RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

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

04/21/2011

Yet again, NOM fails to claim an employee. And in a post about truth, no less

by Jeremy Hooper

NOM is doing it yet again. We've seen them cite the work of Thomas Peters and push the supposedly independent words of John Eastman without mentioning that the former is on their payroll and the latter was one of their top 2010 candidates. Now the predominately Catholic marriage group (the Catholic predominance being something else they don't reveal) is leading off a new blog post with this line:

201104211308
[SOURCE]

What they again don't tell you about this supposedly independent researcher who is agreeing with them? Well (a) that IMAPP is Maggie Gallagher's own group. But even more than that is (b) the fact that this same Josh Baker is also on NOM's payroll! Whatever conclusions he reaches are financed by and meant to embolden this very same organization. Might that be something a responsible commentator would see a need to disclose? We're gonna go with "yes."

As for the rest of the post in question, which is meant to discredit Rhode Island's equality activists? Well, NOM sidesteps the harms of their work, as ably documented by Politifact...

Gay couples lose out on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits that would normally go to a spouse. They can't transfer property between themselves without possibly incurring a tax penalty, a concern married couples don't face.

They aren't protected by the COBRA law or the Family Medical Leave Act the way the spouse of an unemployed person is. Death benefits don't automatically go to the partner in a gay marriage the way they go to a widow or widower.
"Full marriage equality [would provide same-sex couples] with about 1,700 rights." [Prop Politifact]

...and focuses instead on the more obscure or complicated denied rights that are harder to substantively nail down (but that are not untrue denials), acting as if these tougher-to-flesh-out complexities somehow discredit equality activists' claims. Though as we've shown you time and time again: If NOM would spend more time focusing on their own lack of transparency and outright disingenuous behavior and stopped working so hard to "gotcha" their opposition, our political discourse would be much richer than it is today.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails