E-Mail Exchange With the National Organization for Marriage

I forwarded a link to my post on Maggie Gallagher’s interview with NPR to the contact e-mail provided on the National Organization for Marriage.  In the e-mail I asked if they had any comment on the apparent disconnect between their mission of keeping civil rights from a minority group and their claims that they are in fact the oppressed group for being compared to racists due to that mission.  To my surprise I got a response from Maggie Gallagher herself:

 I do not understand how my logic–this decision mean  people like me will be treated like racists who opose interracial.

Is “refuted” by a guy who says “yes you are exactlly like a racists who opposes interracial marriage.”

Seems like my convulted logic was just confirmed.

Sorry we disagree.

Maggie

Fair enough.  She’s worried that they will be compared to racists, and she sees anything that points out the similarities between her movement and racist movements of the past as an attack.  So I clarified a bit:

I think the point is mainly that claiming religious liberty on a social issue where the law is pulling away from traditional value systems is similar to the claims made by opponents of interracial marriage.

We definitely don’t agree on this issue, but I think that you’re doing your argument a disservice by bringing up any sort of comparison to the civil rights movement and racism.  Drawing that comparison in the NPR interview just made me think about how similar the Pro-Family argument is to previous groups who have opposed civil rights.

I am curious, though.  Religious groups seem to be the ones protesting same sex marriage the loudest.  Do you have any non-religious justification for advocating a separate but equal stance when it comes to homosexuals?  I’m genuinely interested as it seems that the religious side of the argument is drowning out anything else.

I’m willing to listen to their argument as long as the justification for opposing same sex marriage doesn’t involve religion or the Bible.  After getting a real response, albeit one that sidestepped the issue rather nicely, I was hoping that I could finally get someone to explain the secular justification for the sanctity of marriage.  Something that was well thought out and that I could really get behind because it didn’t involve anyone’s invisible friend hating on legally sanctioned same sex lovin’.  Alas, it wasn’t to be:

 My main point is to get people to admit that what they are saying has consequences.

You think I’m the exact equivalent of a bigot who opposes interracial marriage and should be treated as such.

Let’s not pretend that’s not an idea that will afffect a whole bunch of people besides Adam and Steve.

Maggie

I’m assuming that she means advocating gay marriage will have consequences.  What consequences?  Homosexual couples will finally be able to inherit their spouse’s property?  They’ll be allowed to make medical decisions in the event of an emergency?  They’ll gain a measure of social legitimacy that has been denied them for most of human history?

Or perhaps we’re talking about religious consequences.  Maybe Christians are worried that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to a disaster of biblical proportions.  Old testament, real wrath of God type stuff.  Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!  Rivers and seas boiling!  Forty years of darkness!  Earthquakes!  Volcanoes!  The dead rising from the grave!  Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!  Underlying the entire religious argument against gay marriage is the not-so-subtle subtext that if America starts allowing and flaunting this sort of sinful behavior we’re going to really get it from the Lord our God in much the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah.  To that I simply ask, why the hell hasn’t San Francisco been flung into the sea by a massive earthquake or destroyed by a meteor from the heavens?  I think they pretty much filled their “my cup runneth over” quota with God decades ago.  It hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to happen.

Maggie thinks this is going to affect a bunch of people other than Adam and Steve, but again fails to back it up or provide any justification for this stance.  Who is it going to affect?  How is this going to destroy the fabric of American society?  So far I see a lot of fire-breathing rhetoric with very little substance to back it up.  I was hoping that I could finally get a straight answer on gay marriage from one of its opponents, but again they sidestep the issue.

Technorati Tags: maggie gallagher, national organization for marriage, california, gay marriage, california supreme court