Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source
I've already written about the attempt at a "gotcha" from conservative hidden camera activist James O'Keefe, in which a local gay youth leader's hearsay suggestion to what she believes to be a potential donor is accepted as fact. Now this same conjecture and video is the basis for a new NOM ad attempting to making US Senator Mark Pryor, who is on record as being opposed to same-sex marriage, into a faker. Like the disingenous one targeting Kay Hagan in North Carolina, this one is also from NOM's newly launched "Victory Fund":
What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'?
At the end of the National Organization For Marriage's disingenuous new ad attacking US Senator Kay Hagan for joining her Republican colleague in recommending, and all of her colleagues in confirming, the District Judge who recognized that North Carolina's marriage amendment is, in fact, unconstitutional, the text lists some new organization and URL for NOM:
"NOM Victory Fund"? New to me. And it's new to everyone, in fact, since NOM only bought that domain last week:
The site has yet to launch, so it's anyone's guess what this organization has planned in order to turn its three years of virtually unceasing defeat into something resembling "victory." But I can bet you it will be silly and weird and obtuse and ultimately detrimental to its own movement, In other words, NOM's brand.
*UPDATE: Minutes after I went live with this post, they launched the site and issued a press release. It's a Super PAC, basically:
Video: NOM reminds North Carolinians that they, Thom Tillis forced state into unconstitutional mess
Thom Tillis, the Republican nominee for US Senate, championed North Carolina's marriage bill. When it went to ballot, the National Organization For Marriage and its team masterminded the costly campaign that forced both sides to squander time and resources.
Now, with Tillis running against pro-equality incumbent Kay Hagan and the unconstitutional marriage ban that Tillis and NOM pushed nothing but a bad memory, NOM is, for some strange reason, reminding Tar Heel voters of the always wrongheaded battle that they (and many others) forced upon the state:
Hagan's judge? Interesting how NOM completely overlooks the high praise that NC's other (and senior) US Senator, Republican Richard Burr, a marriage equality opponent, heaped on Judge Cogburn at his confirmation:
Cogburn was confirmed, 96–0.
But yeah, blame Hagan. And blame the judge for the overturning of the amendment, and not the unconstitutional amendment itself. As genuine and fact-loving as always, NOM!!
Actually no, kindness does not demand making people mad at you
I'm so tired of seeing some version of this, a popular evangelical idea that Dr. Russell Moore just echoed at the anti-gay Southern Baptist conference taking place this week in Nashville:
It's such a convenient out. It excuses any manner of crude, cruel, or even reprehensible behavior. After all, if scripture demands that people will hate you, then you are "right" for hurting and angering people who are different. So goes this belief.
It's a really horrid teaching, to be honest. And extremely egocentric, too. It's kind of an inverse of the golden rule—one that takes all onus off of the aggressor and his or her ability to self-check and places all blame on the people (in this case, LGBT people) who did nothing more than react to what you gave them. It's yet another way for anti-LGBT evangelicals to suggest that they are above all the rest of us commoners who simply cannot understand how and why their really mean and nasty acts against a minority populations are actually a form of "love."
It's a lie designed to take any and all fault off of a crowd that has been so rightly caricatured for its aggressive inability to take responsibility for anything. I see right through it. And I'm not playing this game. Yes, Southern Baptists, as a generalized whole, you are indeed a fallible community. And when it comes to recent history, your church's aggressive acts against LGBT people and LGBT rights (including this draconian conference taking place right now) are among your most egregious and obvious faults. Own it. This attempt to wiggle out of responsibility for bad actions only adds deep insult to the very real, ver damaging injuries that your discrimination has imposed on so many facets of civil society.
Another evangelical leader comes out against so-called reparative therapy
So this ruse is pretty much up:
(RNS) Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore has denounced reparative therapy, the controversial idea that people who are gay or have same-sex attraction could become straight.
Joining a chorus of other religious leaders who have departed from a once-popular therapy, some evangelical attempts at reparative therapy have been “severely counterproductive,” Moore told a group of journalists during a press conference at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s national conference in Nashville on Tuesday (Oct. 28). He also gave similar remarks to the conference of about 1,300 people.
FULL: Evangelical leader Russell Moore denounces ex-gay therapy [RNS]
No word on when the evangelical community will apologize for all the lives they stifled, if not destroyed, for the many decades that they and their broader movement actively and proudly advocated for such junk science.
