« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/22/2010

NOM declares another McCain 08 loss

by Jeremy Hooper

She looks fab, and her willingness to "go rogue" against her husband's own stance is certainly interesting. Although not everyone thinks Cindy McCain's latest modeling gig is all that Gr8. This from the National Organization For Marriage's latest e-blast:

You and I know that millions of decent, loving, law-abiding Americans are being characterized as bigots and haters because we know that marriage is the union of husband and wife.



One example: Cindy McCain.



You may have seen the news stories that Sen. McCain's wife announced her support of gay marriage. That's no big deal. It's a free country and everyone should be able to speak their minds, even when we disagree. But Mrs. McCain chose to express her mind by appearing in an ad campaign whose slogan is "NOH8." Get it? No to Prop 8, No Hate.



That’s a slogan that collapses the distinction between hatred and disagreement, which insults and stereotypes 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8--not to mention Mrs. McCain's husband, who campaigned for Arizona's marriage amendment.

Well it certainly ain't love, that marital bat manure that NOM craps forth as its sole organizational commodity. So while we could probably have our own deb8 about the "No H8" label, it's pretty ridiculous to hear NOM taking on the convenient numeric wordplay rather than (a) the motiv8tion that led to its adoption or (b) the fact that such a prominent GOP figure has come out against Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown's pet prejudicial project. Plus it's downright absurd to hear their continued suggestion that "I don't think you are equal in the eyes of the law" is merely a line of "disagreement," when one view crushes the souls of countless many, while the other brings no real negatives to anyone.

Is everyone who voted for Prop 8 a hater? No, of course not. But is the offensive idea that LGBT people are worthy of having their rights stripped away by faith-based bias one that's based in hate? Well, that's for you to decide or yourself. However, this conversation separating the message from the individual voter is the distinction that NOM needs to stop collapsing. And rather than get the vapors on their Victorian fainting couch when ever anyone says they're sick of NOM's handiwork, they need to ask themselves why it's just so easy and organic for someone, even prominent political figures, to see this modern-day instance of civil bias as "H8" rather than a "deb8."

Who knows, maybe they'll learn something about themselves. Better L8 than never.

