Skip to main content

View Diary: Confidential court papers reveal anti-gay NOM's dirty racial strategies, 'sideswiping Obama' plot (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fighting divorce isn't "protecting marriage" (16+ / 0-)

    What's long bothered me is this idea that "if they really wanted to protect marriage they'd go after divorce."

    I don't think that's the case nor should it be. The way to protect marriage isn't by forcing people to stay in marriages. After all, a significant portion of those "no fault" divorces involve people who married a person of the opposite gender before they realized they were gay. It's easier to get out of such a marriage without having to come out in the court room.

    No. If they want to protect marriage they would remind people that sex without marriage is fine, that it's okay not to be married, and that it's okay to end a marriage that isn't working out. Being stuck in a marriage that ought to end is a sure-fire way to encourage spousal abuse and neglect.

    Finally, anyone who claims to "support" marriage should be completely in favor of funding programs for marriage counseling by developing communication skills, by teaching how to resolve conflict and by making it safe for one spouse to be honest with the other one.

    NOT by making divorce more difficult.

    •  It's pretty clear... (17+ / 0-)

      ..that whenever they use the term 'protecting marriage' what they really mean is protecting whatever power and influence their own religion has over a secular institution like marriage.  

      They don't care one way or another whether marriages are healthy or diseased, whether they are good or abusive.  They don't care whether the people in marriages are safe and secure or abused or neglected.  None of that matters.  

      They care only about the degree of control their religion can exert.  The existence of gay people is a loss of religious control.  The education and independence of women is a loss of religious control. Divorce is a way for a woman to escape a bad marriage, and thus a loss of religious control.  

      In other words, protecting marriage = protecting religious control.  You might as well replace 'marriage' with 'religious control' -- then you'll see the true nature of their concern.  

    •  Interesting, we haven't seen NOM lay out all the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob, p a roberson

      contractual and governmental perks of marriage vs. remaining single.

    •  I'm frankly amazed to see 45 kossacks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LuvSet, Panbanisha

      rec'ing a comment asserting no-fault divorce laws are detrimental to marriage.

    •  I misspoke. as others have correctly... (0+ / 0-)

      stated, the best way to support families is to ensure that the underlying causes that tend to force people to seperate are addressed.

      The main thrust of my comment, and what I was trying to highlight, was that NOM is not pro-marriage but anti-gay. If they were pro-marriage they would address those issues that lead people to divorce, but they don't. NOM doesn't seem to have a position regarding divorce. Their position is and has always been to deny same sex couples rights equal to their heterosexual counterparts.

      I regret that my comment was inartful in the way it was written.

      "There's room at the top they're telling you still...A working class hero is something to be If you want to be a hero well just follow me." Working Class Hero-John Lennon

      by p a roberson on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 04:47:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site