Box Turtle Bulletin

NOM must disclose donors

The National Organization for Marriage has run out of appeals and must now disclose the identities of the handful of uber-rich donors who finance their role in the nation’s anti-marriage campaigns. (SCOTUSblog)

…the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a constitutional challenge to a Maine law that requires those seeking to raise and spend money in state election campaigns to organize as a political action committee for that activity, and make significant disclosures about their financial operations. That was challenged in a petition, National Organization for Marriage v. McKee (11-599), after the state law was upheld by the First Circuit Court.

This is probably a bigger blow to NOM than most realize. I believe that a significant purpose, if not their primary purpose, is and has been to shield the identities of these people and/or institutions from disclosure. They have allowed for significant portions of state campaigns to be financed without the public knowing who is behind the initiatives and without being held to any form of social consequence.

The timing is very fortuitous. While NOM may drag its feet, I think it likely that the identities will be revealed well before the elections in Washington and Maine.

As society is increasingly seeing the issue of marriage through the lens of fairness and justice, spending huge sums to bar gay people from full inclusion under civil law is increasingly seen as either based in malice or an allocation of funds that could have gone to a far better cause.

It’s not a happy day in NOMville. But, true to form, they are pretending that the world is going just according to their script and there is nary a mention of this catastrophic loss on their blog.

Understanding Maggie

Maggie Gallagher doesn’t hate you. She doesn’t even hate your marriage. Because hate is an emotion, a passionate feeling, and emotion simply doesn’t enter into Maggie’s approach to her work. Hers is a world of thought, of commitment to an ideal, the concept of marriage, and her analytical approach to affirming its unquestionable attributes and values.

Or so finds Mark Oppenheimer in a new Slate article that seeks to understand the motivations and drives of Maggie Gallagher the author and activist and how that person differs from Maggie Gallagher the mother, wife, and friend. This is a valuable look into Maggie’s world, one that each of us should know as we continue our fight for equality.

NOM Fleeces Its Followers with Falsehoods (again)

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.

NOM’s sad little dishonest “survey”

What do you do when all the polls are against you? What do you do when accurately reporting social attitudes demonstrates that you are outside the mainstream and that people aren’t buying your arguments anymore. What do you do to justify your continued ‘defense of the family’ when it becomes clear that ‘the family’ doesn’t want your defense?

Well, if you are the National Organization for Marriage, you make sh!t up. And what better way than to conduct your own “survey” of the attitudes of Washington voters and pass it off as meaningful. Here’s what they say about their little survey.

When reminded that Washington State has a civil union law for gay couples, 57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage. 72% of voters think state lawmakers should work on other issues rather than same-sex marriage. A nearly identical number -71% of voters—believe the people should decide the marriage issue; only 9% think legislators should decide the matter.

“If the Washington Legislature wants to change the definition of marriage, which 57% of voters oppose, NOM calls on them to give this decision to voters. Thirty-one other states have been able to vote on the definition of marriage, and Washington voters deserve the same opportunity,” Brown said. “Voters have made it clear in this survey that they alone should decide the marriage issue—not legislators. Let the people vote.”

But reading the actual survey is just funny. They tried everything they could to get desired results from this “survey” and still Washingtonians didn’t give them what they wanted. And while the survey is meaningless from a social survey standpoint, it does illustrate how dishonest NOM actually is willing to be.

First, NOM stacked the deck. Choosing an age sample that understated those under 45 and overstate those over 65 by about 3-4%. They also found a sample that is 36% conservative and 34% liberal on social issues. In Washington. And in a state that voted for Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama (with an 18 point spread), their sample is 37% leaning Democrat and 35% leaning Republican.

And then NOM played the ‘push poll’ game, setting up language to try and jostle participants into giving them an answer that they can use for political gain. It’s a very common tactic of politicians, but it is despicable and immoral when used by a group that pretends to be protecting the voters.

The first question is about whether the participant is a voter. No problem. But then it is followed by three ‘set-up’ questions designed to place the participant as an opponent to the legislature: 2) is Washington going in the right direction or wrong track, and 3) how would you rate the job performance of Gov. Gregoire and 4) the legislature. Rating categories were excellent, good, only fair, poor, other.

“Only fair” is an interesting option. Usually “fair” stands alone, as an indication of acceptable but not particularly laudable. However, by adding “only”, NOM poisons this option and takes it from “okay” and implies a failure. This intentional shading was necessary in order to push the participant into being suspicious of the legislature and governor.

And then come the marriage questions. And the first one is just laughable obvious.

5. As you probably know, since 2010 Washington has had a civil union law which gives gay couples all the legal rights of married couples. Now some people want to pass a new law, which changes the definiton of marriage, so that it is no longer between a man and a woman, but between any two people. Do you feel it is necessary or not necessary to pass now a new law which changes the definition of marriage in this way?

36% Necessary
57% Not Necessary
7% Don’t Know / No Response

Any two people. Hmmm. Like, say, siblings or parent and child or fundamentalist Mormon and his unwilling 14 year old bride, or you and the girl down the street that put out a restraining order on you. Any two people… yeah, that’s just a lie. Not a misstatement, not a convenient term for a complex issue. Nope. Just a lie.

And is it “necessary now”? Well, considering the economy and other issues of concern, having 36% say that it’s necessary now is a HUGE failure for NOM.

6. Who do you think should decide what the definition of marriage is in Washington state: should it be defined by the courts, or should it be defined by the state legislature, or should it be defined by the voters of the state?

8% Defined by the courts
9% Defined by the Legislature
71% Defined by the voters
12% Don’t know / no response

Okay. That’s probably somewhat reflective of their views.

7. If you were able to speak today with your local state legislator, would you tell him or her that passing a new which charges the definition of marriage is something you want the state legislature to work on at this time, or would you tell him or her that the state legislature should work on solving other problems?

23% Work on marriage law
72% Work on solving other problems
4% Don’t know/no response

Again, colossal fail for NOM. A quarter of Washington residents think that marriage equality is more important than anything else.

But here is the clincher. Here is the question to which everything was geared. Here is the answer that NOM has been driving for:

8. And if you were able to speak today with your local state legislator, would you tell him or her to vote for this new law which changes the definition of marriage, so that it is no longer between a man and a woman but between any two people, or to vote against this change?

42% Vote for new marriage law
49% Vote against marriage change
10% Don’t know / No Response

Having done everything they could to stack the survey population and the skew the poll to show that “the people” don’t want equality, still they couldn’t get more than half to say to vote against the bill. Having gotten participants to agree that it wasn’t necessary or more important than other matters and that it should be up to “the voters”, still 42% said to vote for the “any two people” bill.

Oh, NOM, you are a sad little group, aren’t you? Unethical, immoral, dishonest, and still losing your culture war over the hearts and minds of decent people.

NOM reporting requirement upheld

The first marriage news of the day is a good start.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has upheld the decision that the National Organization for [Catholic] Marriage must follow campaign reporting requirements. This is no surprise but it is welcome.

Of course they will not do so. And so it’s off to the Supreme Court.

NOM Manufactures Some Outrage

NOM’s blog has a new post up, with its most outrageously outraged headline ever, about NJ Gov. Christie nominating an openly gay man to the state Supreme Court:

Tell Christie to Withdraw Nomination of Pro-SSM Judge For Extremist Views Equating Christianity and Slavery

The basis for their outrage? A letter written by nominee Bruce Harris in 2009 to State Senator Joe Pennacchio about marriage equality:

When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, I think of the many “traditions” that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these “traditions.”

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates—and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.

Maggie Gallagher surprised me by calling this letter “intemperate” in the National Review. Really? The only problem mistake I saw was the comma after “slavery” (this is why no one invites me to parties). It wasn’t until NOMblog picked up the story that I saw her objection.

But is it valid? Does Harris equate Christianity and slavery? Of course not.

The only link between slavery and Christianity in Harris’s letter is a factual parenthetical that is factual which factually points out that the Bible in fact factually provides for slavery. Which is a fact. Harris is just pointing out something that theologians have been grappling with for centuries, including many who created Christian arguments against slavery.  It’s no crime merely to point out that these verses exist (or to warn against a glibly literal application of the Book to public policy). In fact, it’s anti-Biblical to pretend the verses aren’t there.

Harris’s letter does three simple things:

1. It cautions against using tradition as an argument against marriage equality.
2. It cautions, on Constitutional grounds, against using religion as an argument against marriage equality.
3. It politely requests information on what other grounds the good Senator might be opposing marriage equality.

