I’m sick of the “but that’s not happening” defense.It’s defensive, it puts us on the back foot, and it makes us look like their accusations are right, that our lives are inherently less legitimate than theirs.
What we should really be doing is hitting them. Their attacks demean the children of same-sex couples, to say nothing of gay kids themselves. They’re completely and totally inappropriate.

You have to wonderAre these people so divorced from reality that they really don't want their kids to acknowledge some of their classmates, hell even their playmates, have same sex-sex parents? These stories piss the hell out of me and make me want to lash out and stop being so P.C. about civility and being the “better person” and give these assholes a taste of their own medicine.

here’s something to point outNOM’s Rhode Island leader equated children of gay parents with “little teacup dogs–it’s an accessory to put in my purse.” Really, he said that. Here’s the link, which also has a link to an earlier statement in which he equated gay parents with dead parents:
http://bit.ly/fRd6LD
I think it would be a good idea to bring up that statement every time Mags et al open their mouths and ask them if they agree with it. Make them justify it or deny it.

Same old, same oldIt’s amazing seeing the same old crap flung time and again.  Seeing this mailer, then reading your comment jogged my memory of this letter to the editor I got in the Arlington (MA) Advocate.  That was way back in 2004.  We’re still having to argue and re-argue the same points.

I would like to address some contradictions and misconceptions in Catherine Ryan’s comments on gay marriage (Local News, 8/26/04).
Ryan is quoted saying “the benefits given to married couples come with a responsibility: Married couples are expected to have children and continue the society. Providing marriage to gay couples bestows those benefits without the added responsibility”  It may be her personal expectation that all married couples have children, but a potential State Representative should know that no such requirement exists in the law.  Further, some married heterosexual couples choose not to have children.  Unless Ryan is also campaigning to dissolve those marriages, she is imposing an extra-legal double standard on gay citizens.  Ryan’s statement is not only troubling, it is perplexing; she acknowledges elsewhere in the article that gay people have children.
The article goes on to say that Ryan’s priorities include improving the quality of life for mothers.  How does she expect to accomplish this by denying the vital protections of marriage to gay mothers and their families?  Working to keep children in legal limbo just because they were born to gay parents isn’t family-friendly.
Finally, Ryan states that gay marriage is a serious economic issue, “the goods are not free”.  I am not aware that the Commonwealth does a cost-benefit analysis before granting marriage licenses, but perhaps it should indeed.  In June the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the cost of gay marriage to the economy.  A 10 year projection indicates that there would be a gay-marriage benefit to the federal budget of about $400 million/yr.  Thus assured, Ryan should support gay marriage 100%.  It’s good for moms, it’s good for the budget.

Indeed, Kevin!These perverted ones remind me of the racist parents back in the 60′s when the courts ordered desegregation. They were so afraid their kids would learn that black kids were real people and would >shudder< become friends, they created “academies” that continued their perverted beliefs.
Bigot groups like NOM, NARTH, Liberty Council, ad nauseum are no better than other racist hate groups out there, and thankfully the SPLC’s out there calling their hate out for all to see!