CommunityPam's House Blend

NOM – Same-sex households and their children don’t matter

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.

Previous post

Michigan Republicans Kill Petition Over "Font Size." What's Next, Whining about Kerning?

Next post

Brooks Does the Big Lie on Stimulus (with no shame)

Alvin McEwen

Alvin McEwen