Comments on: NOM Needs a Dictionary

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:33:59 +0000

“Carrie Prejean could have had it all.”

Someone’s taking this beauty contest thing way too seriously.

By: Buffy

Buffy — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:43:44 +0000

“Either the designer of the National Organization for Marriage’s new website is not very bright, or that is his opinion about those who visit there.”

I vote C, “all of the above”.

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:35:28 +0000

That’s not a petition, it’s a names-and-emails gathering ploy – in a few months’ time they’ll be contacting all those gullible Christers for money. NOM is evidently learning the tactics of Gary Randall and Larry Stickney’s Referendum 71 petition in Washington State. The only difference is that NOM aren’t doing quite such a slick job of it – Larry the Hutt may have screwed up on the Referendum 71 petition at almost every possible turn, but at least it’s an actual petition!

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:44:39 +0000

Merriam-Webster also includes same-sex couples in their definition of marriage, even if their definition is somewhat inelegant. NOM has dictionary problems all around.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:38:05 +0000

“Sign the petition” when there isn’t actually one means the same thing as “give us money” to “preserve opposite marriage.”

in other words, it means something in “Opposite World”