Does NOM even care not to put its hypocrisy on centerstage?

As the repercussions of the victory in New York is being felt worldwide (it was even a topic of conversation at the SC Black Pride Expo today), a comment on the site  Box Turtle Bulletin (a site which I highly recommend) nailed down the hypocrisy of the National Organization for Marriage and Maggie Gallagher when it comes to legislative votes:

Maggie on why a majority party blocking a vote in a state Senate is an unfair thing to do, and why those who do it should face consequences:

“It’s one thing to vote no on a bill – but quite another to use your position to block the will of the Senate”
http://www.nationformarriage.org/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5072881/k.BE7A/Iowa/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx

Now, Maggie on why a majority party NOT blocking a vote in a state Senate is such a bad thing, and why those who refuse to do it should face consequences:

“N.Y, [sic] Republicans did not have to bring gay marriage up for a vote: What does it mean that they passed gay marriage in N.Y.?…Sad that the N.Y. GOP has caved. Consequences to be continued.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270489/gop-will-pay-grave-price-maggie-gallagher

The first comment was NOM's complaint earlier this year when Majority leader of the Iowa Senate, Michael Gronstal, wouldn't allow a referendum for marriage equality to come up for a vote.

At the time, NOM was practically screaming bloody murder over this, even encouraging emails to be sent out to Gronstal.

The second comment is from a July 24 piece published by Gallagher in the right-wing National Review whining that the New York Senate was not obligated to bring the bill approving marriage equality up for a vote.

The irony is stark when one considers the language that NOM asked its supporters to use in the email demanding that Gronstal allow the Iowa referendum vote to happen:

I am concerned that one individual, Senate Majority Leader Gronstal, would use his authority to force his personal opinions on the entire state, denying the people of Iowa the chance to vote on this important issue.

The marriage amendment is simple, straightforward, and supported by the overwhelming majority of Iowans.

But with the majority of New Yorkers actually supporting marriage equality, shouldn't it have caused concern to NOM that the NY Senate would use its authority to force its personal opinions on the people of New York if it had not allowed the vote?

Of course it wouldn't cause concern to NOM. Since when has the organization ever been a beacon for the consistency of integrity?