Thank you, Deseret News, for removing the paragraph with the inflated attendance
The local community here will be having their Pride festival this weekend. Any
bets on whether the Pride festival in the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the
thirteenth-largest state will have more attendees than NOM had at their national
@samhillThe event was all the way in D.C. which I think is why it
wasn't reported on earlier here, as opposed to something more local like
the local pride parade you noted.
Just google "Hundreds march in defense of traditional marriage", you
will get a report from Washington Times, a sponsor of this march. I am pretty
sure if there were 5000 attendees for real, its own sponsor would not use
"Hundreds march......." as headline.
One last point (and this might be of special interest to DN readers):The article features quotes from former Senator Rick Santorum, but fails to
mention the event's culminating speaker, former governor and former
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. As I watched him exhort the crowd and
display what I found to be an irritating self-righteousness, I couldn't
help but remember his past shabby and offensive treatment of governor Romney
(and the religious beliefs of Latter-day Saints in general). I would think long
and hard before I aligned myself with someone like that.
I was aware of this event long before it happened yesterday (anyone who is
paying attention to this issue couldn't have missed it) and I was able to
watch much of it over NOM's live-stream:1.) The 5,000 estimate
for the crowed does not match either my own observations from the broadcast, nor
does it match any of the estimates of various Marriage Equality observers on the
ground attending the event. Crowd numbers are routinely skewed (in either
direction, depending) as anyone who tracks hot-button political issues knows.
I'll leave it to individual readers to look at the available information
and make their own determinations. I will say, best case, 5,000 -- that is
depressingly small by any standard, if NOM is characterizing itself as a
"National Movement".2.) Th repetitive messages I heard
--pretty much without exception-- involved religious arguments. People who hold
to this type of thinking are, of course, free to bring those arguments into
court, but we all know how those arguments have fared lately. I'll end by
pointing out that, while the arguments offered at yesterday's event are
held by some religious people, they are not held by all religious people.
Where did this reporter get the "estimated 5,000" attendance number?Even the far right Washington Times which livestreamed the event and made a
special pullout section in their paper dedicated to the march yesterday, today
has the headline "Hundreds march in defense of traditional marriage."
Hundreds. Not 5,000.
Small march? Yes. The Deseret News states that there were around 5,000 in
attendance. Every other article I read estimated around 2,000. You can easily
find photos and video of the event on social media and other articles.Dedicated march? By the end of the rally, a lot of the crowd had dispersed and
the final speakers thanked those who stuck around to the end.New York
State Senator, Rev. Ruben Diaz had committed to bring 100 buses carrying 55
people each from the Bronx. The National Organization for Marriage did a huge
fundraising push to fund those buses. You can find the YouTube video where Diaz
advertises this event in Spanish to Hispanic churches in NYC. He never mentions
the march or marriage in the entire video. He only promises people a totally
free trip to Washington DC for the day. You do the math and it's clear that
they couldn't even fill the 100 free buses from NYC.I'm glad
speakers emphasized that the march was not "anti-gay," but look at signs
people were carrying were carrying photos of the event and what NOM says on its
website and it looks anti-gay to me.
The misnamed "March For Marriage" should more accurately be called the
"March Against Marriage For Them." Because, that's all it is, a
marriage-denial movement. It never even existed before the possibility arose
that gay people might want to settle down into normal, average, lifetime
commitments, like the rest of us. For whatever reason, that prospect was used
to whip up a lot of animosity, and a lot of money for anti-gay lobbying groups,
and we saw 30+ states pass state amendments which it seems may not have been
constitutional.The tiny turnout to this vigorously hyped event gives
me hope that more people see this for what it is, a hate movement. For those of
you who would respond, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," may I remind you
that the sin you're hating amounts to who these people are. They're
gay. They're not heterosexual. In every other way, they're perfectly
normal, but if you hate that one distinguishing characteristic that sets them
apart, and doesn't affect you in the least, you're hating them.
@samhillAnybody who wants to have a nuclear family of opposite sex
and children can have it, nobody will ever deny that right.The
problem is that when same sex couples want to get married, their rights are
denied in many states. fortunately, more and more American people have evolved
and majority are in favor of marriage equality. It is just a matter of time that
SSM be recognized in all 50 states.the fact is, this so-called
'March for Marriage' is actually about denying same sex couples'
marriage right, not about helping straight couples to stay in their marriage.
let's not sugar coating it. denying same sex couples' marriage right
also has nothing to do with getting more straight people into marriage.
I think it's telling of the disdain that our popular culture now has for
traditional marriage that I didn't see any notice of this event. Nothing
on the radio/TV and nothing in this or the other two newspapers I read.It could be that I missed this news along with a lot of other news because of
recent events in my own life that has interrupted my usual close scrutiny of
news in general. However, even with my reduced vigilance, had this event been
promoted as much as "Pride Day" or any of the now common and much more
closely followed people and events that advocate for homosexual
"marriage", I'm certain I would have noticed.I wish I
could have attended this event and hope it will have some effect in countering
an ever increasing disregard and even hostility for the most fundamental
institution of this and every other successful society. That being the plain,
old-fashioned and most effective environment for raising and nurturing human
beings, the nuclear family of parents (of opposite sex, by biological necessity)