Here is the video of NOM's latest tv ad which is the second in their new series on religious liberty and marriage: "No offence"
And here is a rough transcription:
[More below the fold]
* * *
Subtitle: Carrie Prejean, Miss USA Pageant -- April 2009.
Voiceover: She's asked her opinion about marriage.
Carrie Prejean: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there.
Voiceover: Then she's attacked.
Perez Hilton: She's a dumb #%*&#! ... Okay?!
Voiceover: A pro-marriage group talks about how gay marriage impacts religious groups.
Subtitle: Is supporting marriage bigotry?
Joe Solmonese of HRC: It is not longer palatable or okay in this country to be an outright bigot.
Subtitle: Protect religious liberty.
Voiceover: They attack if you oppose gay marriage because they don't want to debate the consequences.
Subtitle: "... it will create legal conflicts for individuals, small businesses and religious organizations ..."
Voiceover: To read what scholars say about the legal conflicts gay marriage creates, go to NationForMarriage.org.
* * *
Over the protests of gay marriage advocates, a group of prominent religious liberty scholars (including scholars both for and against same-sex marriage) recently warned the Connecticut legislature that a bill codifying the state supreme court's ruling on same-sex marriage raised the potential of "widespread and devastating" effects for religious liberty, if robust exemptions were not provided for faith groups and religious organizations.
Here is a link to the letter [PDF]
* * *
Connecticut's legislation to merge nonmarriage (ie. SSM) with marriage includes religious exemptions which, I think, are inadequate. But they do confirm that NOM is correct about the inevitable conflicts; and that NOM is correct about the pro-SSM campaign's misleading characterizations of those who'd disagree with the merger.
The contrast is well illustrated: 1)Carrie Prejean's civil response to the question about marriage; 2) Perez Hilton's vulgar and demeaning rant against Carrie Prejean because he disagreed with her; and 3) Joe Solmonese's judgement that marriage is "unpalatable" and that exercising one's religious liberty and freedom of conscience is an act of bigotry.
Hilton's verbal attack was as tasteless as Solmonese's accusatory rhetoric was intolerant and bigoted.
But at least they showed their true colors. Their own inexcusable behavior serves as a mirror reflecting back onto the pro-SSM campaign's blatant assertion of supremacy via identity politics.
The SSMers in the ad illustrates that SSM proponents aim to impose their "morality" and to force people to submit to a peculiar sectarianism. They have dropped the benign pose of "live and let live".
Well done, NOM.
Thanks for the link Chairm.
ReplyDeleteThis incident has really highlighted the SSM proponents lack of tolerance towards other peoples ideas and beliefs.
As if SSM opponents show tolerance towards other people's ideas and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteOneMillionMoms urges readers to write letters to Miley Cyrus disapproving her ideas and beliefs.
Peter:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
Peter, what intolerance did you mean to highlight at that particular link?
ReplyDeleteIt does not look like a tuquoque. On the other hand the reaction of SSMers against Miss CA is just more of what had been more of the same old acting out of the first axiom of SSM argumentation.
To disagree is an act of bigotry or something like a thought crime.
The fallacy is to argue that one wrong excuses another.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to excuse what anyone said about Carrie Prejean. Frankly, I think that Perez Hilton is an idiot. What he said was wrong. He is a detriment to the cause he wishes to promote.
Two wrongs make two wrongs.
OneMillionMoms gets credit for not being vulgar, but they are clearly saying that they do not approve of what Miss Cyrus said.
Miss Cyrus is not a political figure in a position to advance or vote for or against some proposition. She's sixteen.
Do you think that organizing a letter writing campaign directed at a sixteen year old -- on the basis of her thoughts -- is an expression of tolerance?
I don't.
Chairm, one of the things I like least about many SSM proponents is that tendency you describe -- to insist that disagreement is proof of bigotry. I wish I could eliminate it, but I'm not exactly the pope of the SSM movement. If you ever catch me doing it, call me on it.
I don't think what you linked to actually measures-up to an expression of intolerance.
ReplyDeleteIt does not fit the accusatory remark in your first comment.
It is not mere disagreement with beliefs and ideas that is at issue in the original blogpost. Nor at issue are the means of delivering an expression of disagrement or concern.
At issue is the explicitly stated axiom that to disagree is itself bigotry.
There are principled SSMers who object to the more vulgar expressions of that axiom, but it does appear to be at the root of the SSM movement It is prominently displayed by the most prominent proponents in every venue that has been used.
Is there bigotry expressed by some on the pro-marriage side? Yeap, but it is not at the root of the marriage movement.
Nonetheless, the SSM movement tajes as a leap of faith that the default position that one's defence of marriage is guilty of hatred until proven innocent in a kangaroo court comprised of SSMers.
Do you think that organizing a letter writing campaign directed at a sixteen year old -- on the basis of her thoughts -- is an expression of tolerance?I think it was a rather stupid action on the Million Moms part to organize a letter writing campaign against Miley Cyrus, particularly since in none of the quotes they gave did she actually say she was for SSM, though she came close. Rather, she was obviously trying to give a Hollywood-safe answer without going all the way. And since you never know what some of the letter writers might say, it was opening a Pandora's box that could come back and bite them.
ReplyDeleteMiley Cyrus is far more of a celebrity than Carrie Prejean, however. I think the Million Moms concern is that she can influence far more kids, but they were best just leaving it alone. It was a bad move. But celebrities of Miley's standing, whatever their age, are public figures, like it or not. Because they can influence so many, their words will come under scrutiny.
In Carrie Prejean's case, however, the message is that the "wrong" beliefs are not going to be tolerated even by someone with a brief fifteen minutes of fame.
So, no, neither case would I call "tolerant". But there is a difference in degree here.
...one of the things I like least about many SSM proponents is that tendency you describe -- to insist that disagreement is proof of bigotry. I wish I could eliminate it, but I'm not exactly the pope of the SSM movement. If you ever catch me doing it, call me on it.Thank you, Peter.
ReplyDeleteAlso, big difference: From what I read, Miley Cyrus offered her opinion without being asked specifically to give it.
ReplyDeleteCarrie Prejean was asked directly her opinion. One-to-one. She was quite content to keep her views to herself before, but when asked she felt she had no choice but to answer truthfully.
It's one thing to attack someone for volunteering their opinion on a controversial issue when they did not have to give it (and again, I think the Million Moms should just leave Miley alone). It's another thing entirely to attack someone when they were specifically asked to give their opinion. And when the person who asked the question is the one who then attacks them for giving an honest answer, it's despicable.
R.K., I appreciate that you recognize that OneMillionMoms went too far in calling for a letter writing campaign directed at a teenager.
ReplyDeleteI think that both sides would be well advised to avoid making a big deal out of whatever some celebrity says.
Developing.
ReplyDelete