Marriage Protection Week - what are they protecting?

This week is Marriage Protection Week

What, exactly, is being accomplished here?

From the “Purposes” page:

An article also reviews this event in The Advocate here

Is the institution of marriage so frail as it would not be able to withstand other loving, life-long committed couples added to its ranks? Are existing opposite-sex marriages somehow diminished by a same-sex couple pledging their love for each other? Will the United States of America surely fall under the burden of this “attack?”

Little help? 'Cause I’m not seeing it.

(I realize this has been done before, but this “celebration” bears re-examining the subject, IMHO. Besides, I still don’t get it, and the homophobic religious dogma posted on this site as “further information” is bunk and hooey.)


The site’s privacy stament reveals:

American Family Association
107 Parkgate Dr.
Tupelo, MS 38803

Whois info for,

American Family Association
PO Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803

Searching on the AFA reveals:

“AFA is for people who are tired of cursing the darkness and who are ready to light a bonfire. We are a non-profit (501©(3)) organization founded in 1977 by Don Wildmon.” The rest of the page is worth a read.

Also check
Does this help?

What they are protecting (or trying to) is their own emotional and intellectual insecurity - I believe it’s really that simple.

Next time someone tells me “they want to redefine marriage to include two men, or two women, or a group of any size or mix of sexes”, I’m going to reply; “What? do they want to redefine my marriage that way?”.

Yes, you will probably be forced to accept another man into your marriage, Mangetout. Be afraid… or open?

OK; do I get to choose the man?

I find it grimly ironic that this is also National Domestic Violence Awareness Month (it’s also West Virginia Archaeology Month, but that’s a different thread). Sure enough, in this morning’s paper, 6 pages away from the letter to the editor that mentioned that, there’s an article about a who shot himself and his wife and threatened his kids. She’s survived, and he had threatened to kill her in the past.

Let me get this straight. People who abuse and kill their spouses are allowed to marry; convicts are allowed to marry; Larry King is allowed to marry for the 6th time; I could marry Steven Wright so that he could come to live in the United States, and, while I might be breaking immigration law, no one on seeing the marriage itself would call it an attack on marriage. I could marry some fellow during a drunken fling in Las Vegas, and that would not be an attack on marriage. However, two people who genuinely love, honor, and cherish each other, and who want to spend the rest of their lives together are something which marriage must be defended against if they happen to be the same sex. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

I do hold marriage sacred. To me, it is not something to be entered into lightly, but only with a willingness to love, honor, respect, and cherish the person you’re marrying and also a willingness to work together to support each other. Abusing one’s spouse or marrying simply because one is lonely or that’s what one is supposed to do is far more denigrating to marriage than two homosexuals wanting to enter into the same vows heterosexuals take for granted.


Oh yes, in answer to the OP, what they are protecting is people who think just like them. I’m glad I’m not one of them.


I was kind of hoping they’d protect my right to neglect taking the trash out now that it gets dark so early.

But you’re right. I’d bet their goal is to protect marriage as they have defined it which is probably a little more restrictive than most people care for.

Hell, want to REALLY protect marriage? Make divorce illegal. That’d do it.

Siege: Another one for your list: People who sexually abuse and murder children can marry people who already have children. They can also marry and bred. It’s called “growing your own victims.”



(My bolding)

Can you say “straw man”? :rolleyes:

Given that I would love to be able to marry both my partners and work to support causes that would make it possible, I’m not sure what you’re objecting to there, davidm.

Straw man hell. Can you say Sorority Gangbang Volume 37? Bow chicka bow bow… :wink:

I read that three times before I figured out that was “partners” and not “parents”. Changes the whole meaning. :o

Although, the AFA aside, if you look at the actual proclamation, it’s more or less uncontroversial.

The White House does throw in that “marriage is between one man and one woman” bit, but it mainly talks about eliminating the marriage income tax penalty, his “healthy marriage” initiative, and welfare reform.

The proclamation also, interestingly enough, throws in

And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect. **

If Bush really wanted to come out against gay marriage, the proclamation could have been a lot stronger.

My guess is that, with the election coming up, Bush wants to make overtures to the religious right, who I think have been feeling ignored by him. Bush didn’t say anything during the Ten Commandments Monument controversy in Alabama (and I think is still backing Pryor for the court, who the religious right can’t stand now), and most of his time lately has been taken up by the Iraq war. So, I’d imagine the Religious Right are feeling kind of lonely right now. So, maybe Bush hopes that declaring “Marriage Protection Week” will show them he still cares.

What I was objecting to was the implication that support of same sex marriage equates to support of group marriages of any size. Saying that you believe that 2 men or 2 women should be allowed to marry is not the same thing as saying that you believe that 3 or more people should be allowed to marry. AFAIK that’s not part of the mainstream debate in this country. Lilairen, no slight intented at all against you or your position, but I strongly suspect that you are in a rather small minority. Many people who would support the idea of same sex marriage between 2 people, would not support what you want. (Whether they’re right or wrong about this is another question.) A law that recognized marriages of more than 2 people would have much less support than one that limited it to 2. IMHO the people who wrote the paragraph quoted in the OP know this and that’s why they worded it the way they did. I object to people using extreme strawman arguments (e.g., "a group of any size ") to try to win converts by mischaracterizing their main opposition.

Homebrew – snrfk

davidm – whether or not the people who write the quoted paragraph intended to induce hysteria by rhetorically inflating the number of people who are activists for polyamorous folks and their interests, the fact of the matter remains that we exist.

There -are- those who want to let two men, two women, or for that matter x men and y women marry. This is just -true-, not some sort of straw man construction. The language does suggest at least by implication that that set is the same set as those who would let two men or two women marry, yes, but as written it is still a factually correct statement.

I will grant you “intentionally inflammatory”. I will grant you “intentionally conflating the positions of a minority group in the opposition with a larger group in a deniable fashion”. I will not grant you “straw man”, because I exist, and that is an accurate description of my position.

My use of the term “straw man” was not meant to imply that you don’t exist. I wasn’t saying the you are a straw man. Obviously there are people in this country who hold your position and I was aware of that. It’s the conflation of the two groups that is the straw man, not you. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not.

I was just thinking about this today, and how lots of people who want to “defend marriage” like to talk about how marriage has always meant a certain thing, and to allow the meaning to change now would be an affront to history and tradition. Not to mention that we don’t know what effect it would have on society to change a venerable institution that has held civilization together for over 5,000 years.

But to use this argument is to conveniently forget that marriage has not always meant the same thing. At certain times it referred to an arrangement between one man and one or more women. In some places it still does. People used to expect dowries, implying that marriage was a transfer of money from one family to another in addition to the coupling of two people. Now lots of people get married for no money at all, and nobody complains. So why should people be so worried about another change to an institution that has aready changed so much throughout history?

It should be. It’s a breach of contract. Adultry should be illegal, too.