M. Yates: Marriage is a distinct state

In the Sun Journal on March 28, the Human Rights Campaign assailed the strategies of the National Organization for Marriage, insinuating, among other things, that it was playing racial politics, "dividing gays and blacks."

This is a media play on 3-year-old, in-house documents recently released by the Maine courts describing a number of NOM projects for 2009 and 2010.

This is 2012. Many blacks and Hispanics, Republicans and Democrats, are still unified in defending basic principles affirming a most fundamental institution: marriage. Animus against gays is not the object. Redefining marriage is the issue, and yes, it is "socially radical."

Marriage is a distinct state, recognized by its unitive and procreative qualities; a union ordered in nature recognizing a meaning and purpose of gender. It is not popular opinion or adult desires that define it. We, who affirm marriage, embrace that fundamental biological definition.

Traditional marriage recognizes the rights of children and helps to order human society. A marriage between a man and a woman is the institution adult society uses to pro-actively protect the rights of children to know and be known in a connection with both parents.

Social science affirms that the optimal model for raising children suggests "mother" and "father" relationships to form gender identity and reduce problems, particularly during adolescent development.

Identify the real issues and explain the positions. Avoid the accusations of "racial politics," bigotry and discrimination. There are voters who need information in order to make an important choice in November.

Margaret Yates, Wilton

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Jason Theriault's picture

NOM admits it was wrong!

NOM admits it was wrong!
Hey, don't take it from me... Their twitter feed is abuzz with revelations.

http://twitter.com/#!/nomtweets

Come on guys, hop aboard the bandwagon with NOM. They are big enough to admit they were wrong.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

One question

One question if all gay peoples had been gay, here would the present gays be?

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Correction

One question if all gay PARENTS had been gay, here would the present gays be?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I think that's exactly what

I think that's exactly what the gay activists want, Al. Beat the opposition down with repetition until they say screw it, and don't bother voting. The marriage thing isn't that big a deal; it's what comes up next after that?

AL PELLETIER's picture

Reliving posts from the past.

Three years ago I jumped into this marriage free for all and now I'm sick and tired of it, which is precisely what Gay Activist want.
When I go into the voting booth this fall I'm going to skip the box concerning this issue because frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Great letter, Margaret.

Great letter, Margaret. Unfortunately, it'll fall mostly on blind eyes and deaf ears.

Jason Theriault's picture

Face it, the National

Face it, the National Organization for Marriage is about protecting marriage, it is about justifying hate. "Defending Marriage"? How does allowing more people to marry in ANY way hurt the institution?

Oh, and please keep quoting "facts" about what science has affirmed. Most of the studies I have read have compared married to couples to single parents. The only one that compared homosexual partners to traditional parents seemed to say that dad's generally are the weak link. So a Dad/Dad couple wasn't as good as a Mom/Dad. But that a Mom/Mom couple is optimal.

But, hey keep towing that line. Cite biology, tradition, religion and whatnot. The fact of the matter is that for a group of people so worried about the federal government over-reaching and violating it's constitutional authority when it comes to health care seem to have no problem when it does that to limit who can marry who.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Gays have the same marriage

Gays have the same marriage rights as you and I. That they choose to cause a re-definition of marriage in order to fulfill what they deem marriage should be is a problem, legal and societal. They'll probably prevail some day, but it'll take some time. The re-definition of marriage will not go unopposed. This is not a civil rights issue; it's about people wanting to marry each other by re-defining marriage outside the acceptable norms of society. Society is not always compassionate and understanding. We're all fish in the same ocean. They're creating waves that some of us have no interest in putting up with.

Jason Theriault's picture

Tough


They're creating waves that some of us have no interest in putting up with.

Too bad. Your gonna keep putting up with it until is passes again. Then it will be your turn to generate waves and my turn to say "Stop trying to redefine marriage".

Wont that be fun?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Basically, what you're

Basically, what you're saying, is, "You won't like it but we'll ram it down your throats anyway."

Jason Theriault's picture

Yup

Yup.
Hey, you gotta take your medicine.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Conservative Americans have

Conservative Americans have to 'take their medecine' so that a special interest group can re-establish the definition of marriage. A Gay Union or a Civil Union wouldn't be satisfactory; it absolutely has to be marriage. Bunch of whiners.

Jason Theriault's picture

That cuts both ways

Gay Americans have to fight so that a special interest group won't deny them rights that most Americans hold dear, the right to marry the one they love. The special interests keep throwing up roadblocks in the name of compromise because they don't realize that separate is usually un-equal, and then whine that Gay American's are destroying America

Bunch of whiners.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If someone could convince me

If someone could convince me that same sex marriage will be the last of it, I might say, "Ahhh, what the heck." But, you and I both know, Jason, that same sex marriage is just another wrung on the ladder of incrementation. After this, it'll just be something else. Like I said before, bunch of whiners.

Jason Theriault's picture

Why, where do you see it going?

Where do you see it going? I mean, are you worried about polygamy?

BTW - If your thinking of bring up a man marrying his dog or a bike or anything dumb like that, let me just stop you right there. A bike/fog/rock cannot give consent, therefore could never marry.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Don't know how to break this

Don't know how to break this to you, Mate, but mind reading is not your strong suit. I don't know where it's going, but I do know that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I just know that it isn't going to end with same sex marriage.
BTW-In one of your previous posts on this subject, did I read you refer to society at large as a special interest group? So, the norm is the special interest group? C'mon, Jason, even 'man marries dog' isn't that lame.

Jason Theriault's picture

Well, I disagree that you

Well, I disagree that you should oppose something based on where the law COULD go. I mean, all abortions are the result of sex, but no one is arguing about outlawing sex.

And no, I wasn't compairing society to a special interest group. I was calling Conservative Americans a special interest group.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Conservative Americans are a

Conservative Americans are a special interest group, like Pinocchio is a 'real boy'.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Read your post of 4-10-12 at

Read your post of 4-10-12 at 13:56.
No where does it mention the word 'conservatives'.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Read your post of 4-10-12 at

Read your post of 4-10-12 at 13:56.
No where does it mention the word 'conservatives'.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Please excuse the double

Please excuse the double post. Things are moving a bit slower than normal this morning. 0O:-)

Jason Theriault's picture

No prob

I don't fret the little stuff. Heck, if this was english class, the teacher would have burned out here red pen on my posts.

Anywho, yes, I didn't mention Conservative Americans once. Just like you didn't mention Gay Americans once. You just called them special interests, like how I referred to Conservative Americans as special interests.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

It's well known that gays are

It's well known that gays are considered a special interest group. There are special laws (hate crime status, housing, employment) that specifically protect them. Conservative Americans don't have any arm of Federal Government that gives them any level of special protection. In fact one of the very few remaining unprotected classes of citizens in this country is white, working, Christian, heterosexual males.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I'm up for it; are you?

I'm up for it; are you?

Jason Theriault's picture

I'm already putting together

I'm already putting together material:

" Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Pirate. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the reason to ban same sex marraige, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels' hidden fortress... "

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Who you quoting, Poe or Mau?

Who you quoting, Poe or Mau?

Jason Theriault's picture

BOOOOOO

No Pirate...

Here, I'll post my quote in context:

Darth Vader: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the potential of the Force.

Admiral Motti: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient Jedi religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels' hidden fortress...

[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Governor Tarkin: Enough of this! Vader, release him!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Good stuff. Please tell me

Good stuff. Please tell me you didn't memorize that, but were reading from a script or something.

Jason Theriault's picture

Nope

IMDB

Betty Davies's picture

NOM supporter's poor logic

You seem to be arguing that just because NOM's stated policy of trying to set blacks against gays has not been successful, despite three years of effort, any references to that divide-and-conquer tactic by the media is somehow unfair to NOM.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...