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


Days and Slights: This Week in NOM (Dec. 11 - Dec. 17)

by Jeremy Hooper


Dear NOM Watcher,

If there was one theme that kept coming up this week in NOM World, it was money. The cold hard stuff. The filthy lucre. The ka-ching, ka-ching (or "chink, chink chink," as NOM apparently hears it).

Who's giving?

The first development came early Monday morning, when we finally got to see NOM's 2010 financial forms. Not because NOM finally chose to make them easily accessible, mind you. In fact, the Screen Shot 2011-12-16 At 6.25.00 Pmforms indicate that they were never intended to make their way online. But fortunately for us, intrepid American Independent reporter Sofia Resnick and crew managed to get a copy directly from NOM then blast it out to the rest of the world.

The headline is that the National Organization for Marriage is about as grassroots-populated as a particularly arid desert! As Resnik reports, "…just two individuals contributed more than $6 million to the organization’s political arm – accounting for about two-thirds of NOM’s 2010 revenue, while single donations below $5,000 covered only 8 percent of reported revenue."

Now this, the high dollar funding, is something all of us NOM Watchers know, based on a number of factors (social media failures, underwhelming rally turnout, constant spin about support base, etc.). But it's always so telling to see this information put out there in such certain terms. Here we have an organization that purports to represent the everyday people -- in any state, in every state  -- on this very human matter.  And yet the actual "little guy" support is so undeniably lacking.  So clearly lacking.

But they sure keep trying

In a truly histrionic e-blast titled "Which one should I cut?" NOM President Brian Brown threw out words like "virulent" and "vicious" to make the pro-equality voices seem like big, bad meanies. Which is actually better than the "fatwa" and "jihad" labels that he's used in the past. But I digress.

Basically Brian told NOM supporters (all sixteen of them) that NOM is facing a huge budget shortfall and that they all must give -- GIVE! GIVE! GIVE! -- if they want to see NOM defend discrimination on all of its needless fronts. Which is oh-so-funny, that Brian tried this desperation fundraising tactic on the very same week that we saw how marginal their grassroots support really is. You kind of have to wonder why NOMmers even keep working the illusion that the Everyday Joe and Jane is going to ever keep them in business. Most likely, they do it because they know they need to seem "of the people" if they want to dupe "the people" into backing their supposedly people-protecting cause on any given election day. But wouldn't you think it'd get a little old/uncomfortable to keep begging a relatively empty well when you know  -- YOU KNOW! -- that the actual underwriting is going to flow from the same shadowy golden chalices that have been wetting NOM's whistle since day one?

And I don't know -- if I were an everyday person on that side of this issue, I'd surely wonder why this, the one group that the entire "pro-family" movement has appointed to lead on this cause, simply cannot pull in the common folk the way that a group with their sort of media attention should be able to do.

They also placed bets on clumsy comparisons

With such weird money matters in house, NOM also used this week to look at New York state's own bottom line and potential ways to improve the same. They then used the possibility and the public's potential to publicly weigh in on it and tried to link that to the supposed "right" to vote on a minority population's civil rights.  Let's break it down.

The subject: A proposal to expand gambling in the Empire State.

The claim: That if New York citizens get to weigh in on this primarily financial matter, then they should also get get the opportunity to use majority tyranny to take away certain citizens' right to marry under the law.

The problem, as NOM sees it: That those who elected the lawmakers and Governor who brought equality to NY shouldn't have to abide by the fair and reasoned marriage bill that they passed/signed, and should instead get to personally "yay or nay" the right.

The problem, in actuality: That human beings are not poker chips; civil rights are not not popularity contests; direct democracy is not a faith-based weapon; constitutions are not games of chance.

We'll see how far NOM wants to take this silly gamble. But who gives a craps table if they do? I more than like our chances on this one!!  In fact, if we play our cards right (okay, I'll stop), I think we can actually force them to fold (I lied) on this "let the people" vote talking point faster than we would've been able to had they not tried to liken this civil rights matter to casinos.

Oh, and one more thing…

Newt Gingrich signed the NOM "Marriage Pledge" this week, vowing to do NOM's bidding by using any and everything (and then some) within his theoretical Screen Shot 2011-12-16 At 6.28.16 Pmpresidential power. Sure, this one's not specifically finance related like the rest of this thematic wrap-up. Though Newy is quite rich and has made said money in some decidedly non-conservative ways. So that's something.

Oh, and he's also had to pay more than his share in alimony. So there's that, too. ;-)

Until next week, my pretty piggy banks,


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