How LATimes.com Blog Covers NOM

An LATimes.com blog reports on NOM's latest work. Jessica Garrison words it this way:

Opponents of same-sex marriage launched a campaign today to re-ban gay marriage in Iowa.

I could just as easily give the same information by wording it this way: "Those who believe the traditionally universal notion that marriage unites the sexes have launched a campaign today to restore that requirement to marriage licensing in Iowa."

The National Organization for Marriage, which was active in getting Proposition 8 approved by voters in California, sent out an appeal for donations to run advertisements on behalf of political candidates who oppose same-sex marriage.

I no more oppose "same-sex marriage" than I oppose the sound of red.

It said the first ad would support Republican Stephen Burgmeier, who supports putting the issue of same-sex marriage to a vote in the Hawkeye State.

Wow, imagine that - a vote of the citizens! What a radical idea.

In April, Iowa became the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court ruled that a law defining marriage as only between men and women was unconstitutional.

Again, the phraseology is flawed. Nobody was preventing these pseudomatrimonial arrangements before. How about: "In April, Iowa became the third state in a nation of fifty to neuter marriage licensing by order of the state Supreme Court; only six states currently have neutered marriage licensing. No state has neutered marriage licensing by popular vote."

[I analyze some of the reader comments after the jump.]

In the reader comments, you can find a lot of the usual bad arguments.

"mike" wrote August 24, 2009 at 05:07 PM:

gays pay the same taxes, and deserve the same access to public services and civil protections as anyone else.

Whether state marriage licensing is neutered or not, gays have that.

once every supporter of this ban lives his/her life according to every single obscure rule in the old testament, in the name of morality, then that group may be able to speak without looking absurd.

One need not even be a theist to support the bride+groom requirement. But marriage was affirmed in the New Testament. He goes on to bash the Old Testament in a way that demonstrates he has probably read "new atheist" writers (or material based on them), but hasn't bothered to seriously understand how various religions interpret and apply the Bible, and why. He strikes me as a hit and run Bible mocker.

"DPA" wrote August 24, 2009 at 05:59 PM:

All the time and energy wasted to keep a few percent of the population from the joys of marriage all while 50%-plus of all 'regular' marriages, 10s of MILLIONS, end long before "death do us part".

Wouldn't your efforts be better suited to end divorce if you are, indeed, the national organization FOR marriage?

Ah, a Shameful Ploy.

If you think so DPA, do you plead with the marriage neutering activists to stop their efforts, so that NOM can devote more resources to dealing with divorce? Our side didn't pick this fight – it was brought to us, and shoved in our faces.

Would you really support legislation and media campaigns intended to reduce the number of divorces?

Regardless, divorce does not justify marriage neutering.

"Jeffery P. Segall, RN" wrote August 24, 2009 at 07:11 PM:

More hatred from those who shouldn't judge.

Where is the hatred? And why shouldn't we have our own opinions on public matters?

Going to church no more makes you a christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.

Agreed!

Maybe if most of these people tended to their own gardens, we'd all be a bit happier.

State marriage licensing applies to all of us.

"Tim Kelly" wrote August 24, 2009 at 08:37 PM:

If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex!!!!

If you don't want to use a state license the way it is, don’t use it! Or, convince enough of your fellow voters to support changing the requirements of that licensing so that it is something you want to use. But that's not what happened in Iowa, is it?

"Tom" wrote August 24, 2009 at 09:01 PM:

What is their infatuation with homosexuality? Could it be they are seeing something in themselves they do not wish to see. Sounds like a case of the lady protest to much me thinks.

Ah, another Shameful Ploy.

"Deborah" wrote August 24, 2009 at 10:29 PM:

Anyone over the age of 18 should have the freedom to choose their life-partners

Nobody is stopping anyone.

and every married couple should have the same legal rights.

Every similarly situated married couple should have the same legal rights. A married couple comprised of two pedophile sex offenders, for example, should not have the same parenting/adoption rights as a married couple without that sexual orientation.

The questions at hand are: What should be the legal definition of marriage, and who decides?

The blog may still be taking comments, so if you want to go and add yours, go ahead. They could always use some solid thinking on these things.