Tweet
I’ve written over three thousand posts on the religious right and I have to say that this one upset me more than anything I have ever written.
Whether it meant to or not, the National Organization for Marriage just demonstrated how ugly the organization truly feels about children living in same-sex households. On video, a NOM employee, Kalley Yanta explains why marriage equality is a bad idea. Her words are extremely callous.
For whatever reason, the video isn’t showing up here so if you have a strong stomach, go here to see it.
But if you don’t want to ruin your morning, allow me to give a summation of her point:
This what NOM’s blog says about the matter:
Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains why marriage should not be redefined because some same-sex couples are raising children:
“Very few same-sex couples are raising children. According to the Williams Institute, only 22% of same-sex couples are raising children. Many if not most of those couples involve children from a previous heterosexual relationship. The census bureau shows only 0.55% of all U.S. households are households of same-sex couples. Only 0.12% of U.S. households are same-sex couples raising children.”
Yanta sums up the coldness of NOM’s anti-marriage equality campaign beginning at 1:14 with this statement:
“Why should the definition of marriage that has served us so well be redefined for the 99.88 percent of households in order to accommodate the desires of the 0.12 percent?”
First let’s get that question out of the way. Protecting same-sex families in no way redefines the marriages of heterosexual families. Nor does protecting same-sex families cause harm to heterosexual families.
I’m just struck by the basic callousness of Yanta’s statement. I refuse to argue whether or not her points are accurate because it is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many percentages of same-sex families raising children exist in America. Shouldn’t these families be treated equally as heterosexual families?
Not according to Yanta and definitely not according to NOM. To hear them, since same-sex families are not as numerous as large as heterosexual families, they don’t deserve protection under the law.
To Yanta and NOM, these families and their children don’t matter. It’s a contradiction of the statements made by former NOM head Maggie Gallagher during a Congressional hearing last year. Remember when she said that “there are some gay people who are wonderful parents.”
So Gallagher thinks that gays make wonderful parents, but according to her organization, they don’t deserve protections for their partners and especially their children.
Is this the new Christian ethic in which we value families not by the love and support they give, but by the number of them exist?
It’s an ugly thing to ponder, especially when one remembers the Biblical story of the lost sheep. According to the Gospels of Matthew (18:12–14) and Luke (15:3–7), Jesus told a story of a shepherd who left his flock to find one lost sheep because he cared about that one lost sheep as much as he cared about those 99 others.
The shepherd did not say “forget that sheep. It’s just one and I have 99 others.” No, the shepherd looked for that sheep until he found it.
The point is that we all have value, not by the number of us who may exist, but because we exist, period.
And that’s a value which needs to be upheld. It doesn’t matter how many same-sex families raising children exists in this country. They count just as much as heterosexual families raising children. And they should be treated with the same amount of fairness because it is the right thing to do.
A truly ethical and Christian organization would know this. But what does NOM know about true Christianity and true ethics?
No matter how much NOM tries to deceive us, the organization’s mask seem to always fall off, showing its true ugly face.
10 Comments
Taking Minnesota for Marriage at its word, discriminating against kids is worth $876 per kid, and climbing.
So what’s the magic number at which people deserve some rights?
I’m getting rather tired of the concept that marriages and families are only “real” if there are children involved.
Don’t the same-sex families that have no children count in her calculations?
No. For them the only purpose of marriage is to have children. Or to take care of children that came about accidentally because people were too indoctrinated with religion to know anything about biology and birth control. Anyone who doesn’t have children isn’t living right according the Bible.
Tell me, what percentage of married couples comprise formerly unwed mothers and the Hindu father of their second child? Sauce for the goose and all that…
Hmmm…seems to me that NOM’s whole preventing equality thing is a giveaway about what they truly are.
If you are doing anything that 99.8% of the people don’t do, then you have no right to do it. That includes marrying someone of the same sex and raising children, playing classical piano at Carnegie Hall — whatever.
This is not a firm rule — we reserve the right to lower the percentage at any time. So do what most people do and you’ll be fine.
I heard this today and I loved it. Homophobia, the fear that a gay man is going to treat you as you treat women. I think these people have gone too far.
These people make me sick to my stomach
I guess I’m confused: On the one hand they’re saying marriage equality is corrupting the whole darned country and heterosexual families are falling apart and everyone is falling into sin because of this marriage equality ickyness. But here, on the other hand, commercial actress “Kelly ‘I’m-Pure-and-you’re-not’ Yanta” says in this video that there’s only a less than a 10th of a percent for whom this change in law would have any meaning.
More like a “Marriage Madness Minute” than a “Minnesota Minute”
Oh wait! I get it! They’re trying to confuse us with this cognitive disonance and then…. I don’t know… prove they can be clever with alliteration? Whatever.