NOM, the Family Research Council (FRC) and CITIZENLink had released a letter that put Republican leadership on notice of their “active opposition” to DeMaio, as well as two other candidates up for election in 2014. However, the first letter stopped short of supporting Peters. The new letter echoes calls from some local Tea Party and conservative leaders to support Peters.
If this were, as NOM is portraying it, a stand on principle, then simply withholding support from deMaio would make sense. Actively supporting his opponent – a left-wing Democrat whose positions are very far out of NOM’s swim lane – is not a stand on principle.
My guess is the tactical reasoning behind this is to warn other Republicans not to jump on the gay marriage bandwagon. NOM can’t accept that – much as it may suck, the battle to preserve traditional marriage is lost. Traditional marriage has been slipping away since 1969 when Ronald Reagan signed California’s “No Fault” divorce law and began the transformation of marriage from a committed Covenant to a non-binding legal contract to stay together for a while and get some bennies. Gay marriage is one of the last nails in that coffin, but it is not the coffin traditional marriage is being buried in. That casket was built by heterosexuals over a period of decades.
On a related note, a court in the state of New York legalized Uncle-Niece/Aunt-Nephew/Uncle-Nephew/Aunt-Niece incest this week; apparently because Uncle-Niece arrangements are common among immigrants, and we are obligated to respect other cultures more than they are obligated to respect our laws.
HT: Peter H.
I don’t understand NOM at all. The real threat to freedom is not gay marriage; it is the left’s usage of gay marriage as a legal bludgeon. Actually electing more help for the left and the Demos is the most idiotic strategy ever.
Mark Steyn has written in the past of the jump in congenital birth defects in the UK due to intermarriage among immigrants. Among other thing, it’s an enormous burden on the NHS, welfare, and state school systems.
So the taxpayers are handed the bill for yet another social pathology they never bargained for and told to STFU.
But the bigger issue, to me, is the fact that society is no longer allowed to shape civic life. There is no public morality. In a moral vacuum, how do you justify bans on, say, bestiality? Polygamy? Brother-sister marriage?
When Americans (and westerners in general) wake up to the destruction of our civilization, there won’t be enough of us left to stop it.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. The problem with open borders is that eventually the Third World runs out of First World countries to flee to.
I was wondering when the traditional marriage holdouts, barricaded & bitter, were going to fire a couple of volleys. All of this was pre-empted by Boehner, previously. They can complain all they want & “support” whomever they please. That ship has sailed & it was none of their business in the first place.
I’m sure, like Huckabee, they’ll next threaten to withdraw from the GOP. There really isn’t an issue that doesn’t offend someone that it’s on or off the table.
It’s the economy & national security that are relevant. These people (nom) know for a fact that nobody is threatening their own marriages & definitions. They, in & of themselves, are a satellite special interest group. This time, they’re not going to find anyone of substance to pander to their hysteria. Besides, California is its own little universe that will always think everything revolves around it. If they want to shake up the race (unlikely) they’ll only cut their own throats.
Traditional Marriage started slipping away far earlier than 1969. Two things began the final descent–effective birth control (which meant you could get married and not have kids and nobody would care) and no-fault divorce (which, if the feeling is gone, so goes the marriage, even if kids are involved.
People don’t seem to understand that kids need a mother and a father TOGETHER, not separately. Two PARENTS, not *A* mother and *A* father. PARENTS.
It may take a collapse of society for that point to be driven home.
That’s because NOM isn’t about helping to preserve man/woman marriage as the most valid and holy social contract there is. It’s about hating on gays and keeping them as legal second-class citizens. As you said in your blog post, V, why would a supposedly conservative organization support an extra vote for a progressive President? It would be like the HRC supporting Pat Robertson because the Democrat didn’t support gay marriage or ENDA.
I mean, I’m pretty sure the Constitution Party has somebody on the ballot. They could have endorsed that.
I disagree. I believe the people who make up the organization believe in preserving the traditional meaning of marriage, even when the heads do something stupid, like this.
Hopefully this will blow up in their faces to teach them a lesson.
The “redefinition of marriage”, to use another phrase I am as sick of hearing as I am “marriage equality”, also predates both of the above events; it started when women were legally allowed to own property and thus began to become not totally subservient to men.