Anti-Marriage Amendment Campaign Tactic: Spread Confusion

| | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out this fantastic post by hr_conservative on Virginia Conservative Analysis. S/he discusses the recent World Net Daily article on marriage, which makes the following salient point:

Yesterday's stunning decision by Washington's Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage is not the only setback dogging same-sex marriage advocates.

In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

So this year as it's brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?

Obfuscate.

This article couldn’t be more accurate, which is unfortunate for the sake of informed democracy.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-Marriage Amendment Campaign Tactic: Spread Confusion.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/486

12 Comments

Thanks for the link, Sophrosyne. I only see it getting worse towards November. We will just have to be ready to debunk these claims.

Terry M said:

Oh Sophie, We all know who is really trying to mislead the public on this issue. The fact that you call an anti-gay amendment the anti-mariage amendment is a good example.

Smart voters can see what your true intentions are here..and it's not protecting tradtional marriage.

Sophrosyne said:

The fact that you call an anti-gay amendment the anti-mariage amendment is a good example.

Huh? What exactly are you saying, that I call the Marriage Amendment the anti-Marriage Amendment?

It is true I call the forces opposed the the Marriage Amendment "anti-Marriage Amendment forces" and their campaign the "anti-Marriage Amendment campaign" but is this not accurate? Is the anti-Marriage Amendment "Commonwealth Coalition" suddenly in favor of the passage of the Marriage Amendment?

Sophrosyne said:

PS: What are my "true intentions" Terry?

I am in need of some thursday afternoon entertainment.

David said:

This is actually your idea of a "fantastic post"? Oh, dear.

Can you tell me what is confusing about simply asking voters to read the entire amendment? I don't think you can, just as you seem unable/unwilling to answer my other questions.

Apparently, when voters read the entire text of the amendment, a majority of them don't want to vote for it. (You wouldn't be advocating that people vote for something without reading the entire thing, would you?)

Now, given that the proposed amendment would actually prohibit any means other than marriage of creating legal rights within families, it seems to me that claiming that the amendment "only defines marriage as between a man and a woman" is in fact what constitutes confusion and obfuscation.

And since simply reading the thing has the effect of making people want to vote against it, I can certainly see why you would need to do that.

As I pointed out to hrconservative about his/her "fantastic" post, frequently the accusations that the anti-gay right makes are a reliable indicator of their own activities, and this is a textbook example of that phenomenon.

Sophrosyne said:

Can you tell me what is confusing about simply asking voters to read the entire amendment?

Nothing is confusing about asking voters to read the Marriage Amendment! At every VA4Marriage event I have been to volunteers encourage everyone to read the full text of the Marriage Amendment and we have printed the full text on all of our literature! I am not sure why the anti-Marriage Amendment folks seem to claim otherwise… at Celebrate Fairfax we had plenty of people come up to our table after first walking past the “Equality Fairfax” table where they were told “They don’t want you to read the scary second paragraph and it isn’t printed on their political literature!”… The minute they were handed our materials with the language clear as day on the front they laughed and often said comments insinuating that they thought they couldn’t trust those folks when they claimed all these wild things about the Marriage Amendment. The fact is the actual text of the full amendment is one of the best tools we have!

I am not sure how/why you claim that:

...when voters read the entire text of the amendment, a majority of them don't want to vote for it.

I have been to many events and watched first hand as people read the Marriage Amendment and respond enthusiastically! I think the more people that read it the better b/c its impact is crystal clear despite your side's attempt to spread misinformation saying otherwise.

The World Net Daily article and hr_c's post was obviously not referring to reading the text of the Marriage Amendment, rather it was referring to this kind of rubbish:

...given that the proposed amendment would actually prohibit any means other than marriage of creating legal rights within families

So Powers of Attorney will crumble? Living Wills will be declared invalid? Surely if this is true this must have already occurred in the 20 states that already have Marriage Amendments on the books! But of course you can’t refer to one sustained example and the best you have is an Ohio court case dealing with their domestic violence law that did not go into effect and is in the process of being overturned… a court case based on fundamentally different statute than we have here in Virginia. THAT is the kind of obfuscation being referred to here…

Jonathan said:

"Living Wills will be declared invalid?"

Please see how the anti-gay members of the Senate, and the White House intervened in the Terry Schaivo case. If I'm correct, the Schaivo marriage was between one man and one woman.

That stunt was an open call for nanny-state intervention into *any* family decision that could be situationally exploited.

Sophrosyne said:

Terri Schaivo had a Living Will? Nope.

If she had one maybe she wouldn’t have been painfully starved to death over the span of 13 days so her husband could comfortably move on in life with his live-in mistress and not feel guilty about abandoning Terri. Simply because someone is disabled (in this case brain damaged) does not mean they should be killed… and I don’t think food and water constitute special life support. If you think efforts to ensure that an incapacitated person in a disputed case (when a state court has authorized death by starvation) has access to the federal court system to ensure due process constitutes a “nanny state” then I doubt we’ll ever find common ground on this issue. Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to specify the jurisdiction of federal courts (just look at the Pledge of Allegiance legislation currently in Congress) and attempting to do so in Terri’s situation was a noble and just act.

The bottom line is that nobody should be subjected to a death sentence of forced starvation because they are disabled and their husband (who in this case made numerous conflicting statements and actions regarding her intent and tried to have her killed only a few short years after her accident but was stopped by the hospital) wants to get rid of them… and at the very least these people deserve access to federal courts as well in order to ensure their euthanization is not against their own intent/desire. After all… murderers like Scott Peterson, etc have access to federal judicial review so shouldn’t innocent disabled people as well?

Anyways we’ve gone off on quite a tangent here (I get pretty fired up with this situation)... unrelated to the topic at hand in this thread. My point is NO Living Will was declared invalid by Congress as you seem to imply above… and NO Living Will (or any other existing contract right) will be declared invalid due to the well worded Marriage Amendment on the ballot this November.

Jonathan said:

Knock, knock Sophrosyne. Is anybody there? The Terri Schaivo's autopsy was released in June of 2005.

LARGO, Fla. - An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage...

You may not like the results after all of your politicians embarrassed themselves by promoting big-government anti-conservative nanny-state family interventions, but the facts are in. Keep disputing settled facts and readers of your blog will see it as the urban myth that it is.

I think it's time for me to stop wasting time hanging out here.

Au revoir, madame

Sophrosyne said:

Umm... did I disagree that Terri had brain damage and was severely disabled? Of course not, in fact I acknowledged it. I really don't understand how pointing out that Terri had brain damage means she should not be permitted the same access to federal court review as mass murderers before she is killed?? Again, I don't equate ensuring that an incapacitated person in a disputed case has access to the federal court system in order to ensure due process constitutes to a “nanny state.”

What "settled facts" am I disputing here? Of course I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer to that question.

Sophrosyne said:

[Sorry to others for the side-discussion... next time we have a conversation about the rights of the disabled I'll put it into a new post]

Jonathan said:

Sophrosyne. Since I don't want you to hold your breath and die on us, I'll answer your question.

In a persistent vegetative state, there is no brain function. God has taken the spirit, the body remains. Terri was not handicapped, she was already in heaven, or hell.

It's funny that you go out of your way to make perfectly healthy gay people suffer and then find deep compassion and empathy for a spiritless empty shell of a body. I bet there is a pathology in there somewhere. Who knows the DSM?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM