Skip to main content

I recently posted an entry about NOM's now-annual day of bigotry to fight marriage equality. In promoting the day, Brian Brown wrote the following. The emphasis is mine:

And as these pro-marriage voters have been relegated to second-class citizenship status behind a privileged and protected class of bullies, insult has been added to the injury: not only have they been told to shut up and get out of the way, but they've been called names while being shoved to the sidelines — they've been called bigots and haters and worse.
Let's revisit NOM's history to understand why NOM gets called bigots and haters and worse. I recommend that you get comfortable, because you're going to be here for a while. In all of the following examples, any emphasis is added.

NOM's troubles started in November 2010 when the Southern Poverty Law Center placed it on its list of anti-gay groups (but not anti-gay hate groups). The decision was made as a result of actions made by former NOM employee Louis Marinelli (who has since resigned, apologized and now supports marriage equality). The SPLC explains it decision here:

For a time, NOM’s name was used by a bus driver named Louis Marinelli, who drove a van for NOM’s “Summer for Marriage Tour” this year. Marinelli called himself a “NOM strategist” and sent out electronic messages under the NOM logo that repeated falsehoods about homosexuals being pedophiles and gay men having extremely short lifespans. In homemade videos posted on his own YouTube page, he said same-sex marriage would lead to “prostitution, pedophilia and polygamy.”
NOM did not appreciate the designation. They responded:
This report is not an attack on NOM but on the majority of Americans who believe that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife. It is also further proof of what NOM has been saying: today’s gay marriage movement is no longer about tolerance, live or let live—it’s about driving out dissenting voices from the public square. Gay marriage now serves as the tip of the spear to a new campaign to demonize and generate hatred against those who adhere to traditional views of sex and marriage.
But since then, NOM has done everything possible to prove the SPLC's point.

2009

It was not known at the time of the SPLC report, but NOM's internal memos from 2009 reveal its plan to use race to fight marriage equality. Specifically, they hope to polarize the Democratic Party by dividing its racial minority and LGBT supporters. Considering how much they promote the Coalition of African-American Pastors, I would say that they have followed through on this plan:

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay marriage to its advocates and persuading the movement’s allies that advocates are unacceptably overreaching on this issue.
May 15, 2011

At this time, marriage equality was quickly gaining momentum in New York, so NOM organized a hate rally with Ruben Diaz, a New York State Senator. Brian Brown attended the rally, and while he was there, pastor Ariel Torres Ortega declared:

Committing sexual acts between man and man. And receiving the retribution of the things that they have done from straying away. And because they did not take God in count. God gave them over to reprimand their mind to do things that are not right, being against all justice, fornication, perversity, aberrations, malignity…those who practice such things are worthy to death, not only do they do it, but those who also practice it. God bless this earth. That is the word of God.
Good As You's Jeremy Hooper got it on video. The statement above is at the very end.

July 13, 2011

NOM promoted the writing of Greg Quinlan, President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays and Executive Director of Equality and Justice For All. Contrary to what the name of the latter group suggests, it supports ex-gay "therapy". NOM had this to say about what he said:

We've been following with concern the organized efforts by gay activists to demonize Michele Bachmann's husband.

Greg Quinlan, President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays and Executive Director of Equality and Justice For All comes to Mr. Bachmann's defense -- and to the defense of others who are not given a voice:

And here's what he said. NOM posted it on their blog:
Why have gay activists instigated media attention over ex-gays and the husband of Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann?

Apparently, Mr. Bachmann, who has a PhD in clinical psychology, operates several counseling centers which also offer services to homosexual clients seeking to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. But because even one ex-gay proves that homosexual behavior is not innate or immutable, the gay lobby's fear of their former members results in false claims and attacks aimed at preventing homosexuals from exercising their right to self-determination. They cannot bear to have even one homosexual leave homosexuality, hence their outrage at Dr. Bachmann.

I know because I am ex-gay myself. I suffer more harassment as a former homosexual than I ever did as an out and proud homosexual.

The ex-gay community includes thousands of former homosexuals like myself who benefited from counseling. We did not choose our homosexual feelings, but we did exercise our right to seek help to change those feelings. As a registered nurse, I saw hundreds of gay men die of AIDS before I finally left the gay lifestyle.

Contrary to the myths being generated by outraged homosexuals, counseling for unwanted same-sex attractions is not prohibited by any medical association. Unhappy homosexuals are not children in need of parental permission and can freely choose their own therapeutic treatment just like anyone else.

The Bachmann incident demonstrates that as homosexuals gain more civil rights, heterosexuals are losing theirs. Because gays are a wealthy and politically powerful minority, they claim access to media attention, political power and corporate influence that middle America does not have.

July 13 was unusually active for NOM. The same day, they condemned the passage of California's FAIR Education Act, legislation affirming that being LGBT is just as good as not being LGBT:
Earlier this month, the left-leaning California State Legislature overwhelmingly passed The FAIR Education Act (SB 48) and has sent the bill on Governor Jerry Brown for what will surely be a celebratory signing. The FAIR Education Act is the seventh sexual indoctrination law to teach the state’s children to regard homosexuality, transsexuality (sex-changes operations) and bisexuality as good and natural.
August 4, 2011

One would think that anti-bullying programs would be off-limits for any group with even a shred of conscience or just self-preservation instinct. Not NOM. On this day, they attacked the "It Gets Better" project, an anti-bullying campaign started by Dan Savage and his husband Terry Miller to fight suicide among LGBT youth. They said:

It Gets Better – the youth campaign that makes everything worse

[…]

It Gets Better (IGB) is an agenda-driven campaign that caricatures traditional morality and religious people, drives a wedge between parents and children, and aggressively promotes deviant sex.

[…]

[T]he project keeps silent about the negative practical consequences of the LGBT lifestyle. No mention of STDs, HIV, AIDS, rates of drug abuse, domestic violence, and infidelity.

It’s “the big-lie-by-omission.”

[…]

And that’s the real travesty of the It Gets Better Project: it fails to offer LGBT teens a better way, an authentic solution to their pain. Instead, the project proposes the false dichotomy of suicide and despair, on the one hand, and an unfettered embrace of the homosexual lifestyle, on the other.

August 18, 2011

NOM wondered if marriage equality will lead to the normalization of pedophilia:

NORMALIZING PEDOPHILIA

When you knock over a core pillar of society like marriage, and then try to redefine Biblical views of marriage as bigotry, there will be consequences. Will one of the consequences be a serious push to normalize pedophilia?

First of all, Brian, here are some other Biblical views on marriage:
But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)

Surely even you and NOM can admit that that's bigotry, right? No? I'm not surprised.

Secondly, whenever someone argues that there will be unintended consequences of something by asking a question, it shows that they aren't even sure that there will be. If the people making the claim aren't even sure, then we can dismiss the claim.

August 23, 2011

Whenever someone speaks negatively of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that decriminalized homosexuality nationwide, it's a sure sign that they support, or are at least friendly to, the recriminalization of homosexuality. This should make NOM reluctant to speak negatively of Lawrence, but it doesn't. On this day, they posted an article by one Joe Carter, who links Lawrence and pedophilia. They posted this part of the article:

Remember when conservatives were mocked and derided for claiming that Lawrence would lead to the normalization [of] polygamy and pedophilia? Now some of those same people who sneered at us are using the decision to promote . . . polygamy and pedophilia.
September 8, 2011

NOM posted an excerpt from a virulently homophobic Catholic Online article:

Stacy Trasancos is one gutsy Catholic. Last week she wrote a little blog post about how she's getting tired of wondering "what in tarnation we're going to encounter" every time she and her kids leave the house. Two men ogling each other at the pool? Two women engaged in public displays of affection in the park? These are scenes she'd rather her young children not be exposed to every time they go out in public, but it's become impossible to avoid in her community.

For having the nerve to express her objection to immorality, she's become the object of wrath and nasty threats from homosexual activists. Those who understand how Stacy feels (count me in) also know that her real crime is that she has rejected the Gospel of Tolerance.

September 15, 2011

NOM posted an article that linked homosexuality and pedophilia:

[I]n 1973, homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. At that year’s national convention of the American Psychiatric Association, homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder, meaning that group of psychiatrists decided at that moment that homosexuality is natural, normal and healthy.

Now, there’s a whole back story about how that was accomplished by homosexual activists to basically intimidate those psychiatrists, but the point is that the DSM is important for anyone who has a serious interest in mental disorders or even how some mental disorders shouldn’t be viewed as disorders.

[...]

Look, I know that pedophiles are an easy target for reviling, and rightly so – they molest kids, perhaps the most revolting human behavior aside from cold-blooded murder. And I realize that some people would accuse me of picking on an easy target. That said, let me tell you what’s really going on.

Psychology is going off the deep end with its new focus on human attraction, and the homosexual movement has put them in this bind. For decades now the homosexual movement has insisted that a person can be “born gay.” The problem is that over this same period of time, after having exhausted incredible amounts of time and resources, homosexual-friendly scientists and doctors have not been able to provide any replicable scientific or medical findings that prove any such thing.

Based on those failures, the homosexual movement has now turned its focus on human attraction. Attention has been taken away from behavior – there’s no way that homosexuals want people talking about what homosexuals actually do, no way they want people to talk about what behavior actually proves someone is a homosexual – and so they now want all of us to talk about attraction – that vague, subjective, unidentifiable essence of the mind. And they want this idea put into law.

Pedophiles are following the same game plan now. In their troubled state of mind, pedophiles have long felt that they only help little children, that they’re mentors for these kids and that, if it comes to sex, they’re only helping children express their sexuality in natural ways.

Though they did not post this part of the column, the did say to "keep reading" it and provided a link. Saying "keep reading" constitutes an endorsement, making that they didn't actually post this a distinction without a difference:
The fact is — the truth is — pedophiles are mentally disturbed and there's no amount of gloss that can cover the fact that what they do is reprehensible. But they've seen homosexuals get away with it and now they think it's their turn.
November 15, 2011

With the Penn State sex abuse scandal in the news, NOM posted a column by anti-LGBT activist Michael Brown, in which Brown guessed that Rush Limbaugh was afraid to say that Jerry Sandusky is gay (just so you know, he's married to a woman). NOM did not post this part of the column, but did tell its readers to "keep reading". This constitutes an endorsement, so NOM must take responsibility for all of the column, including this part:

Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man allegedly abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? And could it be that even Rush Limbaugh didn't have the guts to address this? (Contrary to the protestations of some, a man who is sexually involved with boys is a homosexual pedophile; a man who is sexually involved with girls is a heterosexual pedophile.)

Of course, the fact there are homosexual pedophiles does not mean that all (or most) gays are child abusers. Certainly not! And yet even Rush Limbaugh, it appears, would not address this directly.

I included the last part out of fairness to NOM and Brown, but it doesn't make much difference.

November 17, 2011

NOM blogger Ari Mendelson posted a link to a blog discussing a lesbian couple in Iowa who, at the time, were considering suing a business for discrimination over being denied service. The post says that gay people and gay rights activists are worse than the 9/11 hijackers. The post reads:

You might think jihadi terrorists are the most loathsome people in the world.  And you wouldn’t be too far from wrong.  But jihadi terrorists, despite their enormous evil, have one virtue to their credit: courage.  Would you fly a plane into a building?  Neither would I.  That takes guts.  Perhaps more guts than I or anybody else I know will ever have.

[...]

Contempt is more suited for people like Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers. Like jihadi terrorists, many gay rights activists, (the kind satirized in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel)  want to force people to agree with them by striking fear into the hearts of all that would voice dissent.  In other words, the goals Trina and Janelle pursue are the spitting image of the goals of jihadi terrorists.

But these activists are more loathsome than the terrorists?  Because they lack courage.

[...]

So, by combining bullying with cowardice, Trina and Janelle and those like them have become the most loathsome creatures on the planet.

Amy Alkon is right in noting that the Iowa Law which these two broads are contemplating using against their enemy is an affront to freedom.  But she missed a big point:  those who would contemplate using such a law to bully others should not be able to go out in the streets for fear of being spat upon by decent people.

This proved too embarrassing even for NOM. They revoked his blogging privileges and apologized, saying:
We at the Ruth blog have decided to no longer allow Ari to have posting privileges over here.  His sarcasm has gone over the line and we don’t care to be associated with it.  Those who are interested in hearing what Ari has to say can find him at his own blog.  We will stick to reporting on all aspects of the marriage issue in a civil way.

Sincerely,

Jenny and Betsy

P.S. Ari is not an employee of either NOM or the Ruth Institute. He was merely a volunteer contributor here who used to be helpful and engaging. I apologize for not policing the material on his blog more closely, as it was linked to us. That was entirely my fault, and mine alone. ~Betsy

December 7, 2011

The Ruth Institute, which, at the time, was a project of NOM, said this about a book titled "Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk":

Anyone who cares about the future of our society should read this book. Children are among those most affected by same-sex marriage. This book discusses the impact same-sex marriage has on the culture and gives you real answers to the central questions surrounding this important issue.
Here's what the book says:
Another study found a significant increase in the risk of incest among children raised by homosexual parents. “A disproportionate percentage – 29 percent of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of the adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parents... Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” [Page 46]

[...]

Once the same-sex marriage barrier is broken, a wide range of sexual paraphilia rights are sure to follow, including, but not limited to, pedophilia (sex with children). [Page 53]

[...]

The same-sex marriage movement is dangerous to the best interests and well-being of our children and grandchildren. Homosexual advocacy groups are aggressively targeting children and youth. If same-sex marriage were legalized, more children would be caught in the crosshairs of what amounts to a sexualized political revolution. [Page 47]

[...]

