The fine liars at the National Organization for [against] Marriage, through their mouthpiece, Preserve Marriage [for only a few in] Washington (“PMW”) issued a crap-tastic waste of space yesterday called The Threat to Marriage both on its blog and as a PDF. I downloaded it so that I can give it to my grandchildren one day as a relic of just how far people were willing to go to prevent others from the full benefits and responsibilities of citizenry. I also downloaded it because it represents the best of the best arguments these nutjobs have against marriage equality. And it ain’t much. Shall we chew it up, digest it, and crap it out just like the shit it really is? Ok, let’s!! [N.B.: I am using the summary headings that PMW used in its blog version.]
Marriage Would Be Redefined for Everyone
Absolutely, 100% inaccurate. Marriage is not being redefined. Legal marriage has been and will continue to be a civil agreement between two consenting adults of appropriate age and ability to contract.
Genderless Marriage the Only Legally Recognized Definition
Genderless? You mean, only Eunuchs can get married? I don’t see a single provision in the new law that requires men to hack off their wedding tackle or women to have their lady garden sprayed with Round-up. You will be comforted to know that you may retain your private parts AND still marry the person of your choice under the new law. I can certainly assure you that my marriage will not be genderless. Homogeneous, but not genderless.
Not a “Live and Let Live” Issue
Huh? I really have no idea what in the Sam Hill they are trying to say. Under this particular heading, they say that marriage equality “implicates a host of issues” and will result in “a sea of change in American law” as well as an “immense volume of litigation against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations.” Do you know what these vague yet menacing threats are called (besides outright lies)?
Yep! Boogeymen. What’s a boogeyman? It is an amorphous imaginary being used by adults to frighten children into compliant behaviour. Only we aren’t children.
Racists and Bigots?
NOM/PMW’s bullshit in this “point” goes something like this: Those who do not agree will be treated just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs. Actually, that is exactly how their argument goes, and you can even put quotes around it. Now, I personally believe that they are bigots–not sure where the racism comes from except their guilty conscience–but it is a complete pail of cow dung to say that the law will treat them as bigots and racists. Here is their short list of people who are going to be mistreated because they hate gays and gay marriage:
- Religious Groups: Wrong. Here is language taken right from the law.
No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to solemnize or recognize any marriage.
No religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
A religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action, including [Washington's anti-discrimination law] based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
- Nonprofit Groups: The marriage equality legislation does nothing to impose additional requirements or burdens on nonprofit organizations. They, like other organizations and businesses, must comply with the law, including the anti-discrimination laws of the State of Washington, just as they always have. The marriage equality law does not impose any additional requirements upon them whatsoever.
- Schools: Religious schools are immune to the same extent as religious organizations. In addition, nothing in the law–not one stinking word–requires secular schools to teach “gay marriage.”
- Wedding Professionals: Again, Washington’s anti-discrimination provisions already prevent discrimination and discriminatory practices, and nothing in the marriage equality bill imposes additional obligations or burdens on them. Furthermore, take it from me, darlings: No gay or lesbian couple in the entire state is going to ruin one of the biggest and best days of their lives by hiring some ignorant asshole who hates gay people and gay marriage to plan a wedding. No fucking way. I should also point out that, for the most part, WEDDING PROFESSIONALS ARE GAY! I mean, did you see Father of the Bride?
- Licensed Professionals: ONE MORE TIME: Washington’s anti-discrimination provisions already prevent discrimination and discriminatory practices, and nothing in the marriage equality bill imposes additional obligations or burdens on them. In addition, most licensed professionals have codes of conduct and/or ethical standards with which they must comply, and those codes and standards do not permit decisions based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, like wedding professionals, this issue is a red herring because LGBT people are not going to want to hire or work with douchebags.
- Regular People: Not one word of the new law requires you to like me, attend my wedding, or even send me a god damn gift or congratulatory wish. You can continue to hate me, just like I can continue to think you are a dim-witted jackhole.
The Needs of Children Take Second Place to the Desires of Adults
The point here, apparently, is that marriage equality “says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers).” Would you be blown away if I tell you that the marriage equality law does not prevent anyone from breeding or raising children and is silent as to who can and cannot do so? Would you be shocked if I told you that marriage equality is not designed to distract straight people from mating by offering them an alternative “lifestyle?” Would you be floored to know that I–a card-carrying American male homosexual–already can have children without marrying anyone, let alone the child’s mother, and that preventing same-sex couples from marrying results in NO net gain or loss of child-making and -rearing people? Would you pee down your legs if I told you that same-sex couples actually have children–biological, adopted, fostered, etc.–and same-sex marriage helps to provide stable, loving environments for those children to learn and grow and thrive?
All. Fucking. True. Well, slap my ass and call me Sally.
The Deconstruction of Marriage
Now, are you sitting down for the stupidest thing you’ll probably read all week? NOM/PMW argues that the law says that “husbands can be women and wives can be men.” Not that I have any problem with using words in ways they weren’t intended–I mean, do you remember the days when “cool” referred to temperature and not to how neat or clever something is–but NOM/PMW are trying to convince you that the legislature is fucking with you. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The provision is a very common provision in legislative drafting and statutory interpretation. It is simply designed to indicate that statutes and laws should be understood and interpreted without regard to sex when pronouns like he, she, it, man, woman, girl, boy, husband, wife, etc., appear in them. Such a provision is designed to protect the law from appearing to discriminate against GENDER, not to constitute de jure sex reassignment as NOM/PMW would have you believe.
So, there you have it. NOM/PMW’s talking points boiled down and exposed for the lies and distractions that they are. Spread the word. And vote to APPROVE REFERENDUM 74 IN NOVEMBER!