NOM: Yanking gays' rights, America's chain, and now -- their own Facebook comments
We're not sure who represents NOM on their official Facebook page. But whoever it is might want a refresher course in Gallagher-esque punditry, as comments like this now-pulled one are going to bring about the even more timely demise of this hurtful group:
"Pseudo-marriage"? That's weird, since this writer's Connecticut marriage license simply said "marriage." No qualifiers. No hyphens. No silent p's.
"Sad and diminishing" movement? That's weird, because every poll I've seen suggests that antiquated anti-gay bias is retiring in concurrence with the generations who both suffered through and fostered it.
"Having failed" and "No chance"? That's weird, because last time I checked, we have five marriage equality states, with D.C. on the horizon. And then there are also the 18,000 California couples whose legal pre-Prop 8 marriages cannot be taken away, in addition to out-of-state/country marriages that are recognized in jurisdictions like NY. Now I'm not a big gambler, but I'm pretty sure that if a slot machine has already paid out, one shouldn't put its chances of winning at a "no" point.
And as for our supposed "failure" to understand that there are different genders? Oh no, NOM -- we totally understand it. But the failure in terms of biology lies with the anti-gay side's refusal to acknowledge that same-gender relations are a natural fact that have existed throughout all recorded time!
Nobody should blame NOM for yanking this comment, since the verbal diarrhea threatens to remove the "nice" veil in which they shroud their every last political maneuver. I just hope they don't blame this site don't give a damn if they blame this site for lifting the lid and letting the unfortunate odors waft forth.
**UPDATE: There is some speculation than one particularly incendiary Facebooker who many of us know is the person who NOM has posting under their organizational name. Apparently at another time yesterday, a comment went up under the National Organization For Marriage screen name, then was deleted a few minutes later and replaced by a nearly verbatim comment, this time posted under the aforementioned Facebooker's own name. Yes, we've seen proof of these comments.
If this person really is moderating NOM's Facebook page (or even more directly involved), it would be a pretty explosive thing. This guy has said some pretty crazy nonsense over the past year or so. Stay tuned.
My guessing is the person that wrote that would be Rick Delano.
Posted by: James Equality Troia | Jan 24, 2010 12:16:06 PM
No, it was someone posting *as* NOM. I would imagine that is limited to 3 or 4 possible people.
I have a message in with MAggie. Hopefully she'll tell us more -- and then we can figure out which parts are factual and which are spin.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 24, 2010 12:36:04 PM
"Religion" is not on trial in San Francisco. Plenty of religious and non-religious folks GET marriage equality and its place in a free society. What's at issue is the oppressive, anti-American pseudo-Christianity practiced by the extreme religious right and their duplicitous Mormon-Vatican, Inc. financiers.
Posted by: Mike Tidmus | Jan 24, 2010 2:40:20 PM
"… We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …"
Posted by: marsmannetje | Jan 24, 2010 2:51:28 PM
Damn, that was just a mean-spirited diatribe on their part! But, don't forget, J-man, another trick they use in order to mitigate the fact that, legally-speaking, our marriages are REAL, they often type the word "marriage" sarcastically within quote marks!
JE SUIS MALADE! (Listening to Lara Fabian cover this AWESOME track ATM, but it's still what I feel about NOM! :oP)
Personally, I hope that the veil is also lifted and the world sees just how mean-spirited their base really is, despite ol' Mags' bigotry that she's hiding behind her CREEPY Sally Struthers' bangs!
Hey guys, do you ever wonder what the country might look like if there was a several-month-long strike in which all Gay people in positions of authority, or on TV, or business owners, etc. absolutely REFUSED to work for straight people, or to allow them in their business, or give them the benefits of their talents, etc? Completely shut down all salons to breeders, save for the gay community! :o) One wonders if such a tactic, albeit a long-shot, might give them a greater appreciation for us. Hell, one wonders if one of us is ever responsible for touching ol' Mags' hair! *shudders*
Oh, and Jeremy, please keep us informed about this "NOM FaceBooker"...can't wait to see an expose!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 24, 2010 3:09:50 PM
NOM = Christo-Fascists!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 24, 2010 3:11:49 PM
Jeremy and others,
This is just the type of thing we wish you would report to the Southern Poverty Law Center. As with Mass Resistance, Family Research Institute and Westboro Baptist Church, we believe the political veil protecting the NOM is falling and the real hate group is appearing. We have been suppling the SPLC with whatever we can, the last real score was NOM RI's letter to the Governor supporting the ban on funeral/burial rights.