And the intended spouses who are refused service are what, exactly? Trees? Aliens?
The Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson tonight tweeted the following:
A couple of things here. There have been several cases that were not, in fact, about marriage. From rainbow cookies for an LGBT student group to t-shirt manufacturers who refuse gay pride tees to Bed & Breakfast owners who refuse rooms simply because they think same-sex relationships are wrong, there have, in fact, been cases that have nothing to do with marriage. And you never—never, ever, ever—hear social conservatives making this distinction when those cases arise. On the contrary.
But even if we are talking specifically about a case that does involve intended spouses seeking a service, I'm really curious as to how, exactly, Ryan chooses to classify these customers who are, in fact, refused? Are they not gay people? Are they not being denied the service that they seek and that the business purports to sell? Are they not flesh and blood humans (and taxpayers, importantly) who are being turned away?
Yes, of course they are. And yes, a vast majority of Americans understand this without much added explanation. And so does Ryan, if he's being honest.
And sure, I get the distinction he is trying to make and that he holds onto as a political position. He is saying that same-sex marriage is not marriage and therefore the business owners can claim that they only perform marriages that ascribe to their beliefs. He can believe that, but the laws of a majority of our states and the federal government do not. The fact is that there are a majority of Americans in this country—millions upon millions—who are now just as qualified in every way to marry a same-sex spouse as they are to marry an opposite-sex spouse. Businesses that set up a shingle, who purport to fling open their doors to anyone who meets the basic requirements of patronage, and who agreed to comply with the laws of their jurisdiction (which they did when they opened a public accommodation, whether they realized it or not) are going to have to serve those people—living, breathing, human people—who the nation considers to be citizens and the laws demand to be protected from discrimination. Religious people. Women people. People of minority races. Gay people. And so on.
That said, some businesses can probably change their plan and embrace exclusion, so long as they run a Christian business that only serves Christian customers. But if they choose to go that route, then they are going to have to truly limit their business to only religious people seeking their faith-driven services, and they better start imposing the same morality tests onto every other customer who is otherwise qualified under local and federal law to enter into a legal union. The second they start servicing secular weddings, weddings detached from faith, weddings of couples whose faith does not match their own, or other possible configurations, they very well might open themselves back up. But in some cases, they probably can make this adjustment and become a faith-filled yet gay-less emporium. Assuming they meet the self-imposed burdens, few people will have a problem with this (which is pretty much how the situation in Idaho is playing out).
But the idea that simply attaching the event of marriage to a for-profit business' advertised product is alone enough to grant a special pass to any business that claims itself too biblical to serve the nice young gay boys who are itching for a hitching is a wholly untenable and patently reckless notion. If this were policy, why would it ever stop at just marriage? Sure, Ryan believes marriage is always biblical and that gay people can't play, but other people have these same kinds of ideas about other customs which they apply to other groups of people. What does the law look like that carves out this one exception, when applied to this one group of otherwise qualified American citizens, in precisely this way? Because if you want to talk about slippery slopes...
Audio: Brian Brown advocates on behalf of pro-equality Democrat, destruction of his own party
I've talked a few times about the anti-gay far right's plan to encourage votes for pro-equality Democrats rather than (less) pro-equality Republicans, and how in love with it I am. It might just be the most obtuse political strategy I've ever heard. But considering it's coming from the anti-gay movement, one of the most obtuse political blocks in American history, I'm not surprised.
Here now, via Joe.My.God., comes the first robocall in which National Organization For Marriage president Brian Brown tells San Diego area votes to vote for pro-LGBT Democrat Scott Peters in order to send a message to that out gay Republican Carl DeMaio:
What next, Brian: Going to oppose our same-sex weddings by sending us a really expensive gift form our registry?
Ted Olson: Supreme Court rolling back marriage now would be 'inhuman,' 'cruel'
In an interview with USA Today's Susan Page, conservative legal eagle Ted Olson echoes common sense, saying that there is basically no chance that the Supreme Court could go backwards on marriage equality now that so many loving couples and families have earned state and federal rights:
@4:51: "I do not believe that the United States Supreme Court could rule that all of those laws prohibiting marriage are suddenly constitutional after all these individuals have gotten married and their rights have changed and their families are living under a regime in which they do have full constitutional rights. To have that snatched away, it seems to me, would be inhuman; it would be cruel; and it would be inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about these issues in the cases that it has rendered."
[SOURCE: USA Today's Capital Download]