March 27th, 2012
According to secret strategy documents of the National Organization for Marriage which were unveiled last night, NOM’s strategy was based on seeking to sow divisions between LGBT people and African-Americans and Latinos, between LGBT Americans, President Barack Obama and the Democratic base, and between LGBT Americans and other ordinary Americans across the country.
NOM’s internal strategy documents were unsealed in Maine yesterday as part of an ongoing investigation by that state into NOM’s campaign finance activities. Some of those documents have been posted on the NOMExposed web site of the Human Rights campaign. Many of the tactics revealed in the documents include manipulating ethnic and racial minorities in order to pit them against LGBT Americans — as well as LGBT members of their own ethnic and racial groups. For example, on page 20 of a December 15, 2009 document describing NOM’s national strategy with regard to the Latino vote:
The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be even more so in the future because of demographic growth. Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity.
We aim to identify young Latino and Latina leaders, especially artists, actors, musicians, athletes, writers and other celebrities willing to stand for marriage, regardless of national boundaries. …Here’s our insight: The number of “glamorous” people willing to buck the powerful forces to speak for marriage may be small in any one country. But by searching for these leaders across national boundaries we will assemble a community of next generation Latino leaders that Hispanics and other next generation elites in this country can aspire to be like. (As “ethnic rebels” such spokespeople will also have an appeal across racial lines, especially to young urbans in America.)
With the help of Schubert Flint Public Affairs, we will develop Spanish language radio and TV ads, as well as pamphlets, YouTube videos, and church handouts and popular songs. Our ultimate goal is the make opposition to gay marriage an identity marker, a badge of youth rebellion to conforming assimilation to the bad side of “Anglo” culture. [Emphasis mine.]
That same document outlines what they call the “Not a Civil Right” Project aimed at African-Americans (Page 22)
The majority of African-Americans, like the majority of Americans, oppose gay marriage, but Democratic power busses are increasingly inclined to privilege the concerns of gay rights groups over the values of African-Americans. A strategic goal of this project is to amplify the voice and power of black Americans within the Democratic Party. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African-American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil rights. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. [Emphasis mine]
According to that document, one million dollars was being earmarked for that effort in 2010, the same amount that was also earmarked to the Latino project. Another undated document which describes NOM’s “$20 million strategy for victory” was much more blunt about the purpose of this initiative (page 12):
The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African-American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. [Emphasis mine.]
Another document, a NOM “Board Update 2008-2009,” quite literally seeks to “fans the flames” further (page 13):
Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay marriage to its advocates and persuading the movement’s allies that advocates are unacceptably overreaching on this issue. Consider pushing a marriage amendment in Washington, D.C.; find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally. [Emphasis mine.]
Alvin McEwen puts this dynamic in very plain language:
NOM has portrayed whatever African-American opposition to marriage equality its spotlighted as spontaneous attempts by leaders and members of the black community to keep its civil rights legacy from supposedly being “tainted” by a comparison to gay equality.
But now we see that there was nothing spontaneous about this. It was a cynically planned effort by NOM – which the organization continues to exploit – in order to drive a wedge between blacks and gays.
…One doesn’t have to spell out how this benefits NOM’s efforts. The two sides attack each other with extreme anger causing magazine articles to be written about the division, news programs to focus on the division, and venomous chats to occur on places like Facebook and Twitter.Some heterosexual African-Americans will let loose with homophobia against the gay community. And some white lgbtqs will express racist comments about the black community. Both communities will be at each other’s throats. There will be no intelligent conversations on the matter and neither community will benefit an iota.
And NOM will sit back and reap the benefits of causing this chaos.
One of NOM’s chief tactics lately has been to claim victimhood status while simultaneously attacking LGBT families, and those attacks are aimed specifically at trying to provoke some sort of backlash against their side. Whether they succeed in that or not is immaterial to them however. NOM designated another project aimed toward creating victimhood messages regardless of merit. This project was called “Behind Enemy Lines”, with the goal of “keeping gay marriage controversial in Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut.” (page 24):
Document the consequences of gay marriage and develop an effective culture of resistance. … Fund a low-cost media campaign (primarily billboards) to support the idea the children need mothers and fathers and to highlight threats and promise support to any citizens attacked for their pro-marriage views; commission polling and other studies to document consequences of gay marriage; and gather a rapid-response team of videographers and reporters to collect and record stories of those who have been harassed, threatened, or intimidated as a result of their support for traditional views on marriage and sexuality across the country and also in Europe and abroad. [Emphasis mine]
The document earmarked $300,000 for the Behind Enemy Lines project in 2010, including $100,000 for a “study of what schools are teaching in gay marriage/civil union regimes.” The document also proposed related project called “the Face of the Victims Rapid Response Video Team and Archive” (page 25):
Who is hurt by gay marriage? The rapid response video project would aim to put an emotionally compelling face on the answer to this question. … When a young Hispanic mother discovers in New Jersey that her first grader is being taught about gay marriage, how does the school counselor respond to her concerns? We need to get her on camera, telling the story of what gay marriage really means. NOM’s rapid response team takes the “document the victims” project national, giving us the capacity to capture the oppression of people’s rights, the disregard of their feelings and interests, on video, as it happens, in real time. [Emphasis mine.]
Another document, dated August 11, 2009, also had a plan for painting president Barack Obama as a “radical socialist” as part of their anti-equality strategy. This plan is significant, given that NOM has always touted itself as an organization that is only interested in marriage and nothing else. But the August 11, 2009 document shows that NOM sees itself as an integral player in the much larger culture war against LGBT Americans, as well as pushing the radical-right’s broader messages against President Barack Obama with an eye toward their desire to defeat him in 2012 (page: 13):
Expose Obama as a social radical. Develop side issues to weaken pro-gay marriage political leaders and parties and develop an activist hase of socially conservative voters. Raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level. This is the mission of the American Principles Project. …
The Preserve Innocence project will monitor all administration initiatives from the White House, Department of Justice, Education Department, and the Health and Human Services Department that affect the welfare of children. We will put a special focus on exposing those administration programs that have the effect of sexualizing young children. We will provide a weekly update to Congress, to conservative leaders and to the national media on personnel or policy threats to childhood innocence. We will work with appropriate legislation to reverse current Department of Education policies that use the Safe Schools program to foist de facto sex education on children as young as kindergarten age. [Emphasis mine.]
Another undated document which describes NOM’s “$20 million strategy for victory” outlined the same offensive against the president, calling the effort “Sideswiping Obama” (page 11). That document also calls for “nationalizing” the issue in the context of the U.S. presidential elections (page 9):
Marriage needs to be a national (and ultimately international) effort, not just a local or regional issue. If marriage is going to be preserved between a man and a woman in the United State two things must happen: the pro-gay agenda of President Obama must be defeated in 2012, and replaced by one of that expressly articulates a pro-marriage culture. [Emphasis mine.]
HRC’s outgoing president Joe Solmonese describes this document dump as a “game changer”:
“Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Such brutal honesty is a game changer, and this time NOM can’t spin and twist its way out of creating an imagined rift between LGBT people and African-Americans or Hispanics.”
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 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.