Bruce Harris’s letter is clear, temperate, factual attempt to point out some truths and open an honest dialog. Maybe that’s why Maggie and NOM hate it so.

NOM: New Hampshire To Vote On Marriage Equality Repeal Wednesday

NOM has the details on their blog:

I’ve got exciting news! We’ve been told that HB437—a bill to repeal same-sex marriage—will be voted on Next Wednesday, February 1st! Now is the time to call your legislators—especially House members—right away and ask them to VOTE YES ON HB 437! [Emphasis — and exclamation points! —  in the original]

If you’re a New Hampshire resident of voter, NOM helpfully provides easy links so you can call your legislator:

• If you know your House District, click here to see phone numbers for your representative(s).
• If you’re not sure which district you live in, click here to look up your state legislators. Please use District Office phone number as members do not maintain an office in the State House.

Maggie’s Strategy: Denying Reality

I got a fundraising email from Maggie Gallagher the other day. It’s unbelievably long (as in, I can’t believe she expects people to read this whole thing). One sentence jumped out at me before I gave up on the piece.

Are two men pledged in a sexual union really a marriage?

Personally I’d answer, No.

Actually, I’d blink twice, tilt my head, squint quizzically, and then answer, No. Mostly because I don’t know many men who have pledged to each other in a merely sexual relationship.

On the other hand, suppose Maggie had asked:

Are two men in romantic relationship — who have pledged to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, from this day forward until death does them part — in a marriage?

I’d answer, Of course.

But of course, Maggie didn’t write that. She knows it would devastate her argument. She knows the only way she can win is to deny that such a commitment is even possible between two men. That’s why NOM’s website contains this false and dehumanizing assertion:

Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.

‘Cause you see, two men can’t feel that kind of love. Not for each other. Not for their kids.

Maggie’s key strategy here is denial of reality. We see the same thing in different words from NOM’s resident intellectual (God help them) Jennifer Roback Morse, who claims marriage equality will reduce the institution to nothing more than a “registry of friendships.”

Again: denial of reality. And it truly is offensive. Compare it to statements like these:

• But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of two white people for each other and their children.

• But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of two non-Jews for each other and their children.

• But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of Gringich and his woman-of-the-moment for each other and their children.

Well, perhaps that last item doesn’t belong. But those first two statements are no less offensive than what NOM wrote about gay and lesbian relationships.

Okay, that last bit was kind of a tangent. My real point here is that our opponents resort to this rhetorical strategy all the time. We need to point out that it’s not just false, but self-defeating. Not just wrong, but devastating to their own argument. We need to Gingrich ourselves up (rhetorically, not maritally), stop playing defense, and turn their words against them. We need to say:

No. It’s not just a sexual union. It’s not just a friendship. And if you can’t make your case by calling things what they are, then you don’t have a case at all.

Maggie Gallagher endorses Rick Santorum

National Organization for [Catholic] Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has endorse Pope Rick, as was anticipated. In doing so, she had far less to say about his policies or qualifications than she did about the meanies who are mocking the candidate:

They will go after him not just to defeat Rick Santorum, but to smear his good name, to associate it with their own muck, to take a decent and honorable man and try literally to make his name mean mud.

Oh, Maggie, no one is trying to literally make his name mean mud! Even a box of rocks knows that.

The box of rocks is very familiar with mud and considers mud to be a good friend. But it tries to keep a garden hose handy if there is any chance of coming in contact with santorum.

Teleprompter reader selected to be NOM’s “Face of Minnesota for Marriage”

Unable to find anyone qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the other anti-gay activists at Minnesota for Marriage have decided that the face of their anti-gay movement would be Kalley Yanta, a former anchor for a Minneapolis-based television station. Which means that the level of intellectual discourse will be as follows:

“If marriage between homosexuals is legalized, what would some of the consequences be?” she asked rhetorically. “Parents who want to opt their kids out of the public school on the day that they’re teaching about homosexual relationships how it should be okay and accepted, and the parents are charged with discrimination and are hauled away sometimes in handcuffs. … We just can’t allow this to happen.