Children raised in single-sex households experience an increase in infant mortality by about 50 percent. Even adjusting for race, age, education, and poverty, infant mortality among singe-sex [sic] parents is significantly increased. This is evidenced by many factors and is confirmed by a high infant mortality rate in counties such as Sweden, where there is a nationalized health care system that provides strong support for single parents. Children raised in single-sex households commit more crime and have higher delinquency rates. Living in a home with a nonbiological parent “has turned out to be the most powerful predictor of severe child abuse yet.” [Page 47]

[...]

Children of homosexual parents also show increased promiscuity generally and are therefore at greater risk for teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and AIDS. [Page, 45]

[...]

The testimonies posted on the Exodus International Web site have a consistent theme. These individuals who sought homosexual relationships in order to satisfy inner needs felt pain, emptiness, and often a feeling of worthlessness. Through various circumstances, the testimonies unanimously show how each one had their needs met by Jesus Christ. Perhaps a friend called and invited them to church, or longtime friends walked with them in the valley of their homosexual struggles. Wrapping these individuals in the web of a legally binding same-sex marriage, topped off with property disputes and custody considerations, means they would encounter a more difficult time freeing themselves from a destructive lifestyle. [Page 24]

[...]

As with any adolescent, [gay men] have an urge to rebel, to throw tantrums, to be selfish, and to seek revenge. They need self-esteem, desire approval, and congregate in cliques. And when you cross their path at the wrong time, when you challenge their actions, or more particularly their essence, be careful because you will experience their rage. [Page 55]

[...]

The same-sex marriage movement is radical at its very core and will surely destabilize society. While the cameras are rolling and the journalists are writing, the face of the same-sex marriage movement may present itself as tolerant, even mainstream, but the agenda is intolerant and radical. If the camel’s nose ever gets underneath the tent, the tent is history. [Page 55]

April 10, 2012

Early in 2012, NOM announced its "Dump Starbucks" campaign, a boycott of Starbucks over its support for marriage equality. (Later in the year, they would hypocritically condemn boycotts of Chick-fil-A.) On April 10, they announced an international boycott of the company, saying:

The National Organization for Marriage today announced that its new DumpStarbucks.com campaign is going international.

"In our first week, we gained 25,000 pledge signers in the U.S. alone; today we go international, expanding DumpStarbucks.com campaigns into Mandarin, Arabic, Turkish, Spanish, and Bahala (one of the chief languages of Indonesia)," announced NOM President Brian Brown. "DumpStarbucks.com online ads will also start running in Egypt, Beijing, Hong Kong, the Yunnan region of China, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait.

Both Media Matters and ThinkProgress noted that NOM was specifically targeting Islamic countries that criminalize homosexuality, or at the very least have extremely conservative and hostile views of it. The danger was that in an already homophobic environment, this type of campaign would only make things worse, and lead to an increase in anti-LGBT hate crimes. This was seen in Russia during and following the passage of their anti-gay "propaganda" law.

May 31, 2012

NOM doubled down on its support for ex-gay "therapy", urging its supporters to oppose California SB 1172, which banned the practice in the state. In their blog post, they include a press release from the Pacific Justice Institute, which has since been named a hate group by the SPLC.

Please, please, spread the word about this bill, and call your assembly person and/or as many democratic assembly persons as possible (the vote is pretty much going down party lines).  To find your rep go to: http://assembly.ca.gov/ and click on the link “Find your representative”.

from The Pacific Justice Institute

Sacramento, CA - The California Senate today voted 23-13 in favor of a groundbreaking bill designed to prohibit counselors and therapists from telling young people it is possible to change same-sex attractions.

The bill has sparked outrage from individuals who have overcome unwanted same-sex feelings sparked by childhood sexual abuse.

[...]

Brad Dacus, the President of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “We are one giant step closer to seeing one of the most chilling suppressions of speech yet in the never-ending LGBT push to silence opposition. This is clearly no longer about civil rights-it is about eradicating traditional viewpoints. Californians who care about what is happening with SB 1172 need to bombard their Assembly members with phone calls, faxes and in-person visits to urge no votes on SB 1172.”

July 26 - July 29, 2012

This is one of the most disturbing displays of unbridled, unadulterated hate that has ever been put on: NOM's "It Takes A Family" conference. Media Matters writer Carlos Maza, who is gay, demonstrated how incredibly tough he is by attending the conference and documenting it in a brilliant display of investigative journalism.

