NOM: Marriage Equality Could Lead to Acceptance of Pedophilia
NOM Stance Built on Shifting Sands -- or A Foundation of Hate?
In years past, NOM has declared that gays are free to live as they see fit, as long as they refrain from attempts to "redefine" marriage. NOM has never explained by what authority it seeks to curtail the rights of any given segment of society, relying on nebulous references to the Bible and "morality" to suggest that the organization is responding to the dictates of a higher power.
But an Aug. 18 posting at EqualityMatters.org purported to trace the group’s anti-gay activities back to a definite source: Anti-gay sentiment. The article took note of another NOM blog, one that was critical of Michele Bachmann for sidestepping questions about GLBT legal and civil equality during a recent appearance on "Meet the Press."
That blog linked to a column by National Review Online contributor Kathryn Jean Lopez, Equality Matters noted. In her column, Lopez envisioned her ideal exchange between Bachmann and "Meet the Press" host David Gregory, an exchange in which Bachmann would be free to spout homophobic utterances with no regard to her national image.
Riffing on actual speeches that Bachmann delivered in the past in which she referred to gays as being "enslaved" by homosexuality, Lopez imagined Bachmann firing off a response to Gregory on national television in which she declared, "We’re living in a culture that is enslaved."
Lopez’s daydream of Bachmann’s ideal commentary continued, "We’re tripping over the alternatives as we seek instant gratification instead of genuine love. I said what I said about homosexuality, and if I were running to be pastor-in-chief I’d be talking to you about it every day, along with the fact that all too often we have no clear vision of what love truly is."
The column’s reference to the president of the United States as "pastor-in-chief" seemingly overlooks the First Amendment’s provisions that the government may not impose a faith tradition on the country’s citizens.
"According to Lopez, Bachmann’s ’personal enslavement’ comments weren’t just right, they didn’t go far enough," the Media Matters posting summarized. "Bachmann should have gone on to assert that gay people, including the loving, committed gay and lesbian couples seeking legal recognition of their relationships, are pursuing ’instant gratification’ and ’have no clear vision of what love truly is.’ "
Indeed, similar accusations have been leveled against gay and lesbian families for attempting to secure equitable rights and recognition for their families, with anti-gay groups and pundits accusing gay parents of being "selfish" and "hedonistic" for wishing to undertake the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood and to gain the legal tools that heterosexual couples are given upon marriage in order to accomplish the task.
The column went on to offer plaudits to anti-gay politician Rick Santorum, who has become synonymous with his own far-fetched comparison between devoted gay couples and "man on dog" sex. Lopez linked to an article from 2003, also posted at National Review Online, by a former NOM chairman Robert George.
George’s article, "Rick Santorum is Right," lionized Santorum for his argument that consensual intimate relations between adults of the same gender work to "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family."
True to form, the article drew in a host of sexual practices unrelated to the innate personal characteristic of being gay or lesbian. The article argued that if (heterosexual) marriage is not regarded as the sole framework in which sexual activity can be undertaken in a legitimate manner, then the only guiding principle for acceptable sexual interaction would lay with whether those involved in any instance of sexual contact mutually consented.
"If this is true, then not only sodomy, but also fornication, adultery (e.g., spouse swapping, ’swinging’), polygamy, group sex, prostitution, adult brother-sister or parent-child incest, and (depending on one’s views about the rights of animals and their capacity to consent) bestiality are protected as specifications of the constitutional right of privacy," George argued, before going on to offer the unproven assertion, "If consent provides the standard of inclusion within the right of privacy" then all of the other sexual activities he had enumerated "must all be admitted."
George also ventured to suggest that allowing American adults to engage in consensual sexual practices as they saw fit constituted not a freedom or a choice, but rather an "ideology." Moreover, George claimed, that newly defined ideology was "deeply hostile to the idea of marriage as uniting one man and one woman in a permanent bond of the type that is per se suitable for the generation, nurturance, and upbringing of children."
Missing from the essay, however, was any indication that marriage between two individuals of the same gender might be understood as natural to gays and lesbians and desirable to society as a stabilizing influence, even though George himself wrote in the course of his argument that, "We need policies that uphold and strengthen marriage, not those that further erode it in our law and culture."
Also missing from the argument was any explanation as to why, if all forms of sexual contact outside of heterosexual marriage are detestable and dangerous to society at large, marriage equality for gays and lesbians has been the focus of ballot initiatives, while divorce, adultery, and premarital sex have not been placed before voters as issues upon which the people should vote.