That probably shouldn’t surprise us much. Minnesota for Marriage is releasing a number of Marriage Minute videos to get their views across. The 18 second long Marriage Minute introductory segment displays pictures labeled “Our Families”, “Our Futures”, “Our Marriages”, and “Our Children”. But the Washington Independent notes that they seem a bit confused on what “our” means.

Minnesotans United for All Families, a coalition of more than 100 groups, analyzed the images in the first video released and determined that not a single person in the video was actually from Minnesota.

“While this video is full of stock images, it is strangely lacking in real Minnesotans,” the group said on its Facebook page. “Perhaps they couldn’t find any real Minnesotans willing to support their divisive agenda?”

One image appears to have been taken by a French photographer of a French family, and another is being used on the website of an India-based health-care center.

Oh my, it’s going to be a busy season for that box of rocks.

NOM runs anti-Ron Paul ad

While our community may be noting with discomfort the peculiar affiliations or view of a number of Ron Paul’s prominent supporters, that doesn’t mean that he is viewed favorably by those who dedicate themselves day in and day out to obsessing about Teh Ghey. It seems that Ron Paul is “a radical who would destroy traditional marriage in America.”

Whodathunkit? So pro-equality is Ron Paul that NOM has created an entire website for the purpose of “spotlighting Ron Paul’s unwillingness to defend marriage.”

But it seems that Ron Paul is not the only nefarious secret supporter of equality, Michele Bachmann has learned that Mitt Romney is pro-equality as well:

“Mitt Romney has defended gay marriage and even signed marriage licenses for same-sex couples and Ron Paul doesn’t believe the government should protect the institution of marriage,” Bachmann said. “I have a record of defending life, marriage and the family and I’ll protect them as president of the United States.”

But I just don’t think that Hatin’ on Teh Ghey is getting as much traction as it has in the past. There’s something about having real issues like a stagnant economy and high unemployment to make such issues seem as silly as they really are.

NOM’s Christmas Gift: Deepening Desperation

NOM reports that 61% of New Hampshire voters want to repeal the state’s recognition of same-sex marriage. Disappointing, but we have to remember that even this represents progress when compared to public sentiment a decade ago, so —

Wait, hold on, let me check…

So sorry. My mistake. NOM is reporting that 60% of New Hampshire Republicans want to repeal same-sex marriage.

Only 60%.

Of Republicans.

I’m thrilled with that number. And NOM’s happy about it, too?  That’s quite revealing. Apparently they’ve set themselves a new, lower threshold for what constitutes good news. Perhaps something like:

Yay! Our base is merely eroding quickly rather than extremely quickly.

Or:

Hoorah! 61% of the most conservative 28% of New Hampshire voters haven’t abandoned us yet!

Or:

Yippee! Because, well…yippee!

Actually, they think of it like this, spinning the result in a fashion that blows away any attempt to parody it.

“With more than 3 out of 5 New Hampshire Primary voters favoring the restoration of marriage, the verdict is in: Republicans are united in the fight against the national agenda of wealthy, gay marriage lobbyists,” said Jason Rose of the July Fourth Forum PAC.

Emphasis added.  Anyway, Merry Christmas.  From NOM.

Maggie Gallagher Lies. Or Forgets. Or Something.

Maggie Gallagher ought to remember that her opponents know how to Google.

Today, over on NOMblog, she offers us this:

I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I’ve ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form.

Really? How about this, from January 28, 2010, in which Maggie reports on a study about child abuse, a study that didn’t look at same-sex couples:

Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?

Answer: Married biological parents. (see page 5-25).

…

Children living with both their mom and dad united by marriage have one-third the rate of serious child abuse, compared to children in any other family structure.

Here’s my question for Ted [Olsen] and David [Boies] as they strive to prove that Science Says same-sex unions are just like opposite-sex ones, when it comes to children.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps alone of all the family structures science has ever studied, children living with same-sex couples do just as well as children in intact married families…

But does this study, which is one of hundreds with similar results favoring the natural family give Ted Olson and David Boies pause late at night as they assert the scientific irrationality of respect for the natural family at all I wonder? Ted and David, I’m wondering: not even a little bit?

Here we have Maggie arguing that we should think twice about gay marriage because it’s possible same-sex couples harm their own children at a higher rate married biological parents do — a possibility she admits is completely unsupported by evidence, even as she couches it in terms that make it sound likely.

