Alvin McEwen and Jeremy Hooper have done the hard work in going line by line through NOM’s list of talking points, riddled as they are with inaccuracies and outright lies, and created handy, fact-based rebuttals for each and every one. I’d recommend that you read all of it, and bookmark it for later use, you know, in case you’re ever waiting in line behind Maggie Gallagher at the Big Lots, or speaking to a person on the fence.
I particularly like the first talking point from NOM, because Maggie and Brian waste absolutely no time in using race as a wedge issue to divide people. The talking point, and then Alvin and Jeremy’s refutation:
NOM – 1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”
A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”
Truth – This an unfair generalization of the argument for marriage equality. However, if one was to go there, one could point to the many instances of those claiming to protect marriage making homophobic comments which belie the claim that they simply believe that “mothers and fathers matter to kids.”
They go on to point out myriad examples of anti-gay bigots using anti-gay, bigoted language about gay people, which gives lie to their claim that this is just about “people who believe kids need mothers and fathers.” But more interesting to me is the fact that they suggest that it’s really offensive to call bigots what they are, considering the fact that many black people hold bigoted views on this issue. As if Maggie and Brian are really the ones out there fighting for racial minorities…
The second refuted talking point is one that Maggie and Brian deal with a lot, as people correctly make the connection in their minds between anti miscegenation laws and anti-gay marriage laws:
NOM – 2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?
A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”
Truth – Racists believed that interracial marriage would create genetically inferior children. Some opposing marriage equality claim that it would create conditions placing children in danger.
But neither view is backed by science. Children born from interracial relationships are not inferior. In that same vein, the majority of studies which look at children in same-sex households have found that they suffer no adverse effects.
I really enjoy that NOM lie because it can so easily be turned on its head. Basically all they do is take two bigoted things — bans on interracial and same-sex marriage — and leave the language negative for the former, while using positive words for the second. ”Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart…marriage is about bringing two sexes together.” But now, let’s turn it around! ”Bans on interracial marriage are about bringing two white people together, while bans on marriage equality are about keeping two people who love each other apart, based on the fact that we don’t like the genital composition of the household.”
See? Language is fun! The truth of the matter is that both kinds of bans are, of course, discriminatory and hateful and sane people everywhere understand that.
There is so very much more where that came from, as I said, so hop over to Alvin’s joint for the rest.