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.