Now what did she just claim today?

I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I’ve ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form.

Google, Maggie, Google.

NOM’s Special Right

NOM has decided to ban a contributor to one of its blogs.  Not a commenter, mind you (that would be nothing new), but a contributor, an official NOM blogger:

We at the Ruth blog have decided to no longer allow Ari to have posting privileges over here.  His sarcasm has gone over the line and we don’t care to be associated with it.  Those who are interested in hearing what Ari has to say can find him at his own blog.  We will stick to reporting on all aspects of the marriage issue in a civil way.

This Ari has recently called gay activists “the most loathsome people in the world.” In the same post, he declared that folks who want discrimination laws enforced “should not be able to go out in the streets for fear of being spat upon by decent people.” The post was removed, but not before NOM took some heat for it.

The irony is so delicious I want to smear it on toast and eat it for lunch.

NOM’s been on a crusade (and fundraising mission) lately about people who are persecuted for their anti-gay views.

• Gerald Buell, a teacher who called committed same-sex relationships a “cesspool” that make him “almost throw up,” vowing (and this is important) to teach “God’s truth” in his public school classes.
• Viki Knox, a teacher who says homosexuality is “a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation” that “breeds like cancer,” declaring (and this important), “THAT’S WHAT I TEACH AND PREACH!” (her caps, not mine).
• Frank Turek, a private consultant who publishes material characterizing gays as immoral, depraved, America-hating people comparable to murderers and rapists, who reduce their children to trophies and cannot love their partners. And then he presumes (and this is important) to teach workshops on leadership — and team-building — to companies that employ gays and lesbians.

NOM has championed these poor victims, all of whom play ball in the same park as Ari, all of whom have made their public statements relevant to their jobs. NOM has denounced alleged attempts by the evil gay mafia to “silence” them. NOM has declared it to be persecution, a violation of liberty, for an organization to decide someone’s rhetoric “has gone over the line and we don’t care to be associated with it.”

Unless of course the organization is NOM. In that case, apparently, it’s a special right they reserve for themselves.

NOM Exploits Supporters with Casual, Offhand Lie

The National Organization “for” Marriage recently issued another one of its regular pleas for money, and this one contains — surprise! — a lie.  In an article about Illinois adoption agencies, NOM president Brian Brown writes:

Now that government is refusing to work with Christian adoption agencies…

This is a lie.

• I called Illinois’ Department of Children & Family Services (312-814-6847).  They still work with Christian adoption agencies.

• I called St. Mary’s Services, an Episcopalian adoption agency (847-870-8181).  The state government still works with them.

• I called Illini Christian Ministries (217-469-7566), which offers adoption services.  The state government still works with them.

• I called Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (847-635-4600), which offers adoptions services.  The state government actually funds them.  (This may also be true of the other agencies, but I have not confirmed it.)

The government is not “refusing to work with Christian adoption agencies.”  If NOM were committed to honesty, it could have written, “Now that government is refusing to work with adoption agencies that violate anti-discrimination law…” but that’s got a pretty low martyr factor.  And NOM needs that martyr factor.

Their big project now is developing a persecution narrative.  It’s a desperate strategy.  When judges mandated same-sex marriage, NOM decried judges who legislated from the bench. When state legislature passed same-sex marriage, NOM complained about legislators legislating from the legislature (!), and called for referendum by popular vote.  Now that public opinion is turning firmly against them, they’re trying to lay groundwork for judges to legislate from the bench by declaring same-sex marriage an infringement on religious freedom.

Apparently they can’t do that without lying.

What’s even more disturbing, though, is the contempt they show their own supporters.  NOM spread this lie in a fundraising appeal.  They have no compunctions about deceiving their followers in order to extract cash from them.

And of course, it’s not just about the money.  This is another contribution to the anti-gay echo chamber.  By offering this falsehood in a casual, offhand way, their readers accept it as a simple, obvious truth.  They’ll repeat it, not realizing it’s a lie.  Good, innocent folk will repeat it after them.  NOM isn’t just exploiting people’s wallets; it’s exploiting their trust.  And soon enough, once again, a lie will become the “truth.”

I don’t know why I still find it so astonishing when our opponents hold themselves up as moral guardians while lying to the very people them claim to protect.

But, somehow, I always do.