Comments on: Pawlenty caves to NOM pressure

By: Qwerty

Qwerty — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 05:05:05 +0000

Interesting fact from recent New York legislation: New York was the very last state in the country to legalize no-fault divorce. This was late in 2010.

No-fault divorce makes divorce much easier and way less expensive to obtain.

Funny thing, though. I didn’t see NOM parading through Manhattan or in Albany crusading against this particular piece of legislation. I guess divorce is not a priority for NOM, despite Brown’s oft-repeated “Maggie is out there fighting against divorce all the time…”.

By: JimInMa

JimInMa — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:02:54 +0000

adjunct of the Moron church, more like.
Which includes both Mormon *and* Roman

By: BlackDog

BlackDog — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:55:41 +0000

The problem is that since the Rednecks, the Religious Right, and (through media outlets like Fox News) a few very wealthy individuals have all taken over the Republican party…most of those old school conservative old time Republicans either are…or are closer to being…Democrats now.

When Mike Huckabee said he didn’t think HE could make it in the current political environment on the Republican side I knew they were in trouble.

By: Paul J. Stein

Paul J. Stein — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:42:41 +0000

Looks like a “SideShow” GOP convention. Freaks of nature, snake oil,charlatins, scam artists. A “REAL” conservative oldtime REPUBLICAN could walk away with the nomination. Can not wait to see and hear the drama.

By: tristram

tristram — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 06:48:08 +0000

“Pawlenty caves to NOM pressure”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U

By: Cowboy

Cowboy — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 06:41:39 +0000

There are some Mormon connections at NOM. I wouldn’t doubt Romney was feeling some pressure from high-placed Mormons in NOM ranks.

Though Orson Scott Card isn’t one of them. I can’t imagine Romney being influenced by some science-fiction writer.

Just who has the power to make NOM open its books? Certainly not the courts. Maybe a investigative team from 60 Minutes?

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 05:47:40 +0000

I agree Nick, never accept the National Organization “For” “Marriage”‘s dishonest name as it is, always specify that they are not for marriage, they are against it.

By: Ben in Atlanta

Ben in Atlanta — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 05:37:43 +0000

I clicked on the links but I still see no connection to the “National Organization for Women” tag before “Tim Pawlenty”. What am I missing? Since CBN would probably rather keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, what does that have to do with NOW.

Sick him ladies.

By: Nick Thiwerspoon

Nick Thiwerspoon — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:35:54 +0000

Yeah, good point. The problem is that they say they “support marriage”. And by accepting their term for themselves (“National Organization for MARRIAGE) we strengthen them. I did a blog piece on this a month or so ago:

http://nikolaos-thiwerspoon.blogspot.com/2011/06/nom-oagr.html

I thought it relatively intemperate, but those I consulted said I hadn’t been rude enough!!!

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:40:11 +0000

Cute acronym, Nick, but I’ve found that people take my opinion more seriously when it gives our enemies the courtesy of their own name and doesn’t try to express contempt of them personally.

That’s one reason that we discourage terms like “ReTHUGlican” or commenting on Maggie Gallagher’s weight. Not only is it discourteous, it distracts from our criticism of their policies.

The answer to their puppet-judge pledge is not, “yeah, but you’re fat” or to give them a pejorative nickname. And if it does become our answer, then not only will it turn off people we could persuade, but it lets us know that we have no winning argument.

(Though, of course, The Peter is an exception. It doesn’t alienate a single person on the planet to mock LaBabs.)