RECENT  POSTS:  » Maggie 'always-the-victim' Gallagher did nothing to earn her anti-gay reputation » Anti-gay activists still don't realize 'recruitment' claims make them look ridiculous » Florida pro-discrimination activist John Stemberger's history leaves no room for LGBT people » Read: Federal Judge strikes down Florida marriage ban; stays ruling » Video: Southern Baptists promote upcoming anti-gay (and pro-'ex-gay') conference » The marriage debate per anti-LGBT, pro-discrimination activist » AFA's daily prayer equates homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia » GLAAD: What FRC's exploitation of Robin Williams' death is really about » Scott Lively's new mission: Making America's churches super-duper extra anti-gay » BYU protects the sanctity of pre-printed greetings  

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

12/23/2013

NOM Chair elaborates on NOM's plans for a constitutional convention

by Jeremy Hooper

Earlier this year, I revealed that the National Organization For Marriage has purchased a cache of domain names referring to a "marriage convention" (or "marriage con con"). On Catholic radio last week, NOM Chairman John Eastman elaborated on NOM's plans:


[SOURCE: The Drew Mariani Show, 12/19/13]

A ha! NOM doesn't really think it's going to achieve the unprecedented accomplishment of a constitutional convention. Instead, NOM thinks it can tease the idea so fully that a scared Congress will pass a Federal Marriage Amendment. It's a pressure campaign that NOM is cooking up. That's essentially what Eastman is saying here.

This is of course equally ridiculous. The anti-gay side couldn't pass a federal marriage amendment even during the height of the Bush years, when we had only one state with marriage equality, DOMA still fully on the books, and less than a handful of elected officials on record in support of the freedom to marry. They really think they have headway here in a world where we have eighteen states with marriage equality, federal recognition of these marriages, a majority of our U.S. Senators and our President in support of the concept, and polls that are remarkably higher than they were back during the old FMA push? This is seriously the false hope that NOM is selling to its donors?!

Heck, why even tease the concept of a Con Con at all? After all, most supporters are surely more familiar with the fanciful notion of genies who live in rubbable lamps. Since both are equally grounded in reality, I'm thinking the Aladdin route could be NOM's more bankable choice.

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