***

**The full e-blast:

Your thoughts

"...because we know that marriage is the union of husband and wife." "Marriage is the union of husband and wife"? Maybe in YOUR religion, buck-o! But, YOUR bourgeoisie faith (a historical anomaly) does NOT get the right to dictate public policy! I am well aware of the work of openly Gay Anthropologist, Will Roscoe, on the Native American homosexual male tribes members who were believed to be natural-born shamans as a result (like almost every ancient culture in fact!), as well as the fact that they were highly regarded and deeply sought after by other men has spouses. It was, I believe (as with almost every culture) that the Christian missionaries and post-Colonial America subjected the native peoples and had a devastating impact upon their reverence for the Queer. (Incidentally, there was a new--never-before-seen tribe discovered in the Amazon a few years ago; the country mandated a very strict law prohibiting westerners/ modern South Americans/ and especially missionaries from corrupting their indigenous culture. 'Course, guess what happened? The Evangelical Christians pitched a fit and attempted to get a legal exemption based on religious grounds to "mission" to these tribes people. Their recourse failed--and it is worth noting that the Missionary is the BANE of the Anthropologist at destroying native cultures!) In Roscoe's most recent book--"Jesus and the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love"--he details the Asiatic shamanic tribes people known as the Chuckchi (or Chuckchee), whose homosexual shamans are known in our tongue as "soft men" and, like the Native American pre-Colonial cultures (for NA's have come to despise homosexuality, now) these specific shamans were believed to be naturally-born shamans and were deeply sought after by other men as a spouse! "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman" my foot! You apparently have an obvious distaste for the historical record! There is also evidence amid my Celtic ancestors from a Greek historian who walked among them that they seem to have preferred homosexuality, or thought it offensive to refuse the offer of Queer bed-hopping. Even the medieval Irish Brehon laws may suggest that two males could legally marry within that Celtic context. Even the late openly Gay historian of Harvard, Prof. John Boswell has shown throughout his work that the medieval Catholic Church has, albeit rarely, solemnized over the marriage of two men; and that the word "Gay" in reference to a class/ minority of homosexuals can be traced clear back to the medieval or Renaissance period. Although, I have heard a rumor about the later fall-out of Prof. Boswell's work (unless I'm confusing him for some other historian), who received special permission from the Vatican to use its archives for his research based upon his reputation as a BRILLIANT scholar and Prof. of History at Harvard. However, as I have heard it, after Prof. Boswell's materials on the antiquity of homosexuality as a community and our tolerance up until the 14th. Century when we were culturally vilified (even burned as heretics and Witches during the latter Inquisition!), those original sources which he translated and cited within his texts from the Vatican immediately vanished from the archives! Prof. Boswell also commented upon the fact that we live in a society with religiously-imposed heterosexuality (which, obviously, can be psychologically scarring for Gay kids!). According to the Defense's own witness, Dr. Nathenson, the American Anthropological Association supports Gay marriage on culturally relevant grounds. So, I went snooping and found this wonderfully-written policy statement written by the AAA (which ol Mags Gallagher would probably find some anti-Christian fault with): http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm . There's also this fascinating article by one Adrian Brune, who cites the AAA's position, called "Anthropologists Debunk 'Traditional Marriage' Claim" (don't be put off by the website; it's mission is actually to end the harm caused by religious-based bigotry!): http://www.faithinamerica.info/traditionalMarriage.php . I, for one, am so frakking tired to watching NOM, Republicans and Conservatives flooding the air-waves (and fallaciously-biased e-mails)--misrepresenting the historical and ethnographical record--and state that "marriage has always been one man and one woman for thousands and thousands of years"! That's offensive, and an out-right LIE! How do you reconcile the testimony of Dr. Young (another religious Prop 8 witness) who testified, under oath in the US of A that, "Just because something is a 'norm', doesn't necessarily mean that it's an appropriate 'norm'. It has to then be reassessed within the contemporary context to *see* if there are good reasons *why* that 'norm' should remain." Hmmm...I'm surprised that Mags hasn't, yet, tried to state that there never were any culturally sanctioned marriages between two men or two women forever and always, in every culture on the entire planet! That presumes that one thinks that Maggie is making a researched opinion; but I, and many other historians and scholars know better! I just wish that the general public were being made aware of these FACTS from Anthropological sources as i have briefly outlined above. *sigh* This beautiful work by scholars is so moving and powerful for me as a Gay man, because it shows that, despite many modern Christians (who like to claim that we did not HAVE a history until the 1970s!), we do, in fact, have an ancient and POWERFUL pedigree! GAY POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone interested in reading more about our ancient pedigree (which I recommend) should pick up a copy of the following books: * Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit (a BRILLIANT starter!)

* Queer Spirits: A Gay Men's Myth Book, ed. and comp. by Will Roscoe

* Another Mother Tongue: Gay Words, Gay Worlds, by Judy Grahn

* Blossom of Bone: Reclaiming the Connection Between Homoeroticism and the Sacred, by Randy P. Conner

* Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture, by Arthur Evans

* Men, Homosexuality, and the Gods, by Ronald Long

* The Zuni Man-Woman, by Will Roscoe

* Jesus and the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love, by Will Roscoe

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 22, 2010 9:45:02 PM

Oops, I forgot to mention the frakking BRILLIANT work of the late Prof. of History at Harvard, John Boswell (albeit quite verbose): * Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe

* Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century NB: Prof. Boswell says "Christian Era" in his sub-title; however, academia has been making headway in respect for others' religions by abstaining from the use of "BC" (Before Christ) and AD (Latin abrev. for "After the Year of Our Lord"), and instead have been using BCE (Before Common Era") and CE (Common Era) though other non-Christian motivated abbreviations have also been used by scholars in recent years.

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 22, 2010 9:58:44 PM

Hate to tell you Brian, but if the bigot label fits, WEAR IT!!

