Tuesday, March 20, 2012

NOM supporting civil unions? I smell a rat

In the fight of marriage equality, a lot of the talk seems to be centered at New Hampshire and a strange reversal by the National Organization for Marriage:

From The Huffington Post:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is the leading group fighting the legalization of same-sex marriage around the country. It has raised and spent millions, opposing not only marriage equality but also civil unions.

Yet NOM is now backing legislation in New Hampshire that would repeal same-sex marriage but legalize civil unions, signaling a shift in its tactics as more states move toward recognizing marriage equality.

The New Hampshire House is expected to vote Wednesday on a bill that would repeal marriage equality and replace it with a civil unions law that was in effect in the state in 2008 and 2009. Same-sex marriage was legalized in the state on Jan. 1, 2010.

State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), the author of the bill, is also pushing for a ballot referendum in November asking voters, "Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?"

The referendum, however, would be non-binding so if voters opted to keep same-sex marriage, the state wouldn't necessarily have to listen. Repeal would still take effect on March 31, 2013, if Bates' bill passes.

The article also points out the several instances in which NOM has opposed civil unions:

In the past, NOM has come out strongly against civil unions. Last year, it called the potential of civil-union legalization in Illinois a "direct threat" to marriage.

After Rhode Island legalized civil unions for same-sex couples last year, Christopher Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of NOM, said it was a "disappointing and dangerous day."

It would be nice to claim that NOM is tacitly announcing that it recognizes the inevitability of laws which would protect gay and lesbian relationships and grant them "the same rights as married couples," but like the title of my post says, I smell a rat.

NOM has invested too much time, money, and venom in this fight to suddenly wave some type of white flag.

I don't trust NOM and I don't think that it is farfetched to ponder if whether or not this is a part of a larger strategy which would leave gay couples without marriage rights and civil unions.

To put it more succinctly, it would behoove the lgbtq community to do as actor and comedian Mel Brooks says at .11 seconds of the following clip:

Bookmark and Share


Bose in St. Peter MN said...

Is it just me, or does this confirm that NOM's core guiding principle has nothing to do with marriage or civil unions?

It's this simple: If changing a law or policy will benefit LGBT people and families, NOM is against it. If a change will take something away from LGBT folks and communities, NOM is for it.

Jay said...

The "civil unions" NOM supports give no rights and anyone is allowed to discriminate against people in civil unions. Absurd.

Spencer Hamilton Blog said...

After supporting laws like HJR6 in IA that would eliminate ALL legal recognition of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, they see civil unions as a step back and soon will try to take those away too

Bryan Brownshirt called civil unions: Same sex marriage by another name