Previously, I have debunked a few of the many erroneuous and/or misleading claims that anti-gay organization Mass Resistance has made regarding the so-called "harms" of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, "marriage defenders" throughout the blogosphere continue to promote Mass Resistance's piece without question. What has been more disappointing than the unquestioning acceptance of this piece, however, has been the apathy that "marriage defenders" have shown with respect to this piece's dishonesty when I have brought it to their attention.
As one recent example of this tendency, citing no evidence whatsoever aside from the Mass Resistance piece, "marriage defense" blog Kingfisher Column claims:
"What ["Gay Activists"] don't want you to know is that the [Massachusetts] court's ruling on gay 'marriage' has negatively impacted almost every sector of life: education, public health, business, and family life."
In response to this snippet, I asked this blogger:
"Given that the Mass Resistance piece you cite was created by an identified hate group and numerous inaccuracies have been found in it, what is your justification for promoting it?"
The blog author did not respond to me in the comment section but merely added an "update" to his/her blog post saying:
"Opine Editorials wrote a post about this same article. You can read the post here as well as dozens of comments in which Opine already addressed concerns. No point in me saying what has already been said."
Sad. I only say so because no one at Opine has actually "addressed" any of my critiques of the Mass Resistance piece, making Kingfisher's statement a dismissive cop-out. In fact, I have yet to see a single "marriage defender" address Mass Resistance's dishonesty despite the fact that I have deliberately exposed my critique to numerous people who devote their web presences to the ideology of "marriage defense." They either dismiss the dishonesty, ignore it, claim they will address it at an unspecified future date, or make vague claims about how "homosexual marriage advocates" engage in character/source assassination.
What's up with that, folks? I tend to think that decent people, no matter what their political beliefs are, can find a common appeal in the values of intellectual and moral honesty. Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe, to some people, any means justifies the end of Saving Marriage.
I would like to address anti-equality blogger Pearl's claim, above, that "homosexual marriage advcaotes" engage in character/source assassination, before ending here. It is not character/source assassination to point out dishonesty. It is not character/source assassination (why the violent language, by the way?!) to note that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has identified Mass Resistance to be one of 12 anti-gay hate groups in the US. As this group's dishonest same-sex marriage piece demonstrates, Mass Resistance goes "beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification." Mind you, it takes quite a bit to be identified as an anti-gay hate group. Think: Fred Phelps and his church of God Hates Fags. Think: Watchmen on the Walls, an anti-gay group founded by a Holocaust revisionist who claims that the rise of Nazi Germany was perpetuated by Powerful Gay Men. More mainstream, for lack of a better term, anti-gay and "marriage defense" organizations are not considered by the SPLC to be hate groups because their activities (arguably) do not venture into the realm of personal vilification of LGBT people.
It is my hope that, one day, "marriage defenders" will address the substance of my critique and take responsibility for their promotion of dishonesty. Their current method of closing their eyes to their own side's misbehavior, sticking their fingers in their ears, and ignorantly echoing everything they hear from those who they agree with does their side a real disservice.
I encourage anyone reading my blog who values truth to note the dishonesty in the Mass Resistance piece if you come across people promoting it. In fact, given how ubiquitous this piece has become, I am contemplating running through it with a fine tooth comb and examining each claim in considerable detail. I am very willing to do this. What I find unfortunate is that "marriage defenders" have thus far proven themselves to be unwilling to even engage in dialogue regarding the piece.