The Big Lie: Gay Marriage bans only "protect traditional marriage"

[Ian David]

ADF and Gay Marriage Amendments

Category: Gay Rights
Posted on: October 13, 2006 1:57 PM, by Ed Brayton

Man, the ADF is really on a roll lately with false claims. In this blog post, the admin of their blog claims that the various state amendments banning gay marriage do not interfere with governments or private companies offering benefits to domestic partners:

Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex "marriage" argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people...

Same-sex "marriage" advocates argue that eliminating domestic partnerships or other counterfeit marital institutions is hateful and mean spirited, because it will undermine benefits granted to unmarried people. Unfortunately, many people (including some so-called "conservative" politicians) have bought into this fallacious argument.

I would submit that the only ones sowing confusion on this point are religious right groups like the ADF. For example, the Thomas More Law Center has been using the ban on gay marriage in Michigan to sue cities and universities, arguing that their domestic partnership benefits violate that law. And here's the kicker: one of their main attorneys, Patrick Gillen, was the co-author of that referendum while working with a group called Citizens for the Protection of Marriage (CFPM). The CFPM put out a brochure during the lead up to the 2004 election where they said pretty much the same thing the ADF is claiming now:

Proposal 2 is Only about marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their lives. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is-for families today and future generations. (Emphasis in the original)

More:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/10/adf_and_gay_marriage_amendment.php#more

[iamjoy]

1. I Thought That Was The Point

I mean, I thought they were deliberately seeking to strip away rights not just from homosexuals, but from heterosexual couples who live together but do not get married (ie: no domestic partner benefits, etc.)

After all, if you want to "protect" marriage (whatever that means) isn't the bigger threat opposite sex domestic partnerships? If people can have all the benefits of marriage without making that commitment, some people are going to choose that option. But, if you allow homosexuals to get married and then deny marital benefits to non-married couples...

[William769]

2. Still trying to decide which lie is bigger.

The one you reference or the one on the Iraq war? But then again the cause of both came from the same place.

[FernBell]

3. k&r