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


'Your comment is awaiting [a future deletion]'

by Jeremy Hooper

Well it's official. The National Organization For Marriage is, as predicted, moderating comments on their blog so that they can shut out voices of dissent.

On Tuesday we gave you a mission: To go to NOM's newly launched blog and leave respectful comments. You responded in a big way, with several of you sending us the screen caps of your words, and others simply reposting your NOM comment on our initial post. And while NOM has now begun approving certain comments (both positive and mildly negative), here's a sampling of some of the comments that they've arbitrarily chosen to shut out:

Picture 2-227
Picture 10-117
Picture 39-3
Nom Comment
Nom Comment 2
Nom Comment-1
Nom Comment 2-1
Nom Comment(2)
Picture 6-190
Picture 10-119
Picture 11-119

All of the above are perfectly fair and acceptable (unless you find dissenting with NOM's beliefs out of line). Plus, if you go back to our initial post on this subject, you'll see several more comments from our readers who couldn't/didn't make a screen cap:

COMMENTS: We're giving you a mission [G-A-Y]

None of them approved.

But hey, when you're launching a multi-million dollar national campaign against queer people, why should you give an ear to the ones who are truly affected?

*Keep commenting! NOM Blog: http://nomblog.com/

**UPDATE, 5/1: They're still doing it

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

Your thoughts

Woops....my comment is shown twice in this entry :).

Posted by: Andrew B | Apr 9, 2009 9:27:13 AM

Thanks, Andrew. Corrected

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 9, 2009 9:44:30 AM

And these people rant about us trying to remove free speach? HA!

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Apr 9, 2009 11:00:14 AM

Just as an aside, I've been trying to post all kinds of comments at Jim Daly's blog at Focus on the Family--I think one has been approved, and I don't think I was overtly rude in any of them. Jeremy did a post on his blog a while ago, and they posted a couple of non-FOF generated comments for a day or two, but they've returned to their old heavily moderated habits!

On the other hand--the Boundless blog at FOF is way better for discussion--there are actually some really intellectual conversations taking place over there, and I really respect that. Boundless is for the younger (mostly college age / young adult) readers.

Posted by: Nancy | Apr 9, 2009 11:32:31 AM

I see that I'm not the only one they won't talk to. Was beginning to think something was wrong with me.

Posted by: Vast Variety | Apr 9, 2009 11:36:29 AM

So far in 6 days this blog:
By Brian Brown | Posted in Iowa, SSM | Comments (3)
Iowa Supreme Court Imposes Same-Sex Marriage
April 7, 2009 – 12:53 pm

HAS ONLY RECEIVED 3 approved comments! HOOT.

Posted by: LOrionL | Apr 9, 2009 2:44:40 PM

Another NOM FAIL. Too funny.

Posted by: Chino Blanco | Apr 9, 2009 11:36:51 PM

My comment is still up there and I linked to the audition tape for the ad that was posted on Youtube. However the Youtube video has been taken OFFLINE by the National Organization for Marraige.

Posted by: secretscoundrel | Apr 10, 2009 12:49:39 AM

this is from NOM:


By Brian Brown | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)
April 7, 2009 – 12:39 pm
NOM launched its Northeast Action Plan today with a series of radio ads airing in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. The ads open with a child asking questions about same-sex marriage: “If my Dad married a man, who would be my Mom?” Listeners then hear an urgent marriage alert, asking them to contact their legislators in opposition to same-sex marriage legislation pending in the three states.

We need your help! Please make a generous donation today to help us keep these ads on the air!<

What an absolute JOKE. These people are nuts.

Posted by: Gretchen | Apr 10, 2009 3:49:41 PM

I just used the NOM blog to send a message to the Iowa Legislature. Only I changed it and told them not to support the effort to get a contsitutional amendment going. I mean why should something that was deemed unconstitutional be voted on to add to the constitution? I also told them they should be cool like Vermont. I might get some spam mail from NOM but it will be sent to my parents address so I don't care. It was fun to do anyway.

Posted by: Delayne | Apr 10, 2009 4:09:23 PM

I can't do screen-caps (i could figure it out, Im sure...) so I am just going to cut and paste my comment if that's OK.

Posted April 11, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“– A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.”

Don’t Psychologists have to take the same Oath as other doctors? “..do no harm.”

I think its great that she has the faith in whatever religion she practices, but how can it benefit anyone if she is going to force her beliefs onto her patients? Does she advertise her religion so that others will know to choose or avoid her based on their own religious beliefs?

Posted by: chip | Apr 11, 2009 12:50:59 PM

Here is another comment disapproved/deleted by their so called non-corrupt organization.


"Dear leaders of the National Organization for Marriage.

After reviewing your video I have acknowledged that the information you provide is not accurate. I also have found that the actress stating that she is a doctor who has to choose between her job and her faith... is highly unethical to support.

Of course a doctor must place her job and the welfare of other's above her faith, it is against the law not to do so. You take legal oaths when it comes to medical licenses that are binding under state and US laws.

As for the rest... It is all similar other cases regarding to anti-discrimination laws that don't actually have anything to do with same sex civil marriage.

I'd like NOM to officially apologize to the LGBT community for this ad, would you do that for us?

Thank you for your time.


Posted by: mewi | Apr 11, 2009 1:53:02 PM

I had three denied myself. I'm guessing they had a surge of pro-gay comments and did not want to make it seem like their community was overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage.

Posted by: Family Fairness | Apr 12, 2009 3:56:46 AM

Just wanted to let y'all know that NOM has apparently gotten around to deleting comments on their Facebook postings as well. I've had to post one of my comments three times already due to them disappearing and I imagine I'll have to do it a few more times afterward.

Posted by: Preston | Apr 12, 2009 9:09:36 PM

You're absolutely right, Preston. Some of mine have been deleted.

Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 12, 2009 10:44:06 PM

As of June 4, 2009, the NOM blog is still being heavily moderated. I have posted a total of 10 comments, all intelligent and devoid of any derogatory terms or name calling, and 3 have made it through. The 3 that did go through, which were specifically presented toward other blog writers, have been completely ignored of course even though the people they were directed towards have posted new comments right under mine with no regard for anything I have addressed. This is ridiculous, you can't argue with people who don't want to listen.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 4, 2009 3:53:59 PM

Great debate. What is it about? Is it nothing? Probably, thats what the internet does when it doesnt deliberately take for-fucking-ever to download porn just to piss you off. You people are so full of it; what, you may ask. I'll give you it straight - birds drink air to make them skinny crawl By way of revenge, I didnt feed those dogs today. Now I feel better. Have you ever thought what it would be like if star trek and two and a half men attended a hello who are youmyfrendcffgreryhvtrvfhyrtbujuytfyvgrscv6guh8j9p89pluijnhkjhcaecsvjbuvc\wvbrn8u6rbdvrxrbvhgnfy8ubvbnmkbjjbnnbvvvbytyvczetgvfbfnu7o9mn78ytyiujvrvstsuvj8binulykmntdsrcesczubzit6b86dtnrxbysndug

Abortion sex is bad for the baby

Posted by: Yathva | Oct 9, 2009 1:03:35 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails