Junior Michael Komo, the president of Allied in Pride, argues that opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history.
The National Organization for Marriage is one of the only organizations in existence that is still fighting for discrimination in the 21st century. NOM has now opened an office here in D.C., a new effort from an organization that is ultimately on the wrong side of history. NOM seeks to undermine same-sex couples, deny them the 1,138-plus federal rights that come along with marriage, and treat them like second-class citizens. However, the more that NOM pushes for inequality, the stronger the gay community becomes in our fight for equality.
You failed to acknowledge the real enemy – religion. +70% of Americans “believe” homosexuality is “wrong.” Until those beliefs change, there will be no equality for LGBTQ.
So, instead of fighting the believers, we must reject those beliefs. Religion defined us as wrong sinful and deviant. NOM is a religious group and they are winning.
Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch_private?v=bTTXrmP7BS8&sharing_token=Ir44EJWPL5uuw1Mx2GR33Q==
To Brian: How is this +70% determined as “wrong”? Who gave “them” the right to say it is wrong? When divorce is over 50%, marriage can ONLY be fixed by eliminating divorce, this will protect the children. Marriages are falling apart in states where same sex is forbidden in states’ constitution.
Mass. which has had same sex marriage for 5 years, has the lowest divorce rate in the Union! Same sex couples are not a threat to the younger Americans, they do see the religious hypocrisy though. They know gay or lesbian people or they have family members who are. So gays and lesbians are not a threat to them. Older Americans don’t want to know gay or lesbians because it would destroy the “Boogyman” that “threatens” their marriage.
The Boogyman is the pure essence of fear, as he is made of fear, and as long as people have any fear at all, he will exist. Boogeyman can be used metaphorically to denote a person or thing of which someone has an irrational fear. Irrational fears have been instilled in Americans almost since the beginning of the country. Witches, fear of foreigners, Chinese were excluded in the late 1880s, Italian & Irish discrimination in the 1900-1940, race hatred even today.
Many same sex couples don’t want anything to do with religion in their marriage. The Connecticut Justice of the Peace performed a very dignified ceremony for me and my spouse. It did not include religion , I am happy to say.
Until we truly believe All Men are created equal, then the LGBT community will never have full civil rights.
Dude, “The right to marry anyone” means “marriage” between consenting incestuous adults too. You can’t have one without the other, and we’ll get it the same way that you want to push you agenda on us – by activist judges.
Why are you so opposed to adult incestuous “marriage” anyway? Why all the hate against “marriage” between committed, loving incestuous adults? What could represent family values more than a father marrying his adult daughter, or two brothers marrying each other? Why do you cling to an outmoded, primitive superstition?
Michael,
“The state has no place telling a religious institution what marriages it ought to perform and vice versa.”
Actually, you have the vice-versa wrong. If religious people and institutions have no place telling the government what they want or don’t want then it really isn’t a government of the people, by the people, for the people anymore.
Now whether a religious person’s view is infringing on your rights is another question, but don’t confuse it for whether he or she has a place in public discourse.
I also find it interesting that gay marriage advocates use the acceptance of interracial marriage as analogous to accepting SSM, but refuse to accept SSM as analogous to accepting polygamy. Why is that? What really is harmful or detrimental to society with polygamy that couldn’t also be found in SSM or opposite-sex marriage, for that matter? Please give me one reason SSM should be accepted but polygamy outlawed.
Whether you want to believe it or not, committed and long-lasting marriages between one man and one woman are statistically and scientifically proven to be the best and most beneficial environment to men, women, children and society. Denying marriage to various forms of alternative lifestyles are not demoting the practitioners of those lifestyles to “second class status”, but rather regarding the best interests of society.
Interracial marriage is not equivalent to SSM. And though once illegal in the U.S., it has been occurring for thousands of years because, at the risk of overstating the obvious, men are men and women are women.
The GLBT community is starting an uphill battle if it wants to convince most people, regardless of their religious persuasion, that homosexuality is not at best, something that should be practiced but not endorsed by law, and at worst, deviant and immoral.
The author is wrong on so many points, but let me comment on one. The author says that the homosexual community does not want to redefine marriage. This is a wrong statement. Of course they are trying to change the definition of what marriage is. Reason must be used and distinctions must be made.
Marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman that includes their bodies becoming one flesh with the possibility of bringing forth a baby from their union is one reality (there is not space to deal with those who are over child bearing age, etc.). Two men cannot unite their bodies due to a lack of bodily complimentarity. This is a different reality than the male/female bodily union. This is a difference. Let’s not call different things the same thing.
Also, two men cannot, even potentially, bring forth a new baby. One union, marriage, is often fruitful, whereas homosexual sexual acts are sterile. Once again, this is a difference. This is a huge difference.
Marriage is a reality that has these definite characteristics, namely, bodily diversity and love that can be fruitful. Homosexual sexual acts do not include these characteristics.
The author fails to see the essential connection between these characteristics and the nature of marriage. Absent the characteristics, absent marriage. Use reason and don’t call an apple an orange.