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

11/09/2009

The gall that broke the gay camel's [heart]

by Jeremy Hooper
BrianFrank Schubert, campaign manager for both Prop 8 and the Maine vote, sent NOM’s board an email the night of the election. Congratulations, he said, you’ve broken the back of gay marriage movement. Never again will they be able to persuade their donors and activists that they can win at the ballot box. Because, he said, they can’t.
...
Gay marriage is not inevitable because it is not based on truth or justice. In the end truth and love will prevail.

NOM Marriage News: November 9, 2009 [NOM]

Weird, because I, a man, have a legal document declaring my husband and I to be legally married. I typically don't use the phrase "not inevitable" when I'm referencing things that have already begun to happen in such a major and obviously trend-setting way.

But then again, I also don't use the words "truth," "love" and "justice" when I mean "brute, inhumane discrimination."

***

**So how does NOM view "justice"? Well consider this. They are vowing to defeat any Republican in the New York state senate who votes for marriage equality:

WASHINGTON – Following up on its successful campaign to defeat Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, The National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Executive Director Brian Brown announced plans to build a $500,000 war chest to fund a primary challenge to any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage – regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s vote in the State Senate.
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE SENDS A MESSAGE TO NEW YORK STATE GOP LEGISLATORS: “\"Vote for Gay Marriage and We Will Fund a Primary Challenge." [NOM]

It doesn't mater who they are. It doesn't matter what they've accomplished. It doesn't matter how well liked they are, or how much their constituents support their vote. If the state senator sides with his LGBT neighbors, he gets an automatic opponent in NOM.

And here we thought NOM was only trying to destroy the big tents that gays might rent for their weddings. We didn't know that their reckless myopia extended to the GOP itself!


**Oh, and it's pretty hysterical that the're claiming their efforts in the Scozzafava race to be a "success." The only "win" they got there was in terms of Ms. Scozzafava's choice to drop out of the race, which was brought about by factions much larger than NOM! At the end of the day, Doug Hoffman (who NOM supported with mailers) was still defeated by Democrat Bill Owens -- the first time the seat turned Democratic since the Civil War.

If NOM was truly seeking nothing more than ms. Scozzafava's withdrawal, then they are (a) extraordinarily petty and (b) extraordinarily wasteful with their supporters' dollars. But if their actual goal was a Hoffman win (one hint: IT WAS!) then they failed at their mission!

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


Your thoughts

I swear, they have such big heads over at NOM. Don't they know that the majority margin against gay marriage is getting smaller and smaller? Its only a matter of time before marriage equality will be the majority.

Live in the moment while you can, NOM.

Posted by: Sam | Nov 9, 2009 6:45:15 PM

Dear Mr Schubert,

Washington State.

Don't write us off just yet, will you?

Yours,

Baron Scarpia

Posted by: Baron Scarpia | Nov 9, 2009 7:10:12 PM

Actually Baron, I hope they do write us off. The shock when they eventually get walloped will be quite enjoyable. Writing off one's adversary in politics is NEVER smart. They bought some time by delaying SSM, declaring victory now is foolhardy.

Posted by: John | Nov 9, 2009 7:43:34 PM

I'd really be shocked if Schubert said that in an email. He is not that dumb. When the year started, 2 states had marriage. As it ends, 5 and possibly as many as 7 states plus DC will have it. Not bad for 12 months. And the one win these clowns had was mid-single digits, a long way from the 20-40% margins they enjoyed just a few years ago.

Posted by: Dan | Nov 9, 2009 7:55:19 PM

A big portion of NOM's focus in on public perception. That's why they use the words like "love" and "truth" and "justice." They are trying desperately to change the gay rights script.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 9, 2009 8:10:11 PM

I say let them get cocky. They'll convince themselves everyone thinks like them, they'll become careless and that's when we'll win.

Do they also forget that their victories in CA and Maine were only a 5-6% margin. Hardly anything to brag about especially when they lie through their teeth.

If there were really so confident in winning any state, there would be no need for Brian Brown to have a "war chest".

Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Nov 9, 2009 10:32:43 PM

They have a lot of gall claiming that the issue itself of same-sex marriage has failed when, out of their own mouths, they admit that only with misdirection and scare tactics about education can they win at the polls in progressive states.

I guess that's integrity for you.

More specifically, lack thereof.

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Nov 10, 2009 12:29:23 AM

Well I, for one, and buoyed by BOIES: Who just began Philly column:
http://tinyurl.com/yah98bs

'Yes: It is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.'

David Boies
is the chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in New York

In the debate over gay marriage there are two related but distinct questions.

One question is whether people believe, for religious or other reasons, that people of the same sex should not fall in love and marry each other; many people have strong and sincere beliefs on each side of this question.

The second question is whether state laws prohibiting persons of the same sex from marrying each other violate the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the U.S. Constitution; this is the question that former Solicitor General Ted Olson and I are now litigating in our case to overturn California's Proposition 8, which prohibits gay marriage in that state.

People's personal views of the appropriateness of same-sex relationships naturally influence their views of our lawsuit. However, it is important to remember that the legal question does not, and under our Constitution cannot, depend on people's personal preferences.

The constitutional issue is quite simple. The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution:

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 10, 2009 12:55:43 AM

PS I just hope they have a lot of $$$ in the bank. Because our petitions to repeal H8 in 2010 in CA are 'in the mail.' ... and as of last poll 51% are with us as of today.And if we do it right we should prevail.

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 10, 2009 12:57:46 AM

the fat out number the thin but does that make being fat healthy no .


Posted by: Roxes /rio | Nov 10, 2009 1:56:23 AM

Until the Supreme Court makes a decision on whether or not the majority can take away a minority's rights, we are screwed.

Posted by: Mykelb | Nov 10, 2009 9:41:54 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails