Endorsers undermine the message of NOM's march

With the National Organization for Marriage's March for Marriage just around the corner, the group is quickly gathering up the endorsements.

However, NOM would do better than to not let certain people endorse its march because they contradict its false message of  simply "defending marriage" without malice towards the gay community.

 Let's look at the recent endorsement NOM received from Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery:



Pay no attention to Minnery's wilted delivery and inaccurate claim regarding how God endowed marriage to be one way since the beginning of civilization. For my money, I am drawn to the nonsense he says about children needing the best chance to have a mom and a dad.

One would think he wouldn't have the audacity to make such a statement regarding children and parents when one remembers how he got busted during a Congressional hearing by Sen. Al Franken in 2011 for attempting to distort a study in order to make a negative assumption about same-sex families:



And then there is former senator and now head of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint:



One has to give it to DeMint how he seems to have memorized NOM's talking points. I especially liked it when he said that all Americans have the right to live as they choose, but do not have the right to "redefine marriage." But not for the reasons that you think.

You see, DeMint doesn't actually believe that.  What he does believe - and he said this in 2004 and 2010 - is that gays and sexually active unmarried women should not be allowed to teach in schools

So why is this important? Because of how NOM attempts to claim that it and those who support the organization, who supposedly believe in so-called traditional marriage, are being bullied and unfairly labeled as bigots

But yesterday, we got a good look at the vile anti-gay animus which many NOM supporters embrace. And today, we see the same animus, albeit tapered down, by two prominent individuals who support NOM and its march.

It all leads to the simple conclusion that NOM's whinings of unfairly being labeled as bigots is just a dodge to gain sympathy.

In spite of all of its false claims, NOM doesn't shy from having an bigoted anti-gay animus. NOM embraces it. If it didn't NOM wouldn't have any follower or allies.

'NOM's march suffers ANOTHER embarrassment' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Pro-gay artist gets NOM 'March For Marriage' ad yanked on copyright grounds - If you ask me, Brian Brown's decision to belittle lgbt bloggers and not take us seriously is beginning to play Jaws on his tush. I am presently working on a post which will hopefully cast further shadows on NOM's credibility . . . that is if no one else beats me to it.  

ACLU Claims Sultana High School Administrators Bully LGBT Students - Receiving the right to marry is awesome, but don't let our pursuit of it make us forget our children who have to make it through the firewall of nonsense that is adolescence in order to get to the point where they can marry.  
 Claims That There Is No Research About The Effectiveness Of Ex-Gay Therapy Are True - Tolerance, schmolerance. If you don't have any proof that the science you espouse actually works then don't expect to be given any type of credibility for it.  

Anti-Gay Activists Attack Rob Portman's Son's 'Disorder' and 'Abhorrent Lifestyle' - Now this is just pathetic.

Newt Gingrich underscores NOM's hypocrisy, desperation

Newt Gingrich

As the National Organization gets ready for its march, the group can't stop tripping over itself with embarrassment.

 Today's example - Newt Gingrich.

NOM posted a video clip of Newt Gingrich speaking about Sen. Rob Portman. Portman, a conservative Republican senator, recently revealed that he now supports marriage equality because of his relationship with his gay son.

In a blog post, NOM celebrates the fact that Gingrich said marriage should be between a man and a woman.

However in Gingrich's case, that should be a man and three women. Remember, Gingrich divorced his first wife of 18 years after an affair with another woman. He subsequently married this woman but divorced her after 12 years and an affair with another woman whom he is now currently married to. NOM is using this guy to defend marriage? This guy? Seriously?

A commentator to NOM's blog put it better than I ever could:

It's difficult to underestimate the sheer bare-faced chutzpah of this man and the fawning reverence paid to him by NOM and others, the outright cognitive dissonance it takes to believe that marriage is between one and one woman FOR LIFE and then to say he is an exemplar and supporter of marriage. He isn't. He is a destroyer of families, the very core of NOM's arguments. I would have more respect if there was at least one word addressing this hypocrisy.