Recent attacks on actress Sarah Jessica Parker is a perfect example.
Parker recently posted a video commercial for President Obama's re-election.
To say that the National Organization for Marriage didn't appreciate this video is an understatement. From its blog:
..So now the president is now not content to advocate redefining marriage as being possible between two people of the same sex. He is now in favor of redefining marriage so that it can be any union at all — which is to say, he is in favor of abolishing any publicly normative definition of marriage. If “you should be able to marry anyone you want,” then you should be able to marry someone who is already married, you should be able to marry your father, your mother, your sister, your brother, whoever. Taken as stated, the president’s position, proclaimed by his actress-spokesperson, is to personally advocate polygamous and even incestuous marriages.
No doubt the president does not really intend to say this. But why not, at least on the logic of the left-wing marriage nihilists whose rhetoric he is parroting? Conservatives say that same-sex marriage is a step towards the destruction of marriage. Their liberal opponents respond that this is childish, that letting gay people marry does not threaten any existing marriage. But that response completely misses the point, which is this: the argument by which the left defends same sex marriage is inseparable from an argument that marriage should be anything anybody wants it to be, which is the same thing as saying there should be no publicly normative definition of marriage, which is the same thing as destroying marriage as a public institution.
The incest thing is ridiculous. And of course the thing about polygamy is equally ridiculous. But the question is how can NOM accuse Obama's support of marriage equality leading to polygamy when its founder, Maggie Gallagher, said in 2003 polygamy is better for children:
"At least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children."
Now granted, Gallagher will duck and dodge in that way in which the lgbt community has become used to. She will no doubt give a long explanation of what "she actually meant" or claim that since then her opinion has changed and she has written pieces which have spoken out against polygamy.
That's all very good. But how does one explain the recent comments by Tony Perkins claiming that "at least polygamy does not violate the laws of nature"
I think this basically proves what I hinted on this morning when I talked about the Family Research Council's lack of care when it comes to the bullying of students, whether they be gay or Christian.
One has to wonder does the religious right actually care about polygamy or are they using as yet another way to obsess over gays. Because for all of their talk about "marriage being sacred," they seem to have more kind words for polygamous relationships than same-sex relationships.