Posted by: Bob Barnes | Jan 24, 2010 5:23:45 PM
Bob: I am in semi-regular contact with SPLC staffers about their list and the criteria.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 24, 2010 5:31:11 PM
Hey, THANKS Bob and Jeremy! I've been wondering this month just precisely WHAT it would take to get the SPLC to declare NOM a "hate group"? What have they said about NOM, to date? Anyone know?
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 24, 2010 6:38:22 PM
BTW, I *really* wish that I could cite my source on this, but I saw it once on a random vid. somewhere where either Mags or Brian Brown from NOM declared that Gay men and Lesbians cannot--or do not have the capacity to--feel love for their spouses the way in which heterosexual couples can and do! Jeeze, if only I had known about contacting SPLC, myself, I would have reported it all those SEVERAL months ago!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 24, 2010 6:41:41 PM
My bet would be on Brian. I saw a clip of a debate recently where Maggs acknowledged that we value our relationships, and some of ours are probably better than hers.
But . . .
She doesn't give a flying f*ck, regardless.
Love doesn't matter to her.
The pain she and her cronies cause doesn't matter to her.
The hatred she helps fost doesn't matter to her.
All she cares about is power and dogma.
Posted by: Mr. HCI | Jan 24, 2010 7:24:53 PM
dang it, foster, not fost
Posted by: Mr. HCI | Jan 24, 2010 7:25:29 PM
The Gagger probably got drunk, and let her guard down, and posted what she really thinks without the benefit of her code-word filter. Then when she sobered up, she went, "Oh Shit!" And, deleted it. Brian, you can dress her up in a frilly frock, and even take her out, but you can't let her drink! Just say NO Maggie! To alcohol and bigotry!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 24, 2010 9:20:00 PM
I'm gonna guess Chairm (Opine Editorials) or Angela Rockwood (Beetle Blogger)? I hope you're able to connect the dots. Back during the Maine contest, I definitely noticed some strange parallel commenting/moderating behavior among several of the NOM fan blogs.
Posted by: Chino Blanco | Jan 24, 2010 9:52:51 PM
Did anyone else catch the "where religion is put on trial" line?
Isn't that an admission that they are trying to subvert the religions of LGBT's? And that they are trying to impose their religion on the rest of the population?
Posted by: pantherq | Jan 24, 2010 11:26:32 PM
I'm sure that one of the reasons that you find this latest revelation to be explosive is the fact that motives matter when making public policy. If NOM has someone in their employ, someone who has control over at least some of their public messaging, and who is blatantly (frothing-at-the-mouth) anti-gay (as opposed to benignly "pro-opposite-marriage"), then that suggest that the motivation behind NOM is based in animus. NOM, and the other hatemongers, go to extremes to ensure that they never admit that they really (really, really) love bashing on the fags.
And, it matters because if we can prove that animus is the true underlying reason for Prop H8 and all of the other anti-gay measures, then there is no rational basis for a state interest in Prop H8 (or any of the others). I think the Olsen/Boies team has done a pretty good job of proving that votes for Prop H8 were based in animus, but every smoking gun just goes that much further toward making the point.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 24, 2010 11:58:59 PM
Remember, these are Fox News types. They believe whatever a a person who claims to be conservative tells them. As an example, we cannot forget that hugely popular conservative preacher that would preach to his congregation, kiss his wife goodbye (gotta keep up appearances) and go bang a male prostitute in a hotel room while snorting crystal meth.
When/if NOM loses the suit, they will send a blast out to their supporters with some spin and their supporters will never question it. I can guarantee you that the blast will contain a plea for more money to win a battle they are slowly losing.
Posted by: Jesse | Jan 25, 2010 12:54:16 AM
I agree with NOM! Gay relationships are in fact "Counterfeit" relationships. America is sick of gays and their perversion. 31 States have voted and 31 States have said "NO!" to Counterfeit Marriage! Those States that currently allows it forced it on the people through their gay political leaders. They're scared to let the people vote because every State in this union would without question vote SSM down! We got another victory in MASS on last week, and Scott Brown will vote SSM down in any and every form.
Posted by: Jame Perkins | Jan 25, 2010 12:59:22 AM
We could focus for a moment on the idea that there is 'carpet chewing rage' involved somewhere in all this. Just who would seem to be experiencing that? Leaving aside for that moment the consideration that that would seem to be how some folks get their jollies, we would do well to reflect on the erratic outflow of NOM remarks. When the filters go down, it does suggest that someone has been subject to the romance of rage.
