Blogroll Amnesty Day

February 3rd, 2009

The Pajama Pundit posted yesterday about Blogroll Amnesty Day, something I didn?t know existed until then. He plugged several blogs, including your?s truly. In order to pass the love around, here are all of the other Blogs that he plugged as well.

The Absurd Report
The Rude Pundit
C. Alyson Love
Brown Man Thinking Hard
Distributorcap
Dizzying Intellect
d r i f t g l a s s
Rumproast
Shots On The House
Simply Left Behind
The American Boy
The Hathos
ThePoliticalCat
TYWKIWDBI
Vast Variety
Viva Chuck Todd/Viva Rachel Maddow
Annette’s little piece of the world
Hip Young Thing
Zuky
Bipartisan Rules
Susan Katz Keating
Science Text
The Communist Dance Party
Deadenders
The Median Sib
Oh Gosh

< |||| > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Posts Tagged ‘National Orginization for Marriage’

Friday NOM-Sense: A Picard Momment

imageYour probably wondering what our good Captain Jean-Luc Picard has to do with this week’s Friday NOM-sense. Give me a moment and I’ll explain.

This week’s Friday NOM-Sense article comes to us from the NOM funded Ruth Institute. In a recent quiz they asked a question in relation to a study put out by the William’s Institute in December of 2007 (4 years ago). A study that relied on information from the 2000 census (10 years ago).

What percentage of US children lives in households headed by same sex couples?

And apparently the correct answer was less than 0.4%. They then go through the math of how they come up with the figure. Please note that accurate census information regarding same-sex couples wasn’t collected in the 2000 census or in the 2007 snapshot. In fact, the Bush administration had ruled that same sex couples would not be counted in the 2010 census, a ruling that was overturned by the Obama administration. According to the Huffington Post article discussing Obama’s decision to count same sex couples.

the issue is that some same-sex couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships already identified themselves as husbands or wives, both in the 2000 census and in the annual American Community Survey that the bureau produces each year.

Which means that in those census surveys at least some same sex couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships (the types most likely to have children) would have identified as married since there is no civil unions or domestic partnership boxes to check. That means that those couples were left out of the Williams Institute survey.

But frankly, regardless of what the actual numbers of same sex couples raising children actually are, their errors in research and math are not why this ends up being this weeks NOM-sense. At the end of the post Betsy makes this comment.

Given that less than four tenths of one percent of children is being raised in same sex households, it hardly seems unkind to say that this represents an exceptional situation. The law might justly treat this as an exception.

So apparently since only 0.4% of US children are raised by same sex couples, it’s ok to bar those families from the institution of civil marriage. As if there is some magic number somewhere that says if it’s this many it’s ok to discriminate, if it’s more than that you can’t. Which brings me back to our man the Captain.

In the movie Star Trek Insurrection the Federation and the Son’a have teamed up to secretly relocate the Ba’ku from their planet against their will. When Picard figures out what is going on he confronts Admiral Dougherty who responds with.

Jean-Luc, we’re only moving six hundred people.

To which Picard comes back with and with which I ask Betsy of the Ruth Institute.

How many people does it take before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many people does it take, Admiral!?

How many people does it have to be before robing them of their civil rights and human dignity is wrong?

Update: The Ruth Institute has deleted my comment where I asked them the question of how many. But that’s ok, I have a screenshot.

Update 2: After asking them if the reason they deleted my question was because they didn’t have an answer the put it back up. Now lets see if they actually have an answer.

Friday NOM-sense is a new weekly column at Vast Variety that tackles the lies of the National Organization for Marriage and it’s affiliates because they refuse to participate in civil debate on their own blogs.

Painted Walls

imageLast week 2 churches in California were spray painted with the words “Kill the Catholics” on their walls. Today, Thomas Peters of the anti-gay group National Organization for Marriage, tries to pin these horrendous incidents on Marriage Equality advocates, by bringing out their victim card again and trying to get scarred religious folks to hand over their cash by reminding them of the events of vandalism that occurred after the hateful Proposition 8 was passed in November of 2008.

None of the events of November 2008 have ever been traced back to Marriage Equality advocates. And Thomas fails to mention in his post on NOM’s blog that the ABC story he links to as “evidence of hate” actually discusses the gay-friendly Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church whose parishioners were mostly against Prop 8.

Thomas closes his post with

If words and symbols can hurt, spray painted messages and defamation of publicly property surely harms.

Frankly Thomas, if NOM really wants to stop the hate, I’d recommend starting by cleaning your own house up first.

Hypocrisy

Check out this great video that basically takes apart the recent NOM video and details where it is wrong.

Head Nod: Below the Beltway and Positive Liberty

NOM Campaign Update

It looks as if they may have stopped deleting posts. I’ve had about 3 posts show up as not being moderated.

NOM Campaign

The National Origination for Marriage, or NOM, has recently spent $1.5 million dollars on a distasteful and misleading ad against same-sex marriage.

They also have a blog, and I have tried to post several comments in an attempt to get them to actually debate the issue on it’s facts. However they keep deleting my posts. I don’t know it it’s because they don’t have any facts, or they are afraid of an actual discussion instead of simply passing judgment or what, but I don’t understand how they expect to get their message across to people if they are unwilling to back up their claims with thoughtful and respectful discussion.

So, I would like to encourage everyone to head over to their blog and help me get them to talk about the issue of same sex marriage based on facts. Please be respectful. We can have an engaging and passionate discussion without insults or attacks and that is all I’m advocating. An honest and open discussion based on facts.

I’d like to thank Annette for posting my call for debate in Her little piece of the world.

Update: It looks as if I’m not the only one they are trying to silence.

Categories