by Kevin Sparrow

The increasing vocality from “traditional marriage” defenders the National Organization for Marriage, they of the gathering storm and awkwardly confused children ads, from Maine to Iowa has been monitored closely by same-sex marriage proponents, so it seems appropriate to take account of what this group is actually saying. They have even helped out by providing a list of talking points to their adherents, which you can read by following the link (up to your discretion).

The first statement they purport is that their view of marriage as a union between man and woman is “just common sense.” Common means something we all share, and when the country is split fairly evenly on the issue of gay marriage, there is no way that the current status of marriage is common sense.

The deplorable and contradictory rhetoric of these talking points continues directly from there with what they deem the “single  most effective message”: “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” First, this pulls the argument back to homosexuality being a choice, and second, recognizing marriage as a right for all people is not redefining it. Amendments to the Constitution do not alter the fundamental beliefs on which it was founded; they just broaden its power. The same would be true of civil marriage if recognized as belonging to everyone and highlights that we in the LGBT community do not have the right to live as we choose when many rights are denied us, including federal marriage.

The most inconsistent part of these talking points come in the FAQ section. After urging their members to “shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage” and “n[o]t get sidetracked” by peripheral issues such as gay rights, discrimination or benefits (the primary concerns brought about by this argument and the reason it exists), NOM spends much of its time discussing the role of having both a mother and a father in parenting–a completely separate issue from marriage–and even discusses adoption when discussing couples who may not be able to conceive. “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this.” Adoption, in most states, can be achieved in or out of wedlock and even by single people. If their goal is to talk solely about their (limited) view of marriage, they are doing a very poor job of putting that message across.

They also try to make this argument from that framework: “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.” We get that common sense thread again; as common sense as equating bigotry as solely against racial minorities. No, NOM, you are not like racists, but you are bigots.