NOM thinks their supporters are idiots

Timothy Kincaid

December 27th, 2013

It’s amusing to see just how desperate the National Organization for Marriage has become. And cynical.

An organization that at one time attempted to persuade those who might have been uncertain about marriage equality, NOM now has given up. Now they exist solely to funnel money from the Catholic Church unknown sources to anti-gay political campaigns and candidates. And their rhetoric has devolved to name-calling and rants against “the homosexual lobby” and “radical activists judges”.

For example, in today’s money-beg, Brian Brown complains:

As I mentioned right before Christmas, a federal judge (an Obama appointee) in Utah has issued a ruling invalidating their state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

So send money money money to “help us defend marriage from radical judges seeking to overturn the will of We the People and to impose their radical social agenda on ordinary Americans!”

And he goes on to explain

This ruling just underscores the importance of the work that NOM is already planning for 2014. I wrote to you earlier this month about the critical importance of retaking the United States Senate in the coming election year. Securing a majority of pro-marriage Senators would allow us to block President Obama’s appointments of extremist, activist judges and ensure that he doesn’t continue to stack the courts all across the country with activists who want to impose same-sex marriage on every one of us.

Brian Brown is politically savvy enough to know that this is an absurd statement. He knows that not only would a GOP majority have refused to block the appointment of “extremist, activist” Judge Richard Shelby, but that his nomination came from Orrin Hatch (R – Utah) and was strongly supported by Mike Lee (R – Utah).

But Brown thinks that NOM’s supporters are not sophisticated enough to discover this for themselves. He thinks they are stupid enough not to notice that it’s not just Obama appointees that are ruling for marriage.

He may be right.


December 27th, 2013

Do they have supporters left? They turned off the comments on their blog a while ago and their rally in DC earlier this year was kinda sad. Who exactly is paying attention to them but gay activists and a few radio talking heads.

Timothy Kincaid

December 27th, 2013


Not many. Their latest petition only got 1,697 signatures.


December 27th, 2013

Having trawled through the comments on NOM’s well moderated Facebook site on occasion, I’m inclined to go with the premise that NOM’s supporters are, in fact, idiots.

Sir Andrew

December 27th, 2013

“But Brown thinks that NOM’s supporters are not sophisticated enough to discover this for themselves. He thinks they are stupid enough not to notice that it’s not just Obama appointees that are ruling for marriage.”

In this, Brown is correct.His fellow travelers have IQs only slightly higher than that of a lawn chair. Sadly, he’s smart enough to know how to play them. Too bad they’re too stupid to stop and wonder where all that money goes that they’re always sending him.


December 27th, 2013

The failure of NOM to prevail last fall in four states presents a real personal problem for Brian. With a wife and, what, 8, kids to support, who is going to hire a loser like him, especially at the 6-digit compensation he has come to expect from NOM? I’m guessing even NOM’s consistent deep-pocket donors are not as generous as before last fall.


December 28th, 2013

MA. The comments vanished when Thomas Peters injured himself. Seems that whatever insurance was provided to him by NOM had just about reached its cap when he was able to buy a new policy. One can only assume as a result of the ACA. The ironies pile up.

bill johnson

December 28th, 2013

At this point Brian Brown can say anything he wants to his supporters and get away with it regardless of how inaccurate his statement is. Their highly scripted matching donation dramas that they play out every year following the exact same script is evidence enough of this fact. Beyond that it is also clear that Brian Brown views his supporters as fragile who must only be given the information he sees as helpful for them to have. For example he always talks about any international opposition to marriage equality while ignoring international news when marriage equality advances.

At this stage in the game their remaining followers are largely to ideologically driven to question NOM’s talking points or their own ideology and Brian Brown will play that as long as possible to hold on to the cushy lifestyle his current gig provides.

Richard Rush

December 28th, 2013

“NOM thinks their supporters are idiots”

Today’s lesson: NOM is not quite as detached from reality as we thought.


December 28th, 2013

I posted this comment on NOM’s Blog website after the post. Will be interesting to see if they let it go through and/or if they respond.

“While it is true that the Hon Richard Shelby was appointed to the Federal bench by President Obama, you fail to mention that he was appointed ONLY after Sen Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recommended him. He was also strongly supported by Utah’s other Republican senator, Mike Lee. Neither Senators Hatch nor Lee could be considered radical, activist or anything but pro-marriage” – See more at:

Timothy Kincaid

December 28th, 2013


NOM doesn’t approve comments to their blog, supportive or challenging. The staff member assigned that task was injured in a diving accident which crushed vertebrae in his neck and has not yet recovered full use of his hands.


December 28th, 2013

Cynicism and ethical bankruptcy are different things. And I think that it’s been a long time since NOM was merely cynical.


December 28th, 2013

I don’t think it’s a matter of IQ, I think it’s that, as good “Christians,” NOM’s followers (and add in those of AFA, FRC, etc., etc.) are conditioned to accept the dictates of the authority du jour, whether that authority has any legitimacy or not.

There are lots of otherwise clever people out there who just don’t think.


December 29th, 2013

“Brian Brown is politically savvy enough to know that this is an absurd statement.”

I don’t think I can credit this statement, at least as far as Brown’s political savvy is concerned. I doubt very much that he’s been involved in the strategies — it would seem that’s been more the purview of Frank Schubert, and now that Schubert’s involvement is tangential, NOM is more or less completely ineffective, even as a conduit for anti-gay money.

Brown, in my estimation, is simply the front man, a rabble rouser who keeps spouting the same worn-out scare phrases over and over. He doesn’t care whether that’s an absurd statement — the purpose is not to convey factual information, but to rile the base.


December 29th, 2013

Sorry if this shows up twice — I just posted it (or a similar comment) and it went into Neverneverland or something.

At any rate:

“Brian Brown is politically savvy enough to know that this is an absurd statement.”

I can’t credit Brown’s political savvy. I doubt very much he was ever involved in any of the strategy planning — that was more Frank Schubert’s purview. Brown’s a front man, a rabble rouser who keeps spouting the same worn-out catch-phrases over and over, just ramping up the volume. It may very well be Brown’s “political savvy” that’s brought NOM to the point it’s at now.

He doesn’t care whether it’s an absurd statement — the purpose is not to impart factual information, but to rile the base. And, or course, make money.

Regan DuCasse

December 29th, 2013

Well, let’s see:
The late Ken Hutcherson of Watchmen on the Walls, had a falling out with Brian Brown, rightly figuring out that Brown’s inducements to engage black people was strictly for gaining voter majority. Especially in places like WA (Hutcherson’s state) and OR.
However, this finally backfired when the results went the other direction and with support from legislation and promises to sign marriage equality into law, this political defeat required a pledge that Brown made to be fulfilled.
Hutcherson didn’t get any of the expected monetary or professional compensation from NOM.
The YOUNGER reps like Joe Marinello jumped ship, admitting later to NOM’s bigoted attitudes and effort to place a wedge between what would otherwise be socio/political allies.
Peterson, was the last of the youthful ‘faces’ for NOM, which they’d been struggling to have for years. Something that’s never really worked in their appeal to younger supporters.
Less telegenic and older reps like Maggie Gallagher and Jennifer Roback-Morse have left also for their own agendas.
Perhaps in the hope that less NOM baggage would mean more personal profits.
Eastman and Robert George are more the cultural reps, but again…they are like older, fogey guard that doesn’t have the vigor and appeal.
Leaving Brown more on his own to shore up NOM as still in play. Except he’s struck out for foreign pastures, and pretty much struck out there too.
Such as in the cases of France and New Zealand.
Now NOM’s spending has surpassed it’s profits.
And as pointed out to Eastman at the IRS hearings, NOM has done NO social good whatsoever.
They exist for a redundant reason.
NOM is in debt, to the tune of millions and may yet have to declare bankruptcy.
Their supporters ARE idiots.
Especially if the last four years hasn’t taught them anything about NOM’s influences doing nothing that their own agenda states.

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.