Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

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.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

steveinmi
February 7th, 2012 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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

Ryan
February 7th, 2012 | LINK

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.