Oh, wait, they could not have done that because NOM has either failed to file its 990 or has failed to make its 990 available to the public. Either failure would be a violation of tax law, which you would think would bear some mention in the article, especially since NOM’s 990 filing practices have been the focus of so much controversy.

Not to belabor the obvious on the “who is winning” question, but when the first of the 31 anti-marriage states voted on this issue, we would lose by 70-30, even in blue states like HI. In most of the 31, the anti-gay side didn’t need to put on much of a campaign. The anti-gay message sold itself.

By 2006, you started to see the anti-gay side having to work for its victories, and those victories began to come in below 60%. The last two battles required a vast effort in terms of money and human resources, and the anti-gay side won by 4 and 5 percent margins. They had to rush their effort in ME to have their vote in a low turnout off-year election, fearing defeat if the vote took place in 2010.

That is not a winning trend.

Winning by cheating is not a true win.

NOM acts unlawfully using unidentified funds.

Newsweek left this very significant part out.

Let’s drop them a note:

Letters@newsweek.com

In both pieces she quotes Brown at length. She quotes Brown when he says “he received a call six months ago threatening that he would be ‘strung up in a tree and lit on fire’ but that he’s not intimidated, he’s concerned for donors and supporters who get similar calls, of which he says the group has ample evidence.”

A short paragraph later she states:

“The NOMexposed.com Project, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese says, ‘is a message to lawmakers saying that if you want NOM support, you are going to have to wear NOM support.’”

She’s either unwittingly or intentionally supporting NOM’s goal to out-martyr the gays.

It’s really simpler than that. It’s all about access to a controversial figure; no puff piece, no access.

Using the Howard Univ. School of Law Civil Right Clinic amicus as a kind of checklist, send Eve Conant and her boss, Tina Brown, instances in which Brian’s organization used the same descriptions and language as racists did to defeat the rights of African Americans.

For example:

#1: Like same-sex parenting today, interracial parenting was once considered damaging to the physical and psychological health of children:

Because of the fear that inter-racial unions were a danger to the children involved, courts sometimes used the threat of psychological damage to rationalize removing mixed-race children from their biological home. See Randall Kennedy, Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption 12 (2003).

NOM Position:

“Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.” NOM Talking Points http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm
==============

See what I mean? NOM complete fabricated an explanation about interracial marriage to *justify* using the same language to demonize same-sex marriage.

Sometimes, there are Side A and Side B arguments – whether it is better to butter your waffles first then put on maple syrup or to put on syrup first and then butter them can be argued (preferably with considerable real world testing).

The positions which NOM takes are, however, not equal to the position which all rational doctors, psychiatric boards and, not incidentally, the US Constitution takes. This lack of balance is worse than sloppy journalism, it is a sign of biased reporting.