Brandon Brawner spent a year training Los Angeles groups that opposed Proposition 8. Now the West Hollywood activist runs a phone bank here to block a repeal of Maine's new same-sex marriage law on election day.Saying this over and over again does not make it true. But it is laughable, coming from a side that attempts to shame and bully."The tactics they use are fear and lies," Brawner, 29, said of his opponents.
[Much more after the jump.]
Up the road in Yarmouth, Kym Souchet worked the phones to urge voters to reject gay marriage.Notice how this is worded? "reject gay marriage"? It's restoring bride+groom marriage licensing. As I've pointed out many, many times, it's not "gay" as there is no requirement for sexual orientation – it's "same-sex". And it is only "marriage" by court imposition on the English language.
The home-schooling mom said she was stunned at times at the response she heard."Home-schooling" is thrown in there in an effort to marginalize her. Notice Brawner's occupation is not used to describe him.
Maine voters will decide whether to repeal a law that redefines marriage as the "legally recognized union of two people" regardless of gender. The law is on hold pending the referendum.At least that is better than what happened in California, where the court deliberately insisted that neutered marriage licenses be issues ahead of the impending vote.
In particular, Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the Sacramento-based company that managed the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, is directing strategy and media operations for pro-repeal groups in Maine.Once again, it isn't to "ban gay marriage".
Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the bill into law May 6, has thrown his political clout behind legalizing same-sex marriage after opposing it in the past.There's a reason for that. Civil unions are not marriage. They are different kinds of associations and it is okay to treat them differently. However, if he was so concerned about this, he could have insisted on a law treating those in civil unions as spouses, like California had with domestic partnerships. Really, this is not about protecting anyone – it is social engineering; imposing the idea that there is no difference, even though if there wasn't a difference we wouldn't need terms like "heterosexual" and "homosexual".The two-term Democrat changed his mind when he discovered state statutes contained "400 rights and responsibilities that are only available under marriage, not civil unions," he said in a telephone interview. "That's not fair, and it's got to be fixed."
State Atty. Gen. Janet Mills weighed in last week when she rejected claims that the new law would require "the teaching of homosexual marriage to young children in public schools," as pro-repeal ads and mailings consistently warn.Not by itself, no... but when combined with other laws and court rulings, teacher unions, and homosexuality advocacy groups, of course state schools are going to teach the state position – which will be that two men is the same thing as two women is the same thing as one man and one woman. Why do you think GLSEN exists?
Baldacci's former campaign manager, Jesse Connolly, runs No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, a political action group seeking to [neuter marriage licensing]... Unlike his opponents, Connolly has invested heavily in paid staff, opened five offices around the state and drawn about 120 volunteers or staffers from out of state.Just thought you should know.The group has used Virginia-based McMahon, Squier and Associates for TV ads and placement, and other out-of-state companies for political consulting and direct mailings.
Most major newspapers in the state came out over the weekend against a repeal.Yes, nobody knows better what our marriage laws should be than a bunch of people working for a dying industry, right? It's not like most newspaper editorialists are known for siding with social engineers, right?
The simmering culture war, at times, has a religious cast.
One need not believe in any traditional religion to see that the state has an interest in licensing bride+groom pairings that it does not have with other kind of voluntary associations.
Finally, at the end of the article, we learn that...
Brawner flew to Portland to volunteer for a week, and then extended his stay for two more weeks after making a deal with his employer -- a company that produces entertainment and advertising for China -- to work online during the day.
Which company would that be?
Attention people of Maine: Don't surrender your vote to activists who try to guilt you with appeals to emotion. Marriage licenses are issued on YOUR behalf, and marriage laws apply to all of us, and will have an impact on future generations. Vote to maintain marriage instead of allowing it to be redefined into meaninglessness. Affirm that both husbands and wives form the core of marriage. Do not go along with the devaluing of that important bride+groom dynamic.
Who's really deceiving who here?
ReplyDeleteA question I have for all of those who are claiming that it is a "lie" that same-sex marriage will be taught in Maine schools if Prop 1 fails, because it isn't required by statute that the schools teach marriage:
Just what are you then saying is the truth, then?
As I see it, those who claim that opponents of neutered marriage are "lying" about this are then left with two possible "truths":
1. That most children are going to go through the entire K through 12 years without ever hearing any discussion of marriage or issues related to marriage from any of their teachers.
Is this what you are implying is the truth here?
Does anyone really believe this?
Or are you implying this:
2. That marriage is bound to be addressed in school, yes, but when it is, it will still be presented as if it were between a man and a woman, even with SSM legalized. It will not be presented as merely "between two persons" regardless of gender, even though that is how marriage will now be defined legally if Prop 1 fails.
Is this what you are implying is the truth here?
Does anyone really believe this? Again, who's deceiving who here?
Come on, all of you who are accusing supporters of Proposition 1 of "lying", let's hear what you believe the "truth" is. If there's another option I've missed, let me know what it is. As I see it, it has to be one of these two, or a mixture of them.
If this is not what opponents of Proposition 1 mean when they say that its supporters are "lying" when they say children will be taught that marriage is now "between any two persons" regardless of gender, or that they will be taught that same-sex marriage is equal to opposite-sex marriage, then it is the opponents of Prop 1, like the opponents of Prop 8 in California, who are engaged in outright deception.
(Continued from above)
ReplyDeleteThis involves the use of argumentative chicanery. I'm not even sure if there's any specific term for this, but it involves the use of a true statement to imply a corollary which is not only false, but knowingly false.
Let me give another example of this method, which I encoutered many years ago during the during the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. A concern of many people then was that if the ERA passed, women would have to be drafted whenever men were.
In response to this, a frequent retort of ERA supporters was this line: "Congress already has the power to draft women".
That, of course, was true. Congress had the power to draft women, if it decided to. It also had the power to extend the draft age down to 12 or less or up to 80 or more, if it decided to. But it never decided to do any of these things, even if it did have the power. Under the ERA, however, the question was whether women would have to be drafted whenever men were.
Note that the true statement, about Congress' power, was used in the hope of implying a corollary, that it thus made no difference whether ERA passed or not in regard to the drafting of women. That was false, and most of those who used this "argument" knew it to be false. It rested on the assumption that enough of the public would draw the false implication. However anyone feels about the ERA or about drafting women (and I'm not trying to get into any discussion of either issue), it has to be admitted that this tactic was simply dishonest, indeed mendacious, when used by those who knew better.
Similarly now, with the debate over whether a genderless definition of marriage will mean that children will be taught that definition in schools.
A true statement, that nothing in the statutes specifically requires the teaching of marriage, is used in the hope of implying either of two corollaries, that children will hear no discussion of or relating to marriage, or that if they do they won't be told that marriage is now between two people regardless of gender if that becomes the State's definition.
That is false, and many of those using this "argument" know it to be false, though I believe many also have deceived themselves into believing it in a way similar to how so many people deceived themselves about the emperor's new clothes.
But people who use this line need to be called out on it. They need to be asked, if proponents of Prop 1 are "lying", which of the two scenarios above are they contending is the "truth".
Oh, and have you seen the latest? The ad that says "Maine schools would not teach anything that is inappropriate".
Of course, that depends on what one's definition of "inappropriate" is, doesn't it?
To this line, just ask them if they think it's inappropriate to tell children that marriage is just "between two persons" regardless of gender, and that same-sex marriages are equal to opposite-sex marriages.
See, what the advocates of SSM know, is that in order to sell this to the general public, they cannot let the cat out of the bag that this must alter the cultural perception of marriage for the entire population, not just homosexuals as they desperately want the general public to believe. This is why it needs to be pointed out that there is no way that neutering the definition of marriage can anything but radically alter the cultural perception of what marriage means for the entire public.
The people of Maine need to have this brought to their attention in the next ten days. Abe Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Hitler said if you tell a lie often enough it will be believed. Please, Maine voters, don't be fooled by mendacious tactics.
An addendum:
ReplyDeleteI have tried to assume, and where possible will continue to try to assume, that arguments or responses made by those who disagree with me are made in good faith, unless it becomes impossible to do so anymore. In the case of the line being used to maintain that SSM will not result in children being taught a new definition of marriage, I am finding it impossible to assume good faith anymore. Maybe for some ("Emperor's Clothes" effect), but not all.
So, again, if supporters of Maine's Prop 1, or California's Prop 8, or anyone else who says neuterizing marriage will lead to the schools teaching that definition are "lying", then what is the "truth"?
ReplyDelete1. That most children are going to go through the entire K through 12 years without ever hearing any discussion of marriage or issues related to marriage from any of their teachers.
Or:
2. That marriage is bound to be addressed in school, yes, but when it is, it will still be presented as if it were between a man and a woman, even with SSM legalized. It will not be presented as merely "between two persons" regardless of gender, even though that is how marriage will now be defined legally if Prop 1 fails.
Come on, SSM supporters, lets hear it.