National Organization for Marriage twists professor's word, bars his correction from its blog

This took place last week, but more attention needs to be paid to it. It's not just the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, or the Traditional Values Coalition who likes to distort the words of credible experts. The National Organization for Marriage also stoops to this level of deception

From nomexposed.org:

 . . . Widener University Law Professor John Culhane wrote an article looking at the many societal benefits tied to and associated with marriage. NOM pounced on Culhane’s working, firing off a blog post titled “After SSM, What Next? Half Marriage and Ending the “Privileges” of Marriage”


Not surprisingly, NOM twisted Culhane’s actual points. When Culhane himself tried to correct NOM on this, they censored his comment from their blog. Check out his follow-up piece, with excerpts below:

…The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) took my article, and butchered – I mean edited – the piece down to focus only on an exaggerated version of (2), in furtherance of their project of saying that what “we” really want is the abolition of marriage. (You can find their blog piece here.) And so as to make it harder for anyone to compare the original to the NOM version, they didn’t link to the piece. (They did provide the url for the general 365 cite, not for the article; and it wasn’t hot-linked.)

I responded with a ritual act of futility: I commented on their actions, and provided a link to my piece in case any of their readers wanted to compare the original with the twisted NOM version. As usual, my comment was “moderated” into some cyber-purgatory, where it will exist in perpetuity

Of course, I’ve long known that NOM isn’t interested in exposing its readers to anything that might contradict the party line. But this unwillingness to post a comment from the very author you’re quoting seems to me a new low. The message it sends is: “We like it here in this bubble. And we’re not going to let any outside forces question our intellectual honesty.”

NOM claims to be interested in dialogue, but this act of obliteration through “moderation” conclusively shows that they’re only interested in bouncing their own voices around in an echo chamber.