RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM president: Marriage ruling is 'Dred Scott decision of our time' » Episcopalians approve ceremonies for all legally-qualified couples » NOM's wishful (and disrespectful) thinking: SCOTUS ruling is 'illegitimate' » Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/28/2009

Video: If there's a state with airwaves, NOM will tarnish them

by Jeremy Hooper

In New York, they're misspelling TV ads and exploiting child-based fears. But in New Hampshire, the National Organization For Marriage (working with the reliably deceptive Cornerstone Policy Research) are trying to turn a temporary legislative setback into a fatality:

Oh, fallacy. The truth is that Gov. Lynch wants to sign a measure that includes certain protections. Protections that are specifically meant to appease groups like NOM and CPR! And they legislature has vowed to come to terms on appropriate language that will satisfy all sides (except, of course, the anti-gays), so that the state can soon come to terms with same-sex vows. There is no reason to assume that he would veto what is still a work in progress -- especially since no bill has even hit his desk yet!!

But keep on working these silly angles, NOM/CPR. You all may be the ones willingly adorning yourselves with desperation, but we are the ones who will fashion it into workable win.

His Word [YT]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I live in NY and was telephonically polled by NOM yesterday!

It was an automated call. The robotic voice asks you the the same question as that used in the New Hampshire CPR poll. As you may recall and as is discussed in a related post on this blog, that question is deliberately vague and convoluted. It doesn't even mention same sex or gay marriage. It is phrased in such a way that you are not sure if they are asking about polygamy or gay marriage. When I gave a pro-equality answer to the first query, the poll terminates. You get a farewell message that includes the name and address of the polling organization. If this poll is following the CPR methodology, then those respondents providing an anti-equality response to the first question would get a series of follow-up questions related to demographics. If you give the "wrong" answer, they just aren't interested.

Posted by: Dan | May 28, 2009 2:33:39 PM

Interesting, Dan! Thanks for the tip! Forget everything I learned in my statistics classes--polling is so much easier when you can throw out the answers you don't like!

To quote Mark Twain (I think), "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 28, 2009 5:30:33 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails