Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“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…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyAugust 5th, 2011
The National Organization “for” Marriage wants Republican presidential candidates to sign a marriage pledge. Bachmann, Santorum, and Romney have complied. That’s a NOM victory, of sorts, though we already knew Bachmann and Santorum are anti-gay, and Romney would likely sign anything that won him primary votes.
Really, though, NOM has shot itself in the foot. This pledge actually destroys their favorite PR strategy.
From NOM's homepage
See, when state legislatures pass marriage equality, NOM shouts, Let the people vote! NOM’s campaign to repeal New York marriage equality is called Let the People Vote. They’ve mounted a new website called Let the People Vote.
But with this pledge, in a few short phrases, just five simple points, NOM has made it easy to show they don’t give a damn about that at all.
The last one, Point 5, reiterates NOM’s usual rhetoric:
Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.
Typical NOM: the people should decide this, not their elected representatives. Okay. So what?
The problem is in Point 1:
One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
Here’s the hypocrisy: when a Constitutional amendment goes to the states for ratification, the people don’t get to vote on it!
Article V of the Constitution allows states to ratify an amendment through either:
In neither case do the citizens of a state get a direct vote on the amendment. The Constitution does not permit it.
Let’s compare two facts, then, statements that cannot be disputed.
I’m tempted by the obvious conclusion: NOM is a bunch of lying liars. But there’s another possibility. NOM’s president Brian Brown is, after all, a colossal screw-up. Perhaps he doesn’t know his Constitution very well. Perhaps he doesn’t realize what his master plan entails.
I suggest we tell him.
Sadly, I’m blocked from posting on NOM’s blog. But perhaps you’re not. Perhaps you can go there and ask:
If NOM supports the right of citizens to vote directly on SSM, why is it pushing a Constitutional amendment which citizens are Constitutionally forbidden to vote on directly — an amendment that would prevent citizens from ever voting directly on SSM?
You can add a link to this post, but that might get you banned.
Let me know if they allow your comment. I doubt they’ll answer our question. But at least they can never say they didn’t know.
And if you like, send this message to Joe Solmonese and any of our other talking heads who go up against NOM on cable news. Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown should never again be able to say, “We think the people have a right to vote on this,” without hearing back, “Then why are you working to make sure they can’t?”
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
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"
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.
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.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Laura
August 5th, 2011
When I clicked on your link to the blog. I got the message that ‘My computer has blocked the website because of malicious add on…’.
I did register at nom.com yesterday just so I could send them a nasty email.
TampaZeke
August 5th, 2011
Great catch Rob! I don’t think most Americans understand the Amendment process. Big surprise there.
Hunter
August 5th, 2011
I’d like someone to demand that they point out the provision in the Constitution that allows “the people” to vote on civil rights — as in, the fundamental rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution.
Michael Smith
August 5th, 2011
Done! Not that it will pass moderation and actually appear. . . But thanks for pointing out the often overlooked obvious.
RobNYNY1957
August 5th, 2011
“Perhaps he doesn’t know his Constitution very well.”
He obvously doesn’t know his Contitution very well if he thinks the Founding Fathers had anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment, as he indicates in the pledge.
David C.
August 5th, 2011
As polls show, the handwriting has been on the wall for some time now: the national sentiment towards marriage-equality is shifting in favor of equality. This current strategy of NOM is a hedge against that day when they start to lose in those plebiscites they keep calling for. Once a pattern of such losses emerges (perhaps as early as primary season in 2012), then expect the rallying cry to permanently change from “let the people vote” to calling for a constitutional amendment and a pinning of their hopes on getting an administration that supports their position—a low but not zero possibility outcome of 2012 presidential politics.
I see this as a dovetailing strategic shift rather than any kind of message misstep. NOM always has depended on scare-tactics, half-truths and disinformation to achieve their ends and never much manifested a need to resort to consistency and logic—they are propagandists and racketeers after all.
The rhetoric and this nonsensical “pledge” of the NOM-nuts will serve to deliver a few christianist right-wing votes (and donations) but probably will not do much to really define any candidate for mainstream America.
SteC
August 5th, 2011
What I still fail to understand is why anyone thinks they should have the right to vote on someone else’s basic human and civil rights.
And they call me stupid…
Joe Perez
August 5th, 2011
As NOM’s cause becomes more futile, they appear to be ever more desperate. Glad you’re keeping an eye on them.
John B.
August 6th, 2011
I will never figure out their moderating policy over there. They haven’t posted a single one of my comments in several weeks (out of at least a couple dozen I have submitted, all polite and on-topic) but they actually let this one through:
http://www.nomblog.com/12251
My comment, in case they delete it:
Wait, is it “let the people vote” or is it “take the vote away from the states and from the people with a constitutional amendment”? (You do realize there is no popular vote when it comes to constitutional amendments, right?) Aren’t you talking out of both sides of your mouth here?
Leave A Comment