Friday, June 06, 2014

'How NOM doomed itself to collapse' & other Friday midday news briefs

How the National Organization for Marriage Doomed Itself to Collapse - According to Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern, the National Organization for Marriage is imploding before us all for a simple reason which has nothing to do with homophobia. While I don't like to pronounce the end of any anti-lgbt equality group before they are in the grave, Stern makes an excellent point. However, I have to disagree with him on this point:

After its success in California, the group took its tactics on the road, successfully batting away marriage equality in Maine and North Carolina while exacting revenge on judges who dared to uphold legal equality. Through these campaigns, NOM rewrote the modern anti-gay playbook, demeaning the LGBTQ community as promiscuous, predatory, diseased, and disordered. 
That's simply not true. NOM merely followed the same playbook that Anita Bryant and others did when attempting to defeat pro-lgbt laws and such. It's an old playbook and I wish the community would get serious about analyzing it in a manner which can broken down in simple terms. Wait a minute. Some of us have.

In other news

  Seriously? What Marriage Equality Opponents Are Saying - Another reason why anti-marriage equality groups are losing is because you simply can't introduce these arguments in a court of law.

Tony Perkins Says Gay Rights Advocates Want Anti-Christian Holocaust, Will 'Start Rolling Out The Boxcars' - Have you ever heard of something so stupid that it refutes itself? Say hello to THIS argument.  

Edie Windsor Now Plans To Focus Her Efforts On Homeless LGBT Youth - The more I hear about Edie Windsor, the more I absolutely LOVE THAT WOMAN!

1 comment :

Donny D. said...

The problem with Mark Joseph Stern's article about NOM is that Stern is an idiot whose schtick is mixing drivel and blatantly wrong statements with mischaracterized truth. He is rarely worth reading.

It is easy to mistake Slate for Salon, given the similarity of their names and the types of writing they do. The difference is that Salon's posts are well-written, well-reasoned pieces that are almost always worthwhile contributions to the conversation; Slate's posts almost never are. If you are reading a Salon article that is sensationalistic, muddle-headed and riddled with untrue statements, look again: you're reading something from Slate, not Salon.