justice Kennedy himself in declaring the federal Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.
Mr. Brown knows perfectly well that the Judge Waddoups did not legalize polygamy. His ruling was that the state had no right to define polygamy through cohabitation. As in Lawrence consenting adults have a right to intimate relationships in our own homes. Utah will not be issuing licenses for plural marriages.

In other words, none of this has anything to do with marriage — gay or otherwise.

Mr. Brown continues:
What's perhaps most troubling about Judge Waddoups' polygamy ruling is the scant attention he paid to the interests of children. The 90-plus page decision is almost entirely focused on the interests of the adults involved in the polygamist relationship — their "dignity," their "due process," their "liberty" — and contains hardly even a few words about the interests of children.
Mr. Brown knows perfectly well that this has absolutely nothing to do with children. In point of fact this is about the interests of consenting adults. Moreover, Mr. Brown knows perfectly well that this is not about a "polygamist relationship" since that would require a plural marriage.

In other words, Mr. Brown is being deceptive. He is lying in order to achieve a political goal.

It never ceases to amaze me that these people are part of the holier-than-thou crowd when it pleases them. Yet they have no problem lying through their teeth when they feel that doing so will advance their cause.

This is a meandering post that asks for money two or three times. This is about appealing to NOM's dwindling donor base. Can they be convinced that marriage equality will lead to polygamy? Will that motivate them to send money to NOM to stem the tide of the inevitable national marriage equality?

Apparently Mr. Brown thinks that his own contributors are stupid.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.