Posted by: Jonathan Justice | Jan 25, 2010 1:19:16 AM
How funny and revealing it is when we sit back, sip a refreshing beverage, nibble on crudites and allow radical anti-gay activists and large, pro-homophobia advocacy groups to just talk. They will ALWAYS dig themselves into a hole. Unless they can censor trials (like Prop. 8), hide their real goals (Uganda) or mindlessly parrot pseudo-religious beliefs (homophobia which is a sin not a legitimate religious belief), they invariably get into trouble and make fools out of themselves. Wheeeeeee! LOL!
Posted by: Michael | Jan 25, 2010 6:49:38 AM
Note to all: James Perkins (2 comments above) has been leaving anti-gay comments on several different sites. Prob. best to just ignore him.
He came into action after this site, Pams House Blend, and others wrote about Miles McPherson.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 25, 2010 7:52:43 AM
Yeah, really, we don't get that there are two genders.
I've never had the slightest difficulty in keeping track of which gender I'm looking for and that the other gender (while often delightful) just ain't equipped the way I prefer.
What I'm not good at is figuring out just how that is supposed to translate into things like who makes a paycheck, who cooks dinner, who mows the lawn, and who takes care of the kids.
Or why anyone I'm not likely to sleep with gives a hoot about it.
Posted by: Lymis | Jan 25, 2010 8:46:09 AM
I'm glad you don't filter comments, Jeremy - James Perkins makes a compelling case for our side. He comes on here to decry your post, yet engages in exactly the same rhetoric the original post was decrying. I agree with Michael - sometimes we can just sit back and watch them dig themselves into a hole.
Posted by: DN | Jan 25, 2010 10:38:19 AM
Jame Perkins, we know that you agree with NOM. We also know that the only reason that you, and everyone else who agrees with NOM, are so quick to agree with NOM is because of your personal animus toward LGBTs. And, that animus is exactly the same as what was shown to the African American community when we, as a nation, enacted so many unfair laws that targeted them. And, that animus is why those laws are unconstitutional. You prove every time you open your mouths that nothing other than animus is driving your actions.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 25, 2010 10:43:13 AM
Hmmm... if you put the word couterfiet in quotation marks, does that mean it's only called counterfiet but in reality is real?
Posted by: Timothy | Jan 25, 2010 12:19:33 PM
WHOA hold up.
"The failure of our opponents to understand...the fact that our species subsists in two complimentary genders..."
So let me get this straight. They're accusing homosexuals, who are attracted to members of one gender/sex, of not understanding that there are two genders. They're accusing people who AFFIRM the gender binary of not understanding that a gender binary exists. Makes perfect sense!
I think they need to look up the term "pansexual."
Posted by: Harrison | Jan 25, 2010 1:56:24 PM
James Perkins, when, when WHEN has equality and justice for ALL been a BAD thing in our country?
In the world?
For a society (especially a diverse one) marching towards better understanding of itself and the people who comprise it? Or that enables people to have a better understanding of EACH OTHER?
Answer me that. It's not a hard question for an intelligent, compassionate, EXPERIENCED and thoughtful person to know the answer to.
What kind of people make a decent and civil society?
Fearful, isolated, inexperienced, incurious and hostile ones?
Or those who are open to experience, are compassionate, respectful of equal standards of treatment and education for each of it's citizens?
I'm way past tired of the 'gender complimentary' rationalization to be hostile or discriminatory against those who are gender variant or gay.
Our natural world is TEEMING with variation and diversity.
Why assume ONE sexual orientation in such a reality of nature?
Why assume there is NO PURPOSE to homosexuality? ON it's face there might not be for asexuality, but that still is no license to be cruel, and continue to defame and dehumanize people who, essentially are who they are without HARMING the ability of heterosexuals to procreate whenever THEY want to.
That gay people exist, or asexual people too, has no bearing on the quality of life that heteros choose. So why demand to have EVERY bearing on gay lives?
Not much point there, it doesn't make YOU a better person by compromising a gay person's opportunity for the same.
Gay people are maybe 10-15% of the population. Which couldn't and obviously DOES'NT affect the procreative outcomes globally OR nationally how many children straight people will have.
Why is there a NEED for 100% heterosexuality and procreative ability?
Nearly 7 billion people AND COUNTING on this little island not ENOUGH for you?
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Mar 3, 2010 12:09:37 PMcomments powered by Disqus