Here are the results of the poll over the 7 days, and while the trend is on the surface strange given there was an increasing trend of opposition to marriage equality.
Looking at Maggie Gallagher’s tape track (its the same thing over and over again jumbled together) i can’t see how anyone was convinced so I have to assume that it was just NOM sheep appearing and voting with their brainless lockstep motions rather than reading the arguments.
However I’d be interested to see what people think of the debate…. and see whether you think Maggie actually landed any punches…Marriage Equality Debate.
Found via NOM Blog
Despite all our hopes that Maryland would vote for marriage equality, at the last hour, a few democrats decided to stab equality in the back. We know why they did it, the brutal bully tactics of the National Organization for Marriage and their associated groups convinced them that standing up for what is right, was unacceptable.
I don’t exactly know how to react, I was honestly expecting Maryland to stand proud and true for equality, but apparently I had more faith in those delegates than they deserved. Apparently loud and hate-filled groups of church members berated those delegates, including one of the original sponsors into cowardice.
The “Black Church” is constantly raised up by hate groups like NOM and FRC as being opposed to marriage equality, in an effort to try to make us feel uncomfortable about striking back. But hatred is hatred, whether it comes from someone who is still hated, or a straight white man. The church was forced on their ancestors as a way to control them, a way of justifying what was happening, and now they are trying to justify hatred against us with that same church.
You don’t get a free pass to practice hatred, just the same way as an abuser who was abused does not get a free pass to abuse.
We have not lost this fight, and we will never give up fighting, no matter what the arsenal arrayed against us. This was a tactical loss, and Maggie Gallagher and her winged monkeys should know that the only thing they have a hope of doing is delaying the march of equality.
As far as Tiffany Alston and Melvin Stukes go, I hope that they find it difficult to sleep at night given the harm they have done to Maryland, and its families.
One of the main claims on the surface of the National Organization for Marriage is that its only about the particular institution of marriage. They say that they are happy for gay families to have civil unions with all the benefits, provided that its not daring to look like marriage.
However if you look at their other issues claiming that marriage is about children or their attacks on any Civil Union bill that dares to look like marriage rights. I managed to have a very short and unhelpful e-mail conversation with Maggie Gallagher, in which I asked her about all the other benefits.
“Given that LGBTQIA families will, and in fact already do have children through a variety of sources, would you agree that it is better to give them the legal structure and framework of marriage rather than leaving them in a very tenuous situation in terms of linkage to both parents, and other issues such as family medical insurance and immigration status?”
She gave the following response,
“I think second-parent adoption is far more relevant than gay marriage to nonbiological parents in non-traditional unions. The way that marriage protects children, according to the social science evidence we have, is by bringing together and keeping together the child’s own mother and father in marriage. Outside of that framework, which does not apply to same-sex couples, it’s just not clear whether legal marriage will help or hurt children–or most likely make little difference.”
Its interesting that she practically ignores my question, however she admits she’d “allow” second parent adoption. She attempts to rubbish the gay marriage would mean anything for the children of those parents, which is clearly showing what she feels about gay relationships. Aside from the fact that being married gives certain automatic legal benefits to your spouse, there are many legal hurdles to approximate legal rights for your children.
The more stable the home environment you are in, the better for the child, and suggesting that parents being married will benefit children, is at the core of people like Maggie who want children to only be born in marriage not in cohabitation for straight people.
My key point was about benefits for immigration which are very dear to my heart but Maggie ignored that, and when a couple who want to get the same right to be together as straight couples, NOM jumped on the story saying that daring to ask for immigration benefits was a step too far.
The original story is here, and if you want to take a look at it, you’ll realize its almost a Brazil style comedy of insanity with the situation. Currently there are at least 36,000 same sex couples who are binational, and each of them get none of the basic immigration benefits, a simple vegas drive chapel through would give a straight couple.
Maggie made it clear that her purpose is to block gay equality, while claiming that she doesn’t hate gay people, which is untrue, she considers being gay an affliction, claims our actions harm children and says everything short of quoting levitical law at us.
So they claim marriage is the only issue, but thats a lie.
Here’s the full debate which I felt was far better than the previous one I saw on Fox News
I was annoyed that Brian Moulton failed to raise the fact that there are many studies out there that show longitudinal investigations of LGBTQIA parents and children, with no deleterious effects.
Maggie Gallagher did seem to be on the ropes a bit, her arguments were at best exceptionally weak, and did not seem to stand up for the most part, and she also retreated into the Polygamy defense. I was pleased to see Brian Moulton not throw marriage evolution under the bus and simply said that other groups would be free to make their case.
Found from the NOM Blog.
Finally a couple of days late, famed talentless reality TV star Sarah Palin returned Maggie Gallagher’s call about her opinion on the DOMA decision Barack Obama made.
“I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Like the majority of Americans, I support the Defense of Marriage Act and find it appalling that the Obama administration decided not to defend this federal law which was enacted with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by a Democrat president. It’s appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected.”
However just the same as everybody except the delusional Michelle Bachmann she failed to actually say that she was going to focus on undoing Obama’s decision.
I guess they don’t think 2012 is gonna be won on gay bashing principles…