g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 1 NOM'S TOUR MASTERMIND,FACEBOOK FOUNDER,AND ONLINE STRATEGIST,LOUIS MARINELLI
, NOW SUPPORTS OUR CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY! THE MUCH-BALLYHOOED SUMMER
MARRIAGE TOUR 2010 OPENED HIS EYES!
(*Interview conducted via email)
(1) G-A-Y's JEREMY HOOPER: On record, I'd ask you to go through the list of
comments you have written/ Tweeted/ blogged/ Facebooked and repudiate any/
all that you now see were objectionable.
LOUIS MARINELLI: I quoted from the research of Paul Cameron when I said that
homosexuals have a shorter life-span. I must say that when I quoted this
man I was not aware of his history and here and now do not wish to comment
on the legitimacy or irrelevance of the man’s work as I am neither a
psychologist nor does psychology interest me.
What I said, referring to the life-spans of homosexuals, I continue to
believe in the following context: Any group of people that contract any
viral disease more than the general public due to the nature of their
lifestyle, logically, will have a life-expectancy lower than that of the
general populace.
However, that kind of rhetoric, implying that gay men are unworthy of civil
marriage due to any particular health issues surrounding their sexual
activity was both inappropriate and offensive. It is for those reasons, that
I retract this statement.
___________________________________________________________
I once wrote or implied that all homosexuals are single, even if they had at
some point or another, been legally married by the state. While in the eyes
of the Catholic faith, these same-sex unions aren’t recognized as
marriages insofar as holy matrimony is concerned, I retract this statement
now that I have been able to see and distinguish and understand the
differences between religious and civil marriage.
______________________________________________________________
Any support or endorsement of what Peter LaBarbera does I retract. I have
been reading via Twitter and his website what this guy has to say, and it is
clear that he is just a hateful man and I would be embarrassed and ashamed
to be associated with him.
Furthermore, the issues Peter takes on, even if they were true, are not in
themselves valid reasons for denying same-sex couples access to civil
marriage. I am aware how he was upset by my public support for the repeal of
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in December. His reasoning for such seemed to be
something along the lines of “in order to protect marriage, you have to
oppose everything homosexuals do”. If that were the case, Peter, how far
should we go in restricting homosexuals’ lives?
_____________________________________________________________
As far as my comments about the hijacking of the civil rights movement, I
would say that while the offenses the gay community endure from the public
are similar, the issue as it pertains to the government are totally
different.
The gay community is not forced to attend different schools, drink
from different water fountains, or give up their seats for heterosexuals on
the bus. They are not, as black Americans are to this day, incarcerated at
higher levels than heterosexuals and while I do not deny that there is
violence directed towards gays and lesbians because of their sexual
orientation, no one should be comparing that to the organized violence faced
by the black community prior to the civil rights movement itself.
That said, I agree that what the gay community are fighting for are
their civil rights. So in that way, it is indeed a civil rights movement but
not the civil rights movement. That is to say, a new civil rights movement,
not an extension or continuation of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
_____________________________________________________________
Any comments I made that attacked homosexuals on a personal level, I retract
. This includes calling them an abomination. I personally do not agree with
homosexuality and without any shame will continue to uphold my belief that
homosexuality itself presents a public health concern due to the sexual
diseases that are associated with it and that spread rapidly as a result of
it.
I think a lot of work needs to be done for homosexuals and heterosexuals
alike, to change the culture of promiscuity in our country and we would be
doing ourselves a favor to focus our energies on that instead of singling
out and lying the blame on one of the many guilty parties.
However, until the day comes that homosexual sex does not continue to spread
HIV at alarming rates as it does today, I must stand by my comments that,
from a public health stance, homosexuality is a harmful to society.
&#
8232;Having said that, the health issues facing promiscuous homosexual men
is irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. I was guilty of and
apologize for this insensitive and inappropriate rhetoric.
___________________________________________________________
On multiple occasions I have said something to the effect of “homosexuality
is wrong”. And in my opinion it is. My transition from an opponent of same
-sex marriage to a supporter does not mean I suddenly think homosexuality is
a good thing.
I personally disagree with it. The same way I disagree with many
other things other people do with their lives. That doesn’t give me or
anyone else the right to prevent homosexuals from being homosexuals or to
take away their constitutionally protected civil rights as American citizens.
_____________________________________________________________
As a supporter of civil marriage equality, any statements I’ve made in the
past about not recognizing homosexual relationships for one reason or
another, of course it goes without saying that I no longer stand by these
comments and I apologize for the insensitivity. Same-sex couples, whether
they are married, in civil unions or domestic partnerships, ought to be
recognized for what they are.
_____________________________________________________________
I consider myself agnostic and while homosexual acts may very well be “
immoral” in the eyes of Christian morality, I can no longer stand by any
comments I’ve made in the past about the immorality of homosexuality. There
are a variety of different sets and sources of morals and no one has the
right to impose their set on the rest of society.
_______________________________________________________________
Once I wrote that homosexuals are deceitful people who care only about
themselves or something to that effect. Honestly, aren’t we all? It was
wrong for me to exclude everyone else from that description. We all lie and
when it comes down to it, we will do what is best for ourselves. So throwing
in a little levity, I stand by the comment but want to apologize for
limiting its scope to the gay community.
_______________________________________________________________
My 3P’s video from YouTube was wrong. It may be true that at some point in
time that the legalization of prostitution, the lowering of the age of
consent and the legalization of polygamy may have been a part of the
platform endorsed by homosexual activists in Chicago in the 1970s. However,
there is no indication that any mainstream LGBT activist groups or
organizations today advocate for these issues.
What’s further, from a technical standpoint alone the video was
inaccurate. The platform called for the reduction of the age of consent, not
the legalization of pedophilia, which is the sexual interest in pre-
pubescent children. The reduction of the age of consent was about that and
instead, to my knowledge, involved a reduction that would involve post-
pubescent teenagers, which would not be pedophilia.
I think this kind of rhetoric is harmful to our homosexual neighbors
and I retract the statements. The entire YouTube account I used for this
video, as well as others, was deleted sometime in late January, when I began
to accept the fact that what I was doing was wrong.
**EDITOR"S NOTE: This is the video in question:
____________________________________________________________
When it comes to the issue of my statements about homosexuality being a
mental disorder, I have one thing to say. And that is that I apologize for
the insensitivity and accept the fact that this has nothing to do with civil
marriage. So what if it’s a mental disorder? It wouldn’t and shouldn’t
disqualify gay men and women from civil marriage.
(2) G-A-Y: I wonder what has led to your change of heart. Was it, as I
suspect, your experience on the NOM tour? Seeing the actual human beings
hurt by NOM's work? In light of news of the MD state lawmaker who recently
said that testimony from folks like Maggie Gallagher actually changed his
mind *towards* marriage equality, I find this point most compelling.
MARINELLI: Having spent the last five years putting all of my political will
, interest and energy into fighting against the spread of same-sex marriage
as if it were a contagious disease, I must admit that it is hard for me to
put the following text into words let alone utter them with my own voice.
Whether it is an issue of disbelief, shame or embarrassment, the one thing
that is for sure is that I have come to this point after several months of
an internal conflict with myself. That conflict gradually tore away at me
until recently when I was able to, for the first time simply admit to myself
that I do in fact support civil marriage equality for all.
While I have come to terms with this reality internally, speaking about it,
even with the closest members of my family, has proven to be something
difficult for me to do.
In short, if there is an issue of disbelief surrounding my newfound support
for civil marriage equality, it is disbelief from those who surround me. If
there is an issue of shame, it is a result of acknowledging the number of
people I have targeted, hurt and oppressed. And if there is an issue of
embarrassment, its roots lie in the face-to-face encounters I have had and
expect to have with those with whom I once toiled over this very contentious
issue.
I understand that those whom I approach now are well within their right to
disbelieve and question me and my motives. I accept that that is the result
of what I have done over the past few years and would therefore like to take
this time to, as openly as I can, discuss the events that brought about my
change of heart.
As you may already know, I was the one behind the 2010 Summer for Marriage
Tour which the National Organization for Marriage sponsored and operated
throughout July and August last year. It was my doing when, in March that
year, I approached Brian Brown about sponsoring and participating in a
series of traditional marriage rallies scattered around the Nation.
In fact, the tour route itself, while chosen largely by NOM itself,
incorporated as many of the sites I had originally chosen and helped
independently organize. Other locations were added due to strategic,
political or simply logistical purposes.
6A00D8341C503453Ef0133F21E5Fa6970B-2Ironically, one of the last tour stops
added to the itinerary was Atlanta and I bring this site up because it was
in Atlanta that I can remember that I questioned what I was doing for the
first time. The NOM showing in the heart of the Bible-belt was dismal and
the hundreds of counter-protesters who showed up were nothing short of
inspiring.
Even though I had been confronted by the counter-protesters throughout the
marriage tour, the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of
opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I
had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.
If my transition from opponent to supporter of same-sex civil marriage was a
timeline, Atlanta would be indicated by the first point on the line. The
next point on that timeline would be two months later.
After the marriage tour wrapped up and everyone went their separate ways, I
transformed my marriage tour “Inside Look” blog to a more general blog
about protecting marriage and opposing the homosexual agenda. Over the
course of September and October I occupied my time writing up articles along
these very lines. Some of the articles were fair, even if you disagree with
them, but many of them I would now categorize as propaganda filled with
strong and unnecessary rhetoric. This is especially true of the YouTube
videos I made.
One article I wrote, towards the end of October, 2010 caught the attention
of a blogger by the name of RJ, who writes on the blog AmIWorking (ed. note:
That's blog's now rebranded as Fighting For Cake). He responded to my
article about the homosexual agenda with an article addressed to personally
to me regarding marriage equality. In short, his article had the miraculous
effect of instantly putting things into prospective for me.
At that point, between what I had witnessed on the marriage tour and RJ’s
post about marriage equality, I really came to understand that gays and
lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated
equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No,
they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly
particulate in it. I was well on my way to becoming a supporter of civil
marriage equality.
As a result of that I closed down my blog within a couple days. That gave
birth to my current endeavor, The Conservative Dispatch, which is how I
occupy my time. The site is about promoting general conservative principles
and is not focused solely on social issues.
In December I came out in support of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
I also removed the admins I had delegated my moderating duties to for my
Facebook page.
Having done that, I had to pick up where they left off. I was largely taken
aback by the fact that the page I created had become such a hateful place.
My comments are rhetoric paled in comparison to what that place had turned
into. I began to understand why the gay community was out there claiming
opposition to same-sex civil marriage was all about hate.
I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people; propping up a
cause I created five years ago, a cause which I had begun starting to
question. This would be timeline point number three. I wanted to extend an
olive branch in some way and started to reinstate those who had been banned
by previous administrators of my page. I welcomed them to participate on the
page and did what I could do erase the worst comments and even ban those
who posted them.
Also, I started regularly conversing with same-sex marriage supporters in
another Facebook group. This further solidified my new perception of gays
and lesbians as real people, not some faceless political opponent. That
could be considered the next point on the timeline.
Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy
marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I
understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t
see it. Regardless, I see it now and the significance of that is as follows:
Once you understand the great difference between civil marriage and holy
marriage, there is not one valid reason to forbid the former from same-sex
couples, and all that is left to protect is the latter.
Indeed Christians and Catholics alike are well within their right to demand
that holy matrimony, a sacrament and service performed by the Church,
recognized by the Church, remains between a man and a woman as their faith
would dictate. However, that has nothing to do with civil marriage,
performed and recognized by the State in accordance with state law.
(3) G-A-Y: What value do you still see in NOM's work? And of course: What
negatives?
MARINELLI: The value I see in NOM’s work, even to this day, is the value of
the work they do to promote marriage in general. We as a culture and a
people have a bad record on marriage as a whole, particularly when it comes
to divorce. This is something we need to work on and I think NOM could play
a critical role in doing this, especially with the work they do via the Ruth
Institute.
Granted their work is based on their Catholic faith, but they are not the
only non-profit organization out there that is Catholic in nature. They
should instead focus their energies on improving and protecting the sanctity
of the holy marriages performed by the Church. That would go a long way,
since a great number of marriages in the US are in fact performed by the
Church, towards improving that tarnished track record.
NOM is well within their right to want to preserve the religious sacrament
of matrimony as the union of a man and a woman and I continue to support
them in that regard, although I am not a Catholic myself. However, when it
comes to the civil marriage ceremony, which has nothing to do with the
religious sacrament, we should all be standing together for equal
protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
The negative thing about NOM’s work is that it diverts our attention from
what is important to preventing a group of people from obtaining civil
marriage licenses. We have to stop seeing things in black and white all the
time and that is, I’m afraid, what NOM does in terms of marriage. The world
isn’t black and white, it’s yellow, it’s green, it’s purple, it’s red,
orange, it’s blue. It is, in fact, all of the colors of the rainbow and
that’s what makes up our world and that’s why the rainbow flag represents
not only the gay rights movement but the diversity the gay community brings
to this world.
*** *** ***
So what does this mean for NOM? For Louis? For those of us who also value
civil equality (i.e. resist NOM)?
Well, there will surely be more to come. For now, chew on the considerable
development we have here before us.
***
*NOTE: Special thanks to great G-A-Y pal and NOM watcher Bob Barnes, without
whom this post would not have been possible. Also to HRC's NOM Exposed
effort for continuing to draw attention to the organization.
***
*UPDATE: And now Louis issues his own statement: I now support full marriage
equality [Louis Marinelli]
*ALSO: The NOM Facebook page is going into shutdown mode as we speak (10AM,
4/8). Louis has seized control, already deleting posts and changing the
branding.
*** | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 2 HRC's release:
Top Official at National Organization for Marriage Defects, Supports
Civil Marriage Equality
Onetime virulently anti-gay Louis Marinelli switches course on LGBT
issues
WASHINGTON- Louis Marinelli, a key strategist in developing the
grassroots and online messaging strategy of the National Organization for
Marriage, has undergone what he calls a “transition” from being an ardent
opponent of the LGBT community and marriage equality specifically to
supporting civil marriage between LGBT couples. Jeremy Hooper of Good As You
(www.goodasyou.org) broke this story earlier today. Read his full report
here.
Marinelli tells Hooper, “The lesbian and gay people whom I made a
profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For
the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was
doing.”
“This defection is a good example of what is and will continue to be
consistent in the fight for equality,” said Kevin Nix, NOM Project Director
for the Human Rights Campaign. “Once people actually meet LGBT people,
they are more likely to support equality.”
Marinelli did harm to the LGBT community. He was the strategist behind
NOM’s multi-state 2010 Summer Bus Tour and a key digital strategist for the
organization, writing things like, “Those who wish to promote homosexual
behavior are encouraging people to shorten their life spans.”
“Even NOM’s own people are having trouble with the organization’s
unusual mission: to stop committed gay and lesbian couples from getting
married,” Nix added. “We know such defections among more Americans,
including NOM’s most strident supporters will continue over time.”
Despite its public portrayal of “tolerance”-- and despite dubious
claims by Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown that they have “gay friends and
family”-- NOM is an extremist organization that opposes not only marriage
equality but civil unions. Help us continue uncovering NOM’s questionable
ethics, shady financial connections, and discriminatory rhetoric at
NOMExposed.org. | D**S
发帖数: 24887 | |
|
