NOM Fleeces Its Followers with Falsehoods (again)

Rob Tisinai

February 7th, 2012

Today NOM once again asked its supporters for money by lying to them.

You know, they do this so often I should just create a template for this kind of response.

Anyway, they’re panicking about Prop 8 being declared unconstitutional. As paid professionals they ought to realize the 9th Circuit ruling could only apply to states that:

  • Withdraw same-sex marriage rights after they’ve been grants, and
  • Have a domestic partnership law that grants same-sex couples all the state-level benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

That’s a tiny number of states. But the paid professionals at NOM want to sound a more urgent note in their fundraising appeal, which contains three DONATE NOW buttons:

A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop.

But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

No. As much as it pains me to say it, a victory (for us, not NOM) at the Supreme Court couldn’t possibly “force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop.”  It would have no impact on most states.

There’s an old quote: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Maybe NOM president Brian Brown just isn’t capable of understanding the 9th Circuit decision.

Or maybe he understands it very well — exactly as well as he understands the concept of cash flow.

In any case, feel free to go over there  and point out the dishonesty. It was kind of fun swamping their comments last time — let’s start the party again.

steveinmi

February 7th, 2012

Aw…. My comment is awaiting moderation.

Rev. Steve Radant
Posted February 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
(apologies in advance if this is a duplicate post)

I’ve read all 133 pages of today’s ruling. The court ruled in the narrowest possible terms, almost guaranteeing that today’s ruling will never apply beyond California.

I understand how scary marriage equality can be, and I’m all in favor of NOM’s right to post fundraising messages. But could we please apply some Christian honesty before we pass the virtual collection plate?

Hugs,
Rev. Steve
Ex. 20:16

Lindoro Almaviva

February 7th, 2012

Well, they actually might be seeing things from different angles. Let me explain:

This desicion will effectively prevent them from putting a referendun on the ballot in Washington, should the marriage equality bill pass there and it is signed into law by the governor.

This desicion could also have implications in NY and NH (If I am correct in the last case) given how they (NOM) are in the process of bullying the legislatures into takinng those rights away. This could mean that there is a presedent in the other side of the country that they are not allowed to 1. put this kind of measure to a popular vote and (potentially) 2. prevent a legislature to legislate away rights that have already been granted to a class of people just because they had a change of hearts.

If I was maggie or Brian, I would have a distinc smell hanging around me and i would be on my 3rd change of undies for the day. Eventhough this desicion is very narow in its scope, it can set presedent for anyone who says “If you give these rights to them gays we are going to force a ballot measure.”

I would welcome the oppinion of anyone better prepared to discuss matters of law and its implications.

DN

February 7th, 2012

I like your line about malice and stupidity. In that vein, I would say the entire post can be explained with, “never mistake noble intentions for a basic desire to earn a tidy profit.”

occono

February 7th, 2012

Hmm, so SCOTUS couldn’t possibly (though I wouldn’t expect them to) further the scope of the ruling to the whole nation? I mean, wasn’t Citizens United a case about a very narrow legality that got stretched to “Corporate Personhood”?

Timothy Kincaid

February 7th, 2012

The Box of Rocks wants to clarify that it is not a political consultant for Brian Brown.

Ryan

February 7th, 2012

Hate to say it, but I might have to defend NOM, here. Narrowly, at least. Do we know for certain SCOTUS won’t “broaden” the ruling that the 9th narrowed and rule all gay marriage bans unconstitutional? Are they legally prevented from doing so, now?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

Born On This Day, 1918: Leonard Bernstein

Texas Leads A Five-State Lawsuit Over Obamacare Transgender Rules

Wikileaks Outs Saudi Gay Men, Male Rape Victims, People With HIV

Is Australia's Marriage Equality Plebiscite Doomed?

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1970: New York Times Looks At "Homosexuals In Revolt"

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.