Straight or Gay, Why Should the State be Involved in Marriage?

Last night, the Human Rights Campaign published National Organization for Marriage memos that, as Zack Ford put it, "explicitly confirm many of the insidious tactics LGBT bloggers have been documenting for years."

We now know, for example, that NOM set out to "[d]rive a wedge between gays and blacks" by couching the fight of marriage in the language of the civil rights movement, as well as "interrupt this process" of Hispanic assimilation "by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity."

The GOP has a longstanding history of maintaining the divisions between classes and race to promote policies that keep the populace divided and controlled. 

On this issue, State Intervention in marriage in any way is an overreach of authority and a suppression of individual liberty. The sanctity of marriage is trampled upon the moment anyone outside that bond intervenes and attempts to regulate or control the relationship. 

It will interesting to see if, and how, Mitt Romney responds to these revelations. Last August, Romney — along with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum — signed NOM's pledge [pdf] to deny gays and lesbians equal rights under the law, as did Newt Gingrich in December.

This is why gay rights and marriage equality are a civil rights issue, and will eventually be recognized if that effort is taken which gave blacks and women the right to vote. 

In return, NOM's president, Brian Brown, deemed the candidate a "marriage champion." (Romney apparently failed to win the favor of former chairman, Maggie Gallagher.)

In having NOM has an ally, Romney stands to gain considerable financial support. As Buzzfeed noted:

In a "$20 million strategy for victory" keyed to the 2010 midterm elections, the group says its agenda "requires defeating the pro-gay Obama agenda."

I guess there are a few specific positions and policies that I agree with the Left on, but still don't see much overall difference between the two sides in general policy. 

"A pro-marriage president must be elected in 2012," the document says, although Obama has offered tepid opposition to same-sex marriage.

How can one promote a pro-marriage position without recognizing that marriage is an individual choice and right which should never have any State involvement or regulation (or recognition)? 

Gays have as much right to be miserable and end up divorced as straights, since that's what the statistics say. It's hard to defend marriage when it holds reverence for an ever-decreasing population, but should always be separate from State meddling. 

Whether directly or indirectly, Romney is sure to be the beneficiary of these efforts. Will he continue to ally himself with an organization that views African-Americans and Hispanics as pawns?

Left and Right are both wrong. 

---

Original Page: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/27/452545/will-romney-denounce-allys-goal-to-drive-a-wedge-between-gays-and-blacks/