Friday, November 16, 2012

NOM's election losses creating division in religious right

Ken Hutcherson is mad at NOM.
The National Organization for Marriage is dealing with heavy criticism from the right after losing four ballot initiatives against marriage equality.

Two days ago, Mass Resistance, an anti-gay hate group in Massachusetts, seemingly claimed that NOM was not anti-gay enough in opposing marriage equality. Brian Camenker, Mass Resistance's president said:

 . . . both NOM and the state pro-family groups went to great lengths not to criticize homosexual behavior. They were very fearful of being perceived as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" especially in the liberal press. So they insisted on moderating everyone's messages. In Minnesota, for instance, activists were specifically told, "Don't make this a gay issue." Those who deviated from this and took a more direct approach were shunned and even publicly criticized by the pro-family establishment.

And yesterday, that sentiment was echoed by Washington state pastor Ken Hutcherson. Hutcherson has been an extremely vocal opponent of gay equality in general, opposing not just marriage equality, but also gay/straight alliances in schools.

Hutcherson said groups like NOM and Focus on the Family practically handed the victories to marriage equality supporters in Maine, Maryland, Washington state, and Minnesota - the four states who had either laws regarding marriage equality on the ballot:

"Their intention was to be moderate, non-controversial," Hutcherson told OneNewsNow in an exclusive interview, pointing out that the National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family and Family Policy Institute's unbiblical strategy was a severe departure from the state's churches' aggressive campaign to stop same-sex marriage using the weight of family values and Scripture. He notes that the groups essentially told him and other local Christian leaders' that their message on marriage and social issues was too offensive.
"They did not want me involved basically in the top leadership, so I took a back seat and let them run with it," Hutcherson shared. "And that really hurt our unity out here."

While it sounds like "sour grapes" on the part of Hutcherson, who he gave the interview to is significant. One News Now is the online publication owned by the American Family Association.  And while One News Now gave Hutcherson an unchallenged platform to challenge NOM, it did not seek any comment from NOM.

Bookmark and Share


Givesgoodemail said...

All this from the man who played college football so he "could hurt white people".

ColdCountry said...

Next election, I think NOM and the like should step back and let these guys run everything. See just what happens.

Anonymous said...

Can you think of any reason American taxpayers should subsidize organizations that call themselves churches yet actively work to deny equality? I can't. Three days after it went online, 4,930 people have agreed enough to add their names to the White House petition at
That's a little over 1 a minute but we can do more. There’s a National discussion that needs to happen. Why it is that essential public services are being cut for lack of funds while a select group of organizations pay no taxes because- well, that's where I get confused.
Because why? Because they protect pedophiles? Because they lobby to keep some of us as second class citizens? Because they want to build a bigger mega- church and buy another Parisian palace (sorry - mission)?
I think the time for real reform is now. We can do it. You can help.
The White House has committed to an official response if 25k signatures are obtained within 1 month. I’m most curious to see them address the topic officially and publicly.
I’m sure there’s a cynic in you thinks that nothing will happen and it's a waste of time. Maybe – but what if it’s not? Every day you waste a lot more than the two minutes it takes to add your voice to the growing list and demand the end of special rights for those who work to deny equality. A lot more time than it takes to forward the link to your email list or put the it up on your blog or tweet it. Exempting revenue used directly to aid those in need is fine. Money that goes to Ad agencies to create partisan messages and to buy air time do not fall into this category.
Why are we subsidizing them? Help make this conversation one that cannot be ignored. Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. It’s time.
It’s the fiscally responsible thing to do