Saturday, December 17, 2011

Newt Signs NOM Marriage Pledge, Maggie Gloats, Blogsphere Goes Ballistic

As Andrew Sullivan says, one can definitely find hope in the comments responding to Maggie Gallagher's gleeful report that the Newt has signed her NOM "marriage pledge."  The NOM home page states that the mission of the National Organization for Marriage is "to protect marriage."  As this NOM press release attacking civil marriage for same-sex couples in Rhode Island notes (and as numerous statements by NOM for some years now stress), NOM exists to defend the "traditional" definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for life.  NOM advertised its August 2010 rally in Charleston, West Virginia, as a "One Man, One Woman" rally.

And so, it stands to reason, doesn't it, that Ms. Gallagher would be overjoyed to have a thrice-married man with a history of a hot mess of marital infidelity sign NOM's pledge to defend traditional one-man, one-woman, for-life marriage?  Well, not so much to readers logging in to comment on Maggie's boast that the Newt has signed her pledge.

Two of my favorite responses to Maggie's post from just page one of the thread:

So out of wedlock mom is pleases [sic] that adulterous philanderer has signed pledge affirming the sanctity of marriage... 
Next up...Exxon signs pledge affirming the beauty of nature, Rush Limbaugh affirms sanctity of marriage and the evils of drug abuse, and Herr Ratzinger affirms the importance of protecting children. 
You have the moral gravity of a used tissue (from Tde707 at 11:15 on 16 Dec.).

Some people want to block gay marriages because they need a lot of spare marriages for themselves. Newt and Rush are in bonus rounds (from Steve Goodman at 4:28 on 16 Dec.).

It's almost as if people are beginning to wonder whether those attacking same-sex marriage on "faith-based" grounds really do occupy the moral center of their religious traditions, isn't it?  Or whether they ever had any purpose other than attacking a vulnerable minority group, as they claimed to be defending "traditional" one-man, one-woman, for-life marriage . . . .

No comments: