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


Days and Slights: This Week in NOM (Aug. 28- Sep. 3)

by Jeremy Hooper


Are gays outside the spectrum of humanity?

Dear NOM Watcher,

If you're reading this, there's a good chance you see LGBT individuals as human. See same-sex couples as humane. As natural. As a true part of the natural world in which we all get to live. But does National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown feel that way?

Consider this, the very first line of Brian's NOM newsletter for this week:

"Gay marriage is a radical proposal because it cuts marriage off at the root, separating it from its roots in human nature."

Let's think about this line. Forget the "radical" part for a second (or forever), since that's just more of the same hyperbole that the self-appointed "culture warriors" have been spinning to distraction for over three decades now. Think instead about the parts pertaining to human nature, its roots, and the supposed separation imparted by civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. Is there really any way one can consider these claims without coming to the conclusion that Brian himself sees homosexuality as unnatural? As unrooted in nature? As something that deprives our world and our humanity?

Through an honest lens, I find it hard to make any other assumption. If gays are as rooted in nature as anyone else -- which is of course what I, presumably you, and most all equality activists believe -- then extending civil marriage protections to the same-sex couples who meet every other marital requirement is actually a greater recognition of human nature and its truth. So to deny the rights and benefits and protections on humanity grounds is to deny that same-sex couples even have a viable root. Dirt, maybe -- but not a root.

And remember: This is the very first line of Brian's weekly email, the key point that he wants his supporters to believe for this seven day period. So that being the case, I'd suggest NOM Watchers also keep it in mind when considering this organization's undying fight to keep the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, push state marriage amendments, and foster a constitutional culture that excludes same-sex couples. After all, why should we cut Brian's radical proposal off at its obvious root?

Merriam-Webster disagrees

On NOM's Facebook wall this week, a staff writer defined bigot as "A conservative winning an argument with a liberal." Which is silly and just kind of "whatever!" on its face. But when you consider the fact that NOM is a 6A00D8341C503453Ef015434F210Ae970Cgroup known for shutting out discourse and deleting comments that don't fit the organizational narrative, the unreflective "winning an argument" motif goes beyond merely laughable and goes right into the realm of guffaws.

Personally I don't call anyone a "bigot," regardless of how anyone defines the term, preferring to always stick to the fight rather than the fighter. Oh, and because I much prefer to let history cast the roles of this and every civil rights debate. I'm more than confident in the future's definition of victory, which will come down to the fundamental dispute between right and wrong, not the contrived divides of a red state/blue state nation.

Although I do have to say: I'm quite glad to hear NOM staffers more fully embracing and admitting the organization's clear partisan view.

A few zeroes too many

Perhaps the biggest news of this NOMmy week was the complete and utter failure of the group's much ballyhooed "100K Challenge." As you probably remember, NOM claimed back on July 24 that a nameless, Screen Shot 2011-09-03 At 10.10.35 Amfaceless "generous donor" had promised to give the organization a dollar for every Facebook or Twitter friend they acquired before September 1. So NOM pitched the heck out of the idea, hitting up potential recruits via email, social media, in-person rallies, on YouTube, and in just about any other way we politically-minded folks organize in these digital days. It seemed NOM higher-ups wanted the psychology of the theoretical accomplishment as much as they wanted the cash.

Unfortunately for NOM, only a tiny fraction bought into what they were selling. At the 9/1 deadline, NOM had only acquired a paltry $1,229 via Facebook and Twitter. A haul that was many wallets away from the $100k goal; many digital bodies away from proving this organization knows how to effectively organize.

Minnesota for [cruelly mocking gay parents]?

Another revelation to come out this week: Christopher Plate of NOM's Rhode Island chapter is now working with the so-called Minnesota coalition trying to write discrimination into Minnesota's state constitution. The very same Christopher Plante who is on record saying gays treat their children like an "accessory I put in my purse," kind of like "little tea cup dogs":

[SOURCE: Youtube, magicwaldoman]

The same Christopher Plante who once likened gay parents to dead parents:

[Local RI radio, source unknown]

I look forward to seeing such frankness in the so-called Minnesota for Marriage campaign's forthcoming ads. I'm sure that will happen, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT!?

Happy September, kids. See ya next week.


Jeremy Hooper
Good As You/NOM Exposed

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