Michael Hamar

The Bizarre Moral Universe of the Haters at NOM

Filed By Michael Hamar | July 06, 2011 11:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: anti-gay bigotry, anti-gay churches, Brian Brown, marriage equality, National Organization for Marriage, New York

I do not hide the fact that I have a lot of loathing for the self-enriching bigots and political whores at the National Organization for Marriage and their allies in what I call the "professional Christian" set. These parasites - Maggie Gallagher, for one - are raking in nice six figure incomes and overseeing millions of dollars of spending aimed solely at keep discrimination against other citizens writ large in the nation's civil laws even as many thousands - more likely, millions - of children are starving around the world and all kinds of humanitarian endeavors would be better recipients of all of that money being thrown around by NOM.

I have long believed that antipathy and animus toward gays and same-sex marriage says far more about our opponents than it does about supposed LGBT immorality. If any one is immoral, it's the haters and Christianists who make a living manufacturing and disseminating hatred towards others. Because of the folks at NOM, and those like Tony Perkins, Rick Warren, and Pope Benedict XVI, I no longer even like to describe myself as Christian. I still honor Christ's Gospel message, but I simply have no desire to be in the company of such modern day Pharisees.

Interestingly, the recent vote in the New York State Senate gives us yet another glimpse of the morally upside down world of NOM. As Pam Spaulding reports, Rich Murray, an activist with Queer Rising, happened to be in the galley of the New York Senate during the vote for marriage equality and caught a photo of Brian Brown weeping after marriage equality won passage.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the man is seriously sick. Allowing same sex couples to have civil law marriage in absolutely no way impinges one iota on Brown's civil rights or his right to believe whatever religious-based bullshit he wants. And yet, he's weeping over the fact that now others in New York State will no longer be second- or third- class citizens and will be able to have both more security in their relationships and for their families. It is truly sick, and in my view, it's immoral. Had Brown lived 150 years ago, would he have been weeping over the imminent end to slavery? Sadly, I suspect that the answer is yes. Brown and those like him seem only capable of accepting themselves when they have someone else to look down upon and point to as their legal inferiors.

Pam had these words on Brown:

Don't you just feel awful? The gay and lesbian people of New York were just put on legal parity with Brown. What an awful day for him.

One comment on Pam's post may also have been on the mark:

Brian Brown is only weeping over the fact that his porky ass is going to have to find another line of work very soon. I hope the lying bastard rots in an unemployment line for a very long time.


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I have been analyzing the religious and "moral" underpinnings of the NOMbies. While religious fundamentalism may play a part, the buzz words are rooted in Roman Catholic "moral" theology and can be traced through papal encyclicals on marriage such as Leo XIII's Arcanum (1880), and Pius XI's Casti Conubii (1930), as well as the string of anti-gay documents emanating from the hand of (or under the guidance of) the current pope dating from when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Roman Catholic "moral" theology fails on these issues because it is rooted in misogyny (a fact that was amply shown by Roman Catholic theologian Uta Ranke Heinemann in her book "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven," a work on misogyny in RCC moral theology that obtained both a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, so it's good Catholic theology even though it shows clearly the sort of loose moral sand on which the Catholic Church's foundation is built.

Building further on the misogyny is a kind of heterosexist supremacacy, in part rooted in the patriarchal concepts surrounding the Catholic theology of marriage.

The result? A theology in which misogyny results in homosexuality being condemned as sinful (strangely, rather than the macho misogyny of the men of Sodom); where marriage is an unequal partnership; and where heterosexuals have special rights.

Analyzing some of the writings of Robert P. George, past NOM board chair and co-author of the Manhattan Declaration, and this leads to the idea that religious freedom is properly only for those whose religion is rooted in heterosexist supremacy.

I trest this at length in two essays at my blog this past weekend - I would reproduce them here, but they are way too long for comment. They are at:

http://bit.ly/iqvZCZ - responding to the recent National Review interview of RObbie George
and
http://bit.ly/pQRfbM - responding to the December 2010 pseudo-scholarly article on Marriage co-authored by Robbie George, published in a Harvard Hournal that is sponsored by the Federalist Society.

It is no wonder that the warped reality that they have created for themselves allow Robbie George to state that New York has "abolished" marriage and replaced it with a "counterfeit," when all that happened was the extension of connubium (the latin term for "right to marry") on a gender neutral basis.

They cannot conceive that we may legally be "as good as them." This horrifies them to no end.

Your note, Michael, as to Brian Brown breaking down in tears at the prospect of more Americans becoming legally allowed to marry the people of their choice brings to mind "St." Paul's nervous breakdown on the way to continue persecuting early Christians in Damascus. St. Paul also was clearly a severely flawed individual, and it's worth noting that St. Paul didn't think that straight people should get married either.