Queer Action and I both have articles posted elsewhere — here and here, respectively — about the icky letter that the RI chapter of the National Organization for Marriage sent to legislators last week in opposition to the override of the funeral rights legislation veto. From Queer Action:
This letter is written proof that NOM-RI is an organization that seeks to limit the rights of gay Rhode Islanders even when the bill in question has nothing to do with marriage. NOM-RI makes a convoluted argument that this bill will somehow lead to same-sex marriage and shows total disregard for the people who will be helped by this new law – both gay and straight.
In addition and most horrible, this letter insults Mark Goldberg, the man whose story brought about this bill. Mark was forced to fight for five weeks to obtain his partner’s body from the state of RI even though he had legal paperwork such as wills and power of attorney. The NOM-RI letter claims: “Rather than being compassionate, the legislation in question is actually an exploitation of Mr. Goldberg’s tragedy by the homosexual-marriage activists in Rhode Island.”
The inference that Mark is a pawn being used by us “homosexual-marriage activists” is an insult to his intelligence. Mark is a smart, caring man who is quite capable of making his own decisions. He doesn’t want any one else to go through what he did and he has been fully involved in the fight to get this bill passed and the Governor’s veto overridden. NOM-RI should be ashamed of its treatment of Mark.
3 thoughts on “National Organization For Marriage’s Radical Anti-Gay Agenda”
Wonder why it is such a big thing same sex marriage. I mean who does it bother? Just old men wearing ties that are probably dreaming of other men in the closet. 🙂
NOM should be spelled KKK, what they stand for is just as disgusting.
This bill is designed to give rights to couples that ordinarily would be limited to heterosexual married couples. If that isn’t a prelude to legalizing so-called same-sex marriage, I don’t know what is. It has been pointed out that provisions already exist to cover somebody in Mr. Goldbergs situation. It is sad that he was treated so badly, but that hardly justifies this legislation. The
Governor was right to veto it.