Posted by: Jon | Jan 22, 2010 10:16:09 PM

"You and I know that millions of decent, loving, law-abiding Americans are being characterized as bigots and haters because we ... blah, blah-blah, blah-blah." The only reason that anyone would ever make a statement like that is to stir up animus. Everything that they do is to ensure that the voters hate us. And, this kind of self-aggrandizing, rabble-rousing is geared toward instilling a self-righteous piety in the homophobic, hatemongering jihadists. The, "Well, it's okay if we hate them, because god has commanded that we hate them," spiel. It certainly is one thing to call a bigot a bigot. It takes hate filled actions to actually earn the title of bigot. And, that Brian and Maggie revel in the title, suggests that they fully own their hatred. And email-blasts that are geared at nothing more than stirring up animus, are a pretty good way to exercise that bigotry. Many of the voters who vote against us may not ordinarily engage in hate-filled, bigoted actions. They do, nonetheless, allow their personal prejudice to be manipulated by the lies coming from the lying liars at NOM, such that they end up voting against us. Even if that prejudice is ingrained (or even subconscious) to the point that they don't know that it exists, does not absolve them of the fact that they are exercising their bigotry. You can't divorce the animus from the fact that your are eliminating rights from decent, loving, law-abiding, mostly upstanding, tax-paying citizens. PERIOD. The vote is the animus. The underlying bias is the animus. And, that is bigotry.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 22, 2010 10:26:55 PM

Quoteth, the J-man: "Plus it's downright absurd to hear their continued suggestion that "I don't think you are equal in the eyes of the law" is merely a line of "disagreement," when one view crushes the souls of countless many, while the other brings no real negatives to anyone." Totally, bro.! However, upon secondary post-Prop 8 canvassing by *our* side, in an attempt to change the minds of Prop 8 voters, it was discovered that many people, often religious, were somehow convinced that denying marriage rights to gay people in no way caused ANY demonstrable harm to them. Well, that was usually until these people actually got to talk with the community that *was* demonstrably harmed and affected by Prop 8 and the protection the automatically comes with "marriage" in civil (non-religious) contexts and legalese! I saw this on some random YouTube vid. a number of months ago, and never made a further note of it, unfortunately. Personally, *I'd* LOVE to learn how, precisely, these people were convinced that banning us from civil marriage caused no demonstrable harm what-so-ever?

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 22, 2010 10:42:04 PM

Let's assume for a moment that NOMers are NOT bigots and haters. Now let's ask ourselves: If they WERE bigots and haters how different would the results of their work look? What would NOMers look like if they WERE bigots and haters compared to if they are NOT bigots and haters, as they insist they are not? The obvious answer is that their results would be the same, and NOM would look no different at all. Ergo, they are bigots and haters. NOM wants to do everything that meets the definitions of bigots and haters, but feel they should be immune from being called what they are.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Jan 22, 2010 11:08:36 PM

BTW, I have a recommendation for a "theme song" for the Gay community: the solo vers. of "Defying Gravity" from Wicked! =D I'm surprised at how many vers. of this track have been produced, recorded and released! It *is* an awesome tune, and one that *I* would just LOVE to sing in public one day even though it's almost universally sung by women.

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 22, 2010 11:30:06 PM

There are a couple of problems with radical anti-gay activist Brown's assertions. First of all, nearly 7 million of us Californians voted AGAINST Prop. 8. Making millions of Californians into "intolerant bigots" "attacking Christians" because we disagree with imposing religious beliefs on everyone else is doing the very same thing he complains about. Moreover, nobody cares what militant anti-gay activist Brown or NOM believes. They can "BELIEVE" whatever they want. The problem which he fails to comprehend is that he/they are trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Believe what you want, but don't use the government and constitution to make me believe the same thing.

Posted by: Michael | Jan 23, 2010 3:46:41 AM

If Maggie loves her husband in such a traditional way, why hasn't she taken his last name? That has been the tradition in the United States of America ever since it was an English colony. Maggie's alternative lifestyle, in which she fails to understand that the husband is the head of the household, is a travesty.

