facts to suit their latest money beg- inflating the turnout for their DC rallies by 50% is routine.
But this post, from Facebook today, is a simple lie:
Dear Marriage Supporter,
NOM's brilliant Chairman, Dr. John Eastman, delivered a stirring and powerful defense of marriage in a debate last week at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. The debate was hosted by the group Intelligence Squared before an uber-liberal audience and was structured in such a way as to ensure that the "results" were pre-ordained: the position in support of same-sex 'marriage' would be declared the winner. Still, the exercise was quite illuminating as it replicated in many ways the debate that has occurred throughout the courts and before the US Supreme Court. Our side presented cogent arguments based on the constitution while those seeking to redefine marriage relied primarily on emotional appeals.
Dr. Eastman was joined by marriage scholar Sherif Girgis, co-author (with NOM's founding co-chair Professor Robert George) of the book, "What is Marriage? Man and Woman, A Defense" in a debate with two supporters of same-sex marriage.
It was a spirited discussion, but Dr. Eastman and Mr. Girgis clearly dominated, presenting cogent and persuasive arguments that the constitution of our nation does not prohibit traditional marriage laws. Their opponents made emotional and political arguments, waxing poetic about why, in their view, gay 'marriage' is the right position for Americans to embrace.
The issue that was debated was this statement: "The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Require States To License Same-sex Marriages." I encourage you to watch the entire debate. Dr. Eastman's remarks begin at approximately the 30 minute, 30 second mark of the broadcast.
Our opponents' position relies virtually entirely on emotion and political correctness. Evan Wolfson, head of the activist group Freedom to Marry made an entirely emotional argument throughout his remarks. He began his presentation with the claim (a false one) that over 60% of the American people support the "freedom to marry" for gay couples. Yet what does a political poll (even one falsely presented) have to do with what the constitution requires when it comes to defining marriage? No matter! This misperception of what the polling shows formed the basis of Wolfson's closing argument as well. In between he talked about his own same-sex 'marriage' as well as attending the gay 'wedding' of his sister. His argument was joined by one from Professor Kenji Yoshino of NYU School of Law who talked about his own marriage to a man, with whom he is raising two children. Professor Yoshino even pressed Dr. Eastman on several occasions to say whether he felt that gay sex was morally inferior to married heterosexual sex — as if that had anything to do with the constitutional issues involved in the marriage question. It was a classic attempt of the liberal left to paint supporters of traditional marriage as appearing to be unkind or, worse, 'hateful bigots' motivated by animus. Such an ad hominem line of attack is what debaters pursue when they have lost the argument on principle, as Wolfson and Yoshino did.
Even though the outcome of the audience vote was predetermined from the outset, it is still worth 90 minutes of your time to see how vacuous the arguments are from those who would abandon the institution of marriage which has existed since the very creation of humanity simply because they can produce some bogus polling data that suggests that they've fooled a majority of Americans into supporting the concept. Contrast this against the principled, reasoned arguments presented by Dr. Eastman and Mr. Girgis and you can see, in a nutshell, the issue presented to the US Supreme Court.
- See more at: http://www.nomblog.com/40425/#sthash.6Hs4yxzk.dpufHere, by contrast, are the results from the debate's sponsors. Audience members voted before and after the 90-minute event.
Eastman was so brilliant he won 1% to his side and lost 30%.
Some win.
No comments:
Post a Comment