So while reading the news today, I read that the National Organization for Marriage is up to it's old tricks again, using their money and resources to try and influence politics. This time, or should I say, again the target is California. Now, i will admit first and foremost, I am biased in writing this: I am an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, but I wanted to see what NOM had to say and see how logical their arguments were and if I could actually agree with them. While reading them, I realized how either they don't answer the question, or use illogical arguments to make their case. So I decided to take a shot at critiquing their answers. Mostly to just vent my own frustration, but also to spread the word, because who nows, maybe I'm onto something, and someone with a better education can help me out. My analyses will be in italics.

So, here it is, from their website, their FAQs entitled:

SAME SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Tough Questions
(Source: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm)

III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

This would be one of the circumstances where the author fails to actually answer the question. The author turns the question into a personal attack on his/her character, making 'arguments' to gather sympathy as opposed to presenting any actual facts. The author also fails to even answer the second two questions. Though marriage between a husband and wife isn't new, totally right there, the reasons for said marriage have changed dramatically over the centuries, even in American society. I could go into a whole other rant about the author's American ethnocentrism, but that is too easy an argument to make. So instead I will focus on the statistic the author provides: "60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage." Ok, fine. But what about Chinese-Americans? Irish-Americans? Hispanic-Americans? Caucasians? If you're going to include one statistic, include them all. Likewise, the reasons why the author is against same-sex marriage may not be the same as the 60% quoted. The author's argument is based solely on children, others' arguments may be religious based.

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

The beginning part of this argument is logical and makes sense. Interracial marriages were banned due to prejudice and the belief that mixing marriages would some how "dilute" the other race. However, the argument would've been better structured had the author included single-parenting alone, to include single fathers. Here the argument fails because, it is implying that all single parents must or should get married for the benefit of the child. Some single parents do not want to remarry; others fear the child's other parent would somehow be harmful to the child's physical or emotional well being. To suggest that a single parent is somehow inferior or incapable of providing the emotional, financial or psychological support that a child needs is laughable, and is quite reminiscent to Anne Coulter.

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

This is taking a very interesting thing for the author to say, because it fails to take one thing into consideration: what happens if it goes against his personal beliefs? IE: America votes to allow same sex-marriage? It would be interesting to see how this argument would change should that happen. Likewise, an amendment was proposed on the federal level, which was rejected by both parties, granted for two different. Likewise, the author's activist judges are the same line of judges that overturned segregation, decided Roe Vs Wade, and other significant social movements.

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

Similar to the first question, it doesn't answer how. The answer just gives a general fear-triggered response. If this is how the author truly feels, he should give specific examples on how same-sex marriage will indeed "harm people." Also, the definition of marriage has been decided by the state for quite a while. the ban on polygamy is a good example of such.

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

This is a difficult one to argue against. Not because there are flaws, but because it's so flawed that it's hard to believe anyone would take this argument seriously. No one can know the future, and fears like this often don't come into fruition. Take for example George W. Bush's surge strategy, everyone assumed it was going to fail, and it didn't. Making these bold "If , then" statements without A: data or B: a reasonable hypothesis, nullifies the argument, rendering it useless and ultimately laughable.

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

With such a sordid topic as religion and same-sex marriage, there would undoubtedly be some sort of protection for these organizations. For example, legislation exists where religious are not required to perform same-sex religious ceremonies because that interferes between church and state. What they will not be able to do is discriminate independent of their beliefs. Meaning, a gay person cannot be denied access to a Catholic organization, but a gay couple can be denied a Catholic wedding ceremony because it is against the Catholic religion. It may be a tricky game to play, but it is one that would be played out with the rules fully explained.

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

This argument is exactly why same-sex marriage failed in California and in Maine: fear. The law allowing same-sex marriage to happen in Maine specifically stated that education would be independent of the law. Meaning, just because Tom and Steve could marry, did not mean that the local public school would teach it. However, even if it did, that does not mean the child would have to be subjected to such education. Children can be removed from the classroom the days that those topics deemed "controversial" provided the school gave adequate notice. The same goes for same-sex marriage or gay families.

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

Again, an argument based on fear without anything backing it. It is unlikely that the idea that children need moms and dads will become bigotry. For all of gay rights and the importance they want to convey, gay parents, gay people, and gay marriage is still a minority. Therefore, the idea traditional families or marriages will become viewed as bigots or bigotry is quite unlikely. What will most likely happen is that the model of the traditional family will still be presented as the "norm" but "alternative" families will be presented as families that do exist throughout the country, including but not limited to: same-sex parents, foster families, singe-parent families, grand-parents as the primary caregiver etc.

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

How? Here is another example of how the author fails to give adequate evidence supporting his argument. And no, the people of "this state" will not lose the right to keep marriage as a union of husband and wife, because the state is not forcing everyone to marry someone of the same sex. All it would be doing is removing husband and wife from the marriage license. But in all practical and real purposes, a traditional family would still include a "husband" and a "wife" regardless.

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

If I were a cynic I'd go into the high divorce rate here. But I'll just leave this one be, because like most of the other answers: it doesn't provide an answer to the question asked.

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

The problem with this argument is even though an attempt can be made to fix the system, people's minds and preconceived notions cannot be undone so easily. Take for example, New Jersey. Currently, gay people can have civil unions which are supposed to provide all of the benefits that a married couple would receive, just without being called "married." However, the problem, that has arisen has been at the social and interpersonal level. No one immediately is aware what a "partner" means, or what exactly a "civil union" means. Therefore, same-sex couples are often denied the rights they are supposed to have under the law, but because the average person isn't aware of these laws, does not allow the gay person to see his spouse in the hospital, or get insurance for her spouse. Whatever the case may be. Fixing the system is only part of the solution and does not solve all of the problems.

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

Local folks cannot decide benefits. It's companies, states and laws that decide benefits. Though the author is right here about one thing: the issue isn't about benefits: it is about marriage.

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

This is a statement that seems to be grasping at straws, trying to somehow link same-sex marriage and the high divorce rate together. Apparently same-sex marriage, or the idea of it, according to this statement, is also a cause for the high divorce rate.

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

The author is clever here, because she states "ideal" and doesn't right out state "children should only have a mom and dad" which seems to be the sentiment behind the sentence. However, life is not ideal, and even though two parents may love their child, it is not always the best scenario for the child. This argument does not take into account non-traditional families outside of same-sex couples: IE aunts/uncles, grandparents, single parents, or foster parents.

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

No critique here for the argument. It is a very short, curt and to the point statement. However, just because a child has a mother and father, does not make them a GOOD mother or father. The author continues to ignore quality over quantity (the quantity being two parents of a different sex). Likewise, you can compare apples and oranges: both are fruits, both have seeds, both grow on trees, both are popular juices, both are good for the body.


Overall, the main critique about their FAQs is lack of sufficient data or arguments. If they felt what they put here, they would support the proof or data to back it up. Not just throw out random tidbits of fear mongering or overgeneralized sentences hoping to appease to a broader idea. Basically, this organizations arguments are like a Monet painting: seem to be well structured at first glance, but after more scrutiny and more analysis, it's just a big old mess.