Pam Spaulding

NOM board member advocates criminalization of homosexuality, overthrow of government

Filed By Pam Spaulding | May 01, 2009 3:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS, Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage, Orson Scott Card

The folks at the National Organization for Marriage are quickly earning a reputation as an incompetent, delusional organization ill-prepared to handle defending "traditional marriage."

I mean come on -- all these people have managed to do is make their cause look absurd at this point. NOM produced a widely derided and parodied "Gathering Storm" ad, let loose its diva of discrimination Maggie Gallagher on the air to do an ace job of serial lying and playing a bigoted bully as a talking head, and with today's ad and ridiculous press conference with Miss Pageant-Paid-for Fake Jugs for Jesus California, NOM is further marginalizing itself.

But it gets worse. NOM claims it doesn't hate the gays, but on its board it has a real live wire. People For the American Way President Michael Keegan:

"If the National Organization for Marriage wants to make the comments of a gossip columnist and a beauty queen the subject of a national debate, then it should answer for the bizarre and troubling remarks of its most prominent board member - best-selling science fiction writer Orson Scott Card.

"The NOM has argued that it is not a homophobic organization, but Card's remarks suggest otherwise. Card, who represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the board and received an effusive welcome last week from NOM president Maggie Gallagher, supports criminalizing sex between same-sex adults:

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens.

"Card has also advocated overthrowing the government if same-sex marriage is permitted:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

"It is one thing for a science fiction writer to have such views, but it's something much different for a national organization like the NOM to endorse those views by giving Card such a prominent position on its board. We call on the NOM to categorically reject Card's radical statements."

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.

Harrison | May 1, 2009 3:23 PM

Speaking of the criminalization of homosexuality, may I point out that in a personal email, Steve Deace, a host on Who Newsradio and a columnist for WorldNetDaily, made a very worrying remark along the same lines.

That Maggie Gallagher is one nonstop chatter box of nonsense. There is not much else i think of when her name comes up. Other that C R A Z Y.

A. J. Lopp | May 2, 2009 12:28 PM

I have long pointed out that the ultimate goal of the fundies includes undermining major principles in the US Constitution, and thus it is literally and technically correct to characterize them as "subversives".

Read quote from Card above, and I rest my case.

Well, what do you expect from people who believe in a talking snake. LOL