Posted by: homer | Jan 23, 2010 10:17:22 AM

I've never been quite comfortable calling people a bigot when they are against marriage equality. When I hear that word, I get an image of foaming at the mouth imbeciles like the KKK or even Fred Phelps' "God Hate Fags" brigade. However, this is what REALLY bothers me when organizations like the National Organization *for Marriage* play the victim and complain about being called bigots. They claim that they strive to make American marriage stronger. Fine. But, they do NOTHING to help make marriage stronger. They have no programs about the divorce rate or marriage counseling (as far as I've been able to tell). If you do a search for "divorce" on their website, the only things that come up are in regard to same sex marriage! They exist solely to prevent gay people of the same gender from entering into a CIVIL marriage. They should at least be honest with themselves and change their name to THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE. And if singling out a group of people by using lies, misinformation and scare tactics to prevent them into entering into a union that is considered to be a civil right isn't bigotry, I don't know what is!

Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Jan 23, 2010 10:25:01 AM

"They should at least be honest with themselves and change their name to THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE." Not only will they not call themselves that, they have strict instructions on their website telling others to avoid admit that this is truly the goal. This from their talking points: "Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5075687/apps/s/content.asp?ct=4507909

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 23, 2010 11:23:33 AM

Stange that I received a supporting letter from the Log Cabineers happily looking forward to working with Senator-elect Brown.....One hopes they and GOProud are not holding their respective breaths in anticipation of substantial GOP support...

The Dems have fallen way short on their promises, but, at least, they are not openly avowed enemies of homosexuality, gay marriage and adoption..

Posted by: chuckfll | Jan 23, 2010 2:49:08 PM



I have often wondered why no one has bothered to psychoanalyze Brian Brown and Maggie Srivastav. Like mass murderers, the CIA should have a profiler detail their psychoses and publish it for all to know. Why do you have such a hatred against LGBT people Maggie and Brian? Is it that you fear your own same-sex attractions have motivated you to hate and fear yourself so much and your fear of society's disapproval of those feelings that have pushed you into this line of hate profiteering? You two are certainly a bunch of religiously motivated pathological liars and have much to ask your god for forgiveness. I do believe in kharma, and yours is coming back to bite you and yours in the ass.



Posted by: Mykelb | Jan 23, 2010 9:38:28 PM

@ Michael, dutifully said, "Moreover, nobody cares what militant anti-gay activist Brown or NOM believes. They can "BELIEVE" whatever they want. The problem which he fails to comprehend is that he/they are trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Believe what you want, but don't use the government and constitution to make me believe the same thing." Ah, hence the precise definition of Christo-Fascism my friend! Hmmm...if ol' Mags is so offended by being called a "bigot"--which she and her org *is*!--than why not label them Christo-Fascists, which is more precise considering their actions; not to mention more intellectually-based. let's see how mags' tried to defend her from being a fascist in like of the Madisonian Judicial Court structure and the fact that a successful Democracy is *never* supposed to be able to have the authority to vote upon the liberties of a minority. Hell, maybe even re-educating her (or, "brainwashing", as she's likely call it) in some simple lessons in High School civics!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 23, 2010 10:25:35 PM

J-man, that talking point of theirs is just SICK! Hmmm...would LOVE to see someone debating ol' Mags ion live TV sometimes and use this crap against her! Hmmm...I also wonder if they had a hand involved in starting LUV Iowa? Got any ideas about how one might check into that? *shrugs*

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 23, 2010 10:58:36 PM

Man, their FAQs are *practically* devoid of any reality, and purposefully intended to confuse people using rhetorical tropes...especially the religious or those easily swayed by emotions! It's simply SICK to watch a bigot attempt to defend their views when, for example, they didn't acknowledge how dangerous it is to write discrimination into the Constitution by way of a popular fascist sect!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 23, 2010 11:04:56 PM

BTW, jeremy, how do you DO it--find the intestinal fortitude to be able to read through each page of their hideous website?! I literally made me sick to my stomach... *sigh* 'Course, I'm not in a relationship, let alone married, and LUV Iowa wants to stop me! So, I'm understandably nervous.

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 23, 2010 11:29:18 PM

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy