Update- Because I enjoyed the comments to this post I thought they were do a much more through response. See Is Robert George and the National Organization of Marriage Haters - Part II after reading this post.
This time I think the Southern Poverty Law Center has bitten off more than it can chew this time. Legal Insurrection is likewise astonished that the National Organization of Marriage is now for all purposes called a "hate group". See SPLC Demonizes Supporters of Traditional Marriage.
As you can see this guy is very happy. See via It's Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Labels NOM a Hate Group . Now they have not technically called it a HATE GROUP YET but is is clear they pretty much think it. No doubt that might be next.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a frustrating group. It has done and still does good work on true racism and hate. However it now has a pattern of expanding that label to such wide array of groups it is just getting silly. That is indeed sad. Because of it good work in some areas it gets a pass on this trend that has been going on for years.
I have a feeling this time will be different.
The National Organization of Marriage is headed and has the involvement of many important Catholics in the public square. Those include
Those are (and this list is not a exclusive one) its President Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher (NOW AT AVE MARIA LAW SCHOOL) and last but not least Princeton's Robert George.
Robert George is very respected and once after the word gets around after the Thanksgiving holiday is over expect a lot of outrage. Oh and by the way Robert George has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Further N.O.M and George especially have a good relationship with many Catholic Bishops.
I expect Robert George to have a very forceful response in the next couple of days.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Southern Poverty Law Center Attacks Three Major Catholics In Public Life
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
People are simply no longer going to be allowed to hide their bigotry behind their religion. If NOM and their ilk do not believe in same-sex CIVIL marriage, then they should avoid marrying someone of the same sex. Nobody is going to interfere with church rituals or force churches to perform marriages they don't want to. (And of course, Catholic priests refuse opposite-sex marriages at their discretion as well.)
You leave us alone, and you won't be labelled a hate group, people. Keep trying to legislate a group of your fellow Americans as second-class citizens, and reap what you sow.
I must concur that this National Organization of Marriage is a hate group, and KUDOS to the Southern Poverty Law Center for standing up against these bigots. Nobody is trying to stop anyone from engaging in a "traditional" marriage or a Catholic marriage. It is the bigots of the National Organization of Marriage who are thus far succeeding in stopping other Americans from the free practice of their own religion, and the fulfillment of their own desires to live with dignity and freedom. For Catholics to claim that it would destroy their own rights to allow non-Catholics to marry the person of his or her own choice is the same as my grandparents claiming that it destroyed their rights to enjoy a meal in a restaurant when people of color were eventually given the right to enjoy a similar dining experience. The National Organization of Marriage is definately a hate group, and it is high time that people of conscience stand up against such hatred.
gotta agree that the SPLC does get carried away. i would not put NOM in the same category as, for example, the KKK.
don't misread me, i have the greatest disrespect for NOM. the organization is based on ignorance, and is dedicated to making many lives less happy, and for no justifiable reason. but when i hear "hate group" i think guns, bombs, and other forms of violence.
WHoa look at all the comments!! I thought everyone was going to be watching football yesterday
Sean ,
I would like to hear the argument that opposition of same sex marriage is "bigotry".
We are talking about something an idea and institution that has been unheard of in most of human civilization.
Even in times and places where certain time of same sex actions were given approval we never saw same sex marriage.
What is the argument for it?
Mr SPears I hate to inform you but just a few decades ago there was much opposition to the thought of gay marriage in the gay community.
In fact one of Andrew Sullivan's great feats was to change that viewpoint in many quarters . Now it is a "Right"
The issue of rights that would be affected have a lot more than if Churches would be forced to marry people of the same genders. I have always thought that was a red herring.
Your example of forced segregation you allude to is not apt. The only similarity between the two is the various racial laws and gay marriage depend on political force to be enacted and neither are based on anything pre political
Yeah Wheeler.
I know people who know Morris Dees (head of the SPLC) and he is a much more complicated man that people on either side realize.
I suspect there was quite a debate on this behind the scenes
That being said I talked about a danger about this with a Judge last night.
First it makes "hate group" meaningless. Second it does not allow natural mainstream thought to go into a civil and political arena. In affect you will have the extremes take over which is not good for anyone.
James, there are still many gay people who do not want to marry, and nobody is trying to force them to do so. I have no idea who Andrew Sullivan is.
But it is remarkable how much you remind me of my grandparents. I can vividly remember them saying that most niggers do not want to do any race mixing any more than whites do. They asserted that they did not hate, and often said, "We love the niggers, but the niggers need to stay in a nigger's place, and the white's need to stay in a white's place."
If only one person of color wanted to eat at the lunch counter, he should have been allowed to do so, and if only one same sex couple want to record their marriage at the courthouse, they should be allowed to do so.
The Metropolitan Community Churches have been performing ceremonies to join couples in Holy Union since the founding of the first church in Los Angeles. I have no idea who this Andrew Sullivan is, perhaps he is a red herring that you are trying to introduce into the controversy, but nobody is trying to interfer with the marriages of the Catholics or the marriages of members of National Organization of Marriage. It is these hateful bigots who are denying rights, privileges, and freedoms to other Americans because of a personality trait that they did not choose, and cannot change.
Mr Clancy
I guess the reason I mentioned Andrew Sullivan is he has been in the most influential publicans (GAY , STRAIGHT , POLITICAL, SECULAR) on as to this issue and has of been some influence to say the least.
Let me address again more fully the analogy of laws against gay marriage to various laws regarding segregation and interracial marriage.
I think the basic flaw of your argument was that such laws against black citizens had to be maintained by raw political power
In fact if you look at the very early colonial history of what was to become the United States interracial marriage was not unheard of and in fact was not seen as a big deal. The early powers that be were much more concerned with class.
In “at common law there was no ban on interracial marriage.
The common bond between same sex marriage advocates and the people opposing civil rights for black people is this. in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage.
As Francis Beckwith has noted:
"By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism."
This is because marriage is "pre political" It was a natural arising social Inst that arose without reference to Govt. Thus it was seen as a common law right and liberty. That Inst was always between two different sexes.
So I think the case that I am like perhaps your grandparents (and indeed mine to be honest to a certain degree( is misplaced.
You have mentioned a couple of other things in your comments and I think I need to give them more attention in another blog POST on NOM, gay marriage, and certain arguments. I don't think I can give your arguments that really deserve answers in the comment section. I will link here when done
Ok I have responded more to the comments here at another post.
See here
http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-robert-george-and-national.html
Post a Comment