NOM - Homosexuals wants to destroy children's innocence through gay marriage

This is sad. The National Organization for Marriage is constantly talking about how marriage is sacred and its "traditional definition" of being between a man and a woman needs to be saved.

If this the case, why is the organization channeling Anita Bryant's "gays want to recruit children" lie through the following nasty flyer. It's being sent out to New Yorkers as that state grapples with the concept of allowing gay marriage.

NOM Mail Piece

For the record, I've already talked about the lies posted in this flyer

The only truthful point is the part about gay history in school curriculum. But that has nothing to do with marriage equality, but with building up the self-esteem of lgbt students.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

BUT there is a lot wrong with this flyer.

Incredible. How is it that NOM's Maggie Gallagher praises the lgbt community in front of Congressional committees because of our parenting skill while her subordinates send out little portents of doom implying that the push for marriage equality is really a ruse for lgbts to "recruit" children?

NOM is definitely speaking with a forked tongue.

Brian Brown reveals NOM's anti-gay game of divide and conquer

Several of my blogging compadres were on the scene as the National Organization for Marriage teamed up with NY legislator Ruben Diaz in a march to supposedly "save marriage" from us "evil lgbts."

But based on what NOM president, Brian Brown, said at the rally, folks need to ask just who is evil - Lgbts wanting to be able to declare love for each other legally and protect the interest of said loved ones by marriage or someone (Brian Brown) who will tell lies in the name of God, like in the video clip below:




Starting at 2:55, he said the following:

" . . . kids as young as kindergarten are taught in Massachusetts that their parents are bigots because they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

Brown is referring to NOM's lie, which has been refuted time and time again (most completely by Politifact), that "learning about gay marriage" is a part of kindergarten school curriculum in Massachusetts - a state that legalized gay marriage.

But with his statement, Brian took the lie to a level lower than the belly of a snake. 

Brown's statement is not only a lie but a blatantly ugly lie. But this lie perfectly captures NOM's game plan - intentionally playing a nasty zero sum game by creating a fictional competition between same-sex households and heterosexual households.

I have to wonder why an organization who is supposedly standing up for a "moral issue" such as marriage does so by pitting people against one another.

In Maryland, NOM played the African-American and lgbt communities against one another.

At this rally in New York, it played the Hispanic and lgbt community against one another.

Generally, it's playing every other state against Massachusetts as it seeks to paint that state as an example of the so-called "rabid gay agenda" taking over.

And now we see NOM playing same-sex couples against heterosexual couples.

Is setting people against one another a tenet of morality?

Is the exploitation of ethnic, cultural, and religious differences a tenet of being "pro-family?" 

Is repeating ludicrously outrageous lies designed to scare people about the well-being of their children a way to properly preserve tradition?

Whatever the case may be, Brown has proven something that I have always known:


In the history of the world, more harm has been done by people claiming to act in God's best interest than any supposed "homosexual agenda" conjured up from the most fevered of imaginations.


Don't like what Brown said? Complain to Politifact at truthometer@politifact.com

Hat tip to Joe.My.God. 

NOM knows that it lied in the New York ad and does not care

As far as I know, NOM has YET to respond to the charges that it made inaccurate claims with its commercial against marriage equality in New York.

Instead NOM is attempting a cynical ploy of shifting the argument.

A columnist from the site Queerty made a good point in a piece (although the title raises eyebrows and the piece itself is a bit more graphic I would have liked) when he called out NOM for lying about Massachusetts school curriculum but brought up the fact that children should know about being lgbt:

I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak.

As I said before, the Queerty piece got graphic on several occasions. And this caught the eye of NOM's blog:

NOM’s TV ad in New York on the consequences of gay marriage produced this response from a well-known Queerty.com blogger, who boasts openly that the NOM ad’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is clearly true.

“In response [to NOM’s ad] we say, 'NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.' But let’s face it—that’s a lie.”

He goes on to say “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

His very future?

The NOM blog goes on to highlight some of the most graphic parts of the Queerty piece as a way to incite its supporters.

This sort of thing is typical of the entire organization. Allow me to break it down:

1. NOM puts out an ad which feature an already debunked claim about gay marriage and school curriculum in Massachusetts, amongst other lies

2. Several people point these lies out in various manners.

3. Rather than address the accusations that it lied in the ad, NOM instead highlights the most graphic thing written about the ad as a way to generalize about marriage equality and by extension, those support marriage equality.

While the Queerty piece made good points, I don't necessarily share its need to get graphic nor do I share the outright way the piece seems to go appeal to the jugular rather than to sound judgement. Furthermore, those things the piece criticizes, i.e. breaking down the argument of marriage equality to that of simple love and fairness, are some of the very things marriage equality is about.

But having said my piece about that,  NOM's ad is still a distortion. And the organization has still yet to respond to these charges - which has not only been brought out by me, but various other sources.

And furthermore, the way NOM responded - choosing to highlight one not necessarily polite response to the ad, rather than address the accusations that the ad itself is wrong -  proves that not only NOM knows that the ad is a lie, but also it doesn't care.

As long as the ad scares enough people to be against marriage equality, then the ends justify the means.

Politifact gives NOM 'Pants on Fire' rating for lying

My request for information on NOM's lies has yielded results. A reader sent me the following information.

On April 29th, the Pulitzer Prize-winning site Politifact bestowed the lowest prize for lying on Christopher Plante, NOM's Rhode Island Executive Director - the "Pants on Fire" rating.  The "Pants on Fire" rating is given when a public figure not only lies but makes a ridiculous claim in addition to the lie.

This is why Plante and NOM was given the "Pants on Fire" rating":

Opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage are retooling after Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox announced April 27 that there was not enough support to pass same-sex marriage legislation in 2011.

A few days after that announcement, Christopher Plante, executive director of National Organization for Marriage - Rhode Island, which opposes gay marriage, was part of a panel on WPRI's "Newsmakers" program, which aired May 1.

"I don't believe Gordon Fox had the votes. Our head count showed pretty clearly that they didn't have the votes and he had to make the decision he did," he said. "Similarly, the people of Rhode Island don't want same-sex marriage."

NOM-RI has been quick to cite the polls it has commissioned as part of its campaign to press the governor and General Assembly to put the question of gay marriage to a statewide referendum. So we wondered whether any polls show that Rhode Islanders, in fact, don't want same-sex marriage.

We called Plante to see if he had any updated numbers. He didn't. He said he was basing his assertion on the belief that a majority of residents had contacted their legislators to object to same-sex marriage, which is why Fox said there weren't enough votes in the House to pass a bill.

Politifact went on to say that this is problematic because people who call their legislators doesn't provide a good view of the general public's opinion.

The site also looked poll done by NOM and those supporting same-sex marriage, finding questionable ways how both posed the question to potential voters which may have influenced the outcome of said polls.

Politifact then reported the results of a third poll - an independent poll - which found the following:

The only independent Rhode Island poll we found was released by Brown University in May 2009, before the NOM-RI and RI-GLAD polls. Its survey of 593 registered voters found that 60 percent of registered Rhode Islanders expressed support when asked, "Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?" Thirty one percent said they would oppose it. About half of the opposition was hard core - 17 percent said they would even oppose civil unions for gay couples.

When informed of this, Plante said the following:

"Would I repeat that I believe the majority of Rhode Islanders don't want gay marriage? Yeah, I'll repeat that," he said when we spoke with him. "Can I give you a definitive poll that shows that? No."

But he also said that his claim is justified because House Speaker Fox couldn't get enough votes for gay marriage in his own chamber. That, he asserted, is because people were "calling their representatives and saying 'We don't want this.' . . . I wasn't making a statistical claim."

But Politifact disagreed:

We disagree. Of course it’s a statistical claim. When you say "the people of Rhode Island don't want same-sex marriage" you're saying that more than 50 percent would oppose such legislation.

The most recent polls from Brown, RI-GLAD and even NOM-RI -- Plante’s organization -- show the opposite.

Not only did the trends in the NOM-RI and RI-GLAD polls show opposition to same-sex marriage evaporating, the Brown and RI-GLAD polls showed that the public wants gay couples to have the right to marry, even if you assume that every voter who didn't express an opinion was opposed to gay marriage.

Plante's assertion isn't just false. It's ridiculous. We rate it Pants On Fire!

It's not surprising that Plante takes this point of view. He is merely following the path of NOM founder, Maggie Gallagher, i.e. make a ridiculously inaccurate statement and when called on it, duck and dodge.

This is the second time Politifact has called out NOM for inaccurate statements. In February, the site called out NOM for lying about gay marriage and school curriculum for kindergartners in Massachusetts.

Gallagher unsuccessfully tried to refute the claim during an interview. She finally told the interviewer to ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.

And speaking of Plante, he has said some crude things about about same-sex households, comparing them to "tragic situations such as divorce or dead parents. He also said that gay marriage turns children into "tea cup dogs"

One wonders what Gallagher thinks of those statements, seeing that in a Congressional hearing, she said that she thinks some gays make "wonderful parents."

Keep those tips coming, folks!

WSJ: Lawyer signed contract to defend DOMA before firm vetted the case

This is the post I was going to publish Friday morning here. I posted on it Alternet instead because Blogger crashed.

One thing I despise about the religious right is how they swoop down on an issue in order to exploit it before all of the facts come in.

They act like a bunch of vultures with crosses stitched in their wings.

A perfect example of this is the recent controversy involving King & Spalding, the law firm which decided not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.

We have heard the constant whining from the religious right about how King & Spalding are cowards for refusing to take the case. We have heard junk from the religious right regarding the supposedly bullying tactics of the Human Rights Campaign in this controversy. However, the following is something we won't hear from the religious right.

According to The Wall Street Journal and The Fulton County Daily Reporter, the lawyer in the center of the controversy, Paul Clement, may have overstepped his bounds in taking the case. He allegedly signed the contract to defend the case before going through proper channels:

Clement has stated that he felt that he had the backing of the firm before he took on the DOMA case. But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding's business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.

The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.

The article also said that there was widespread opposition to the case from inside the law firm and that the case didn't fit the law firm's mission.

These facts something to keep in mind as the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, etc. will continue to put their own spin on this controversy.

My guess is that the organizations will conveniently ignore these new revelations. I wonder how many times NOM and the Family Research Council will mention this incident as an example of how "homosexuals are trying to silence people" instead of letting everyone of the real story.

After all, why let truth stand in the way of a good fundraising tool?

UPDATE - And now from the Huffington Post comes even more details about the GOP in this matter. Apparently no one knows where the House of Representatives is going to get the money to pay for the DOMA defense. And laws could have been broken because of it:

The House of Representatives has signed a contract to pay a law firm up to $500,000 (and possibly more) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. But there's a problem with this arrangement: No one seems to know where that money is going to come from, and at least one lawmaker believes House Republicans may be violating federal law.

 . . .  Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) pressed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher on the matter. Although the contract states that "the General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services," Kircher said he was told by the House Republican leadership that no funds would come out of the Office of General Counsel's budget for this purpose.

 . . . Dan Strodel, the House's chief administrative officer, is the man who, according to Honda's office, would ultimately write the checks to Brancroft PLLC. But at the hearing, he also said he had no knowledge of where the money would come from.

 . . .Honda believes that Boehner's agreement could be violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits "involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose." Knowingly violating the law could lead to being fined or imprisoned. 

 Why doesn't the House of Representatives ask the National Organization for Marriage for the money? I'm sure than an organization which mysteriously goes from having  $500,000 to $10 million in a three-year span has money just laying around.

Hat tip to AmericablogGay for the update.

Know Your LGBT History - MadTV

What a week!

If you all don't know by now, I didn't post anything for 24 hours due to Blogger crashing. I'm glad that at the very least, it happened close to the weekend. Anyhow, I am - and millions of others - are back online.

So without futher ado, here is my regularly scheduled Know Your LGBT History post.

I miss MadTV. At times it was funnier than Saturday Night Live. Then there are times when MadTV just tried too damn hard. Watch these clips and judge for yourself which is funny and which is just plain stupid. Tune in tomorrow for some of the stuff that I wasn't able to post about earlier.









Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

50 Black lesbians you should know Part 1

I saw this video and I was speechless because it was so good. It's not fancy nor does it involve theatrics. It just presents faces - faces which need to be seen often: