NOM Threatens To Demonstrate Its Own Irrelevance

Jim Burroway

August 1st, 2013

The National Organization for Marriage has resonded to the arrival of marriage equality in Rhode Island and Minnesota today with another promise to retaliate against state lawmakers and roll back the clock:

With marriage having been redefined and same-sex ‘marriages’ beginning today in Minnesota and Rhode Island, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today reminded state politicians that it will work to hold them accountable to voters come election day. NOM has pledged to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure that voters know who is responsible for redefining marriage.

…Virtually no politician in Minnesota or Rhode Island ran on a platform that openly pledged that he or she would redefine marriage if elected to office. Yet, when given the opportunity, they did so. NOM has pledged to spend up to $500,000 in Minnesota and $100,000 in Rhode Island informing voters about the issues.

“When the inevitable consequences happen, we will make sure that voters know who is responsible for them,” Brown said. “This issue is far from settled in either of these states.”

NOM’s track record for retaliation against lawmakers is, well, not very impressive. So all that money they’re pledging to spend in Minnesota and Rhode Island? Be my guest.

Lindoro Almaviva

August 1st, 2013

Really? Like 100,000 is going to make a dent in politics these days. But,hey,by all means, lets pump all that money into the local economy. Thanks, NOM


August 1st, 2013

So they’re going to “inform the voters on the issues.” That’s certainly a far cry from the “retribution” promised in New York. And I think the voters in both states already know what the issues are — especially Minnesota, since the voters there defeated NOM’s anti-marriage amendment at the ballot box.


August 1st, 2013

Here is something I haven’t seen before from NOM. They’re vowing to spend “up to $500,000 in Minnesota and $100,000 in Rhode Island.”

“Up to” $500,000 dollars could be as little as a dollar or two. I don’t think NOM has $500,000 to spend.


August 1st, 2013

Numerous states will have ballot measures to repeal anti-gay marriage amendments in 2014. NOM will not have the money to spend on all of them. The LDS Church isn’t going to waste money. I’m guessing the Catholic Church will also be cutting back their contributions. Tough to be Brian Brown now.


August 2nd, 2013

What a vindictive tone Brown takes on this issue. He gives the word “homophobia” a freshly sharpened edge of hatred. But his naivete is more startling: “NOM has pledged to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure that voters know who is responsible for redefining marriage.” Surely the voters know who is responsible — the people are responsible and always have been responsible for deciding the rights and privileges and obligations and scope of marriage laws. And on expanding the scope, the people are speaking. So go ahead, NOM, and spend floods of money telling the voters what we already know! Your money has been far worse spent.


August 2nd, 2013

I have news for him. The majority of people in Rhode Island support marriage equality. If people in a district want to vote out a politician who supported marriage equality, we don’t need some outside hate group telling us so. Rhode Island is a small state and people here are very aware of what our politicians are doing.


August 3rd, 2013

As is so often the case, Shakespeare to the rescue: the first thing that came to mind when I read this this morning was “. . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

After all, no one has redefined marriage — it’s still the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household.

And now NOM is threatening to nickle-and-dime state races. Lo, how the mighty have fallen. (I guess the bishops in those dioceses are moving their money into trust funds for cemetery maintenance.)


August 3rd, 2013

Shakespeare to the rescue: “. . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

After all, no one has redefined marriage — it’s still the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household.

And now NOM is threatening to nickle-and-dime state races. Lo, how the mighty have fallen. (I guess the bishops in those dioceses are moving their money into trust funds for cemetery maintenance.)

Regan DuCasse

August 4th, 2013

There are words thrown around by NOM’s supporters that the Minnesota and RI legislators were liars, for not fulfilling NOM’s wish list.
True, a few legislators changed their minds who’d voiced support for traditional marriage.
But at the end of the day, there was nothing they could defend in the law to support discrimination.
We know, each and every defense taken apart, isn’t legal. Nor Constitutional. Or must apply equally to heterosexuals.
This is why, even with voter majorities, the law would still be built on quicksand.
Amazing how many anti gay people refuse to get that.
They’ll try to take their anger out on gay folks at the macro level. Refusing goods and services and so on.
Trying to encourage the like minded to disobey non discrimination ordinances in public accommodation.
When it’s all said and done, they haven’t even been able to find clergy who have been sued, or censored for refusing to marry a gay couple.
It’s a culture war the anti gay have waged, with rusty and useless weapons.
Too bad. So sad.


August 4th, 2013

Hunter, I can’t be sure, but I suspect the reason NOM isn’t threatening to target specific politicians in these two cases as they did in NY has to do with party affiliation. In NY, the Democrats did not hold enough of the legislative houses to win equality, even if they all voted for it, so some Republicans had to buck the party. The targeted retaliation from NOM was against those Republican politicians, which NOM branded as party traitors. If I am not mistaken, both RI and MI had sufficient numbers of Democrats to enact equality. Since the Democrat platform supports equality, it is kind of hard for NOM to target any few individuals as party traitors. The only thing they can hope for is to make the next election about ‘the gays’ and hope enough legislators are replaced with sufficiently anti-‘the gays’ individuals that the legislative bodies are willing and able to overturn equality. But I suspect, even if they could accomplish major legislative shake-ups, enough time will have passed that repealing equality won’t seem worth it – that doesn’t seem to take very long.


August 4th, 2013

The sad fact is that in the Minnesota House,there will propbably be some Democrats and a couple of Republicans who will lose their jobs over this,many of the rural areas voted yes on the ban by a lot.
Even if the house went back into Republican hands in MN thought,the Senate won’t be up for reelection until 2016,which means it will still be in Democratic hands which means any marriage ban will be DOA.
2017 will be the earliest these bigots have a shot,so good luck with that.


August 5th, 2013

Zack, they would still need to turn over enough Senate seats this election cycle to have a shot next cycle. As long as they fail to do that, they don’t stand a chance. More still, they can only take legislative action (since their last ballot initiative failed, I doubt they would want to try again so soon), which can be vetoed by the governor, extending the life of this legislation until at least after the next gubernatorial election. By then, I imagine most anti-gay Minnesotans would have ceased to care; God could have struck the state with a million plagues by then, if He was going to at all.


August 5th, 2013

I didn’t read the actual release so I don’t know if they specifically think they can overturn the new laws and/or re-institute marriage bans. With “facts on the ground”, i.e., hundreds or thousands of legally married same-sex couples, very few courts are going to want to tackle this in view of the demise of Prop 8–EVEN with the non-intervention of SCOTUS.

I think this is truly just an attempt at vindictiveness. They will fail anyway–even at knocking off more than a smattering of Equality supporters. They are an ever-diminishing shadow of their never-really-was selves, tilting at windmills. Hunter’s Shakespeare quote says it best.


August 6th, 2013

MattNYC. Vindictiveness, yes. Successful… well that’s another issue. The worst, yet likeliest scenario is that many politicians they are against will lose, but not because of them or marriage. NOM will crow while the rest of us go “but wait….” There are many controversial issues vying for our attention, while our politicians are locked into two massive and completely opposite groups. Without intermixing in policy stances, it is hard to pick on one issue without a sweep in every other. So perhaps the handling of state budget or corporate taxes will piss off enough voters to get a change, but NOM will claim it is all about marriage.

This might be interesting to see, though. A new scenario for NOM: their politicians win, but won’t do anything to overturn equality. I am sure many Republicans will be happy to see this ‘issue’ disappear, or, for all practical purposes (as you suggest), be taken out of their hands. But that doesn’t leave NOM very many options. Would they willingly accept defeat, then? Or would they keep backing increasingly extreme politicians (people so vile they can’t even win in a primary)? Too bad we are still a few years away from such scenarios.

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, never shared)

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


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

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.