On day one, he heard Jennifer Morse's keynote speech. He describes it like so:

Dinner was followed by a keynote address from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, president of NOM's Ruth Institute. She spoke about the importance of children having mothers and fathers and the threat posed by efforts to redefine marriage. It was a speech I'd heard her give some variant of a dozen times before, usually sitting in my office listening to the Ruth Institute's podcasts. This time, though, she was just a few feet away from me, answering questions about how to best combat "feel-good" stories about same-sex families. Listening to similar questions from around the room, I became acutely aware that I was not in the company of friends.
Day two involved hearing seminars at Pastor Jim Garlow's Skyline Church about sex and marriage. One speaker was Dr. Jenet Erickson, an assistant professor at BYU's School of Family Life. She said:
We're just getting more exposure to the realities of it, which is not two women committing to have a child and nurturing that child all the way along. These are relationships that are dysfunctional and erratic and not stable, and that's the far more common experience. And so we need to realize when we're breaking apart marriage, when we're redefining it, what is that doing for a huge group of people?
NOM's cultural director Thomas Peters had this to say about pro-LGBT news sites:
When you're on a gay website, and again you have to be careful because things can get pretty crazy pretty quickly, you see much more of the worldview that's surrounding their advocacy of this issue. When you see, for instance, an article about how awful, how horrible Professor Regnerus is with his exploitation and stereotyping of gay people, and then on the side is ad after sponsored ad for gay hookup sites, for pet grooming, and for, I mean, literally - this is sort of like the worldview of the people who are fighting us very seriously. But it just gives you a little more of a wider picture of what are the cultural values - when they read us, how weird we look to them and stuff like that.
He then gave his opinion on homosexuality and same-sex attraction in response to a question asked by Maza:
That's a separate but important question from what I'm focusing on with the marriage debate. When it comes to "gay" and "lesbian," my personal view, and I think Dr. Morse has a more optimistic and stronger view than I do on this one in terms of the adjective question, I largely tend to think that if the adjective question, if the descriptor question becomes a distraction from the point you're trying to make, it's hard to fight that one. And so, as a Catholic, the church doesn't believe in gay and lesbian people, per se, in the way they do. "Born that way," all this kind of stuff. What they believe is there are people born with deep-seated same-sex attraction. So as a Catholic a term which I use is SSA, same-sex attraction, and if you look at, it's also with people who have moven [sic] out of the gay lifestyle into saying "I was a person and am a person with same-sex attraction." That's, I think a fascinating discussion to have. The most effective and punchiest way to do that is go right back to the actual underlying question of, like, do you believe gay people are born that way, and then you can have a discussion about that.
The final speaker of the night was Robert Gagnon, associate professor of the New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminar. He said:
Since the foundation, obviously, is more important than the superstructure built on it, the conclusion from that is that a homosexual relationship is worse than a polygamist one. Because a polygamist relationship is a point extrapolated from the foundation, that is we derive from a male-female prerequisite that there ought to be only two persons in a sexual union. But that's a derived notion. The number of partners in a sexual union is derived from the concept of a male-female prerequisite. A homosexual relationship is a direct attack on the foundation because it says there is no male-female prerequisite. And that makes a homosexual relationship more severe, because it's a direct assault on the foundation and not just a structure built on the foundation.
The next day, there were more seminars. One speaker was economist Douglas Allen, who spoke about Mark Regnerus' bullshit study (no, I did not choose that word. A reviewer of the study did):
[Regnerus] came up with some shocking results. What’s good about his study: so he wanted to use a large sample, and he tried but he still ended up with fairly small numbers given his definition. He wanted to use a wide range of hard measures, that’s very commendable. He has about forty different measures. And, I think what’s most commendable, he posted or has agreed to post, all of his data, all of his procedures, all of his work. That’s a huge leap forward in this literature. What’s not so good about it, well this is what he’s gotten beat up for. So he has a very wide definition of what it means to grow up in a same-sex household. “I grew up in an opposite-sex household, but my dad had an affair with another man when I was twelve,” that counts as growing up in a same-sex household. A lot of people have said “no, that counts as himgrowing up in a dysfunctional household.” And, you know, they’re probably right about that. So that’s the Achilles heel of this study, but he has been literally vilified in the blogosphere and all over the place. And of course, he admits this, he’s also unable to disentangle all of his effects. But he admits that. He says “look, I’m finding all these really seriously bad correlations.” You know, if you grew up in a same-sex household, by his definition, you are multiple times more likely to face sexual abuse, for example.
Later in the day, employees of the Ruth Institute sold copies of homophobic literature, one book being Robert Gagnon's "The Bible And Homosexual Practice". Maza describes the book like so:
Gagnon's book is a treasure trove of some of the most extreme anti-gay commentary imaginable: gay people have shorter life expectancies, homosexuality can be cured through treatment, homosexuality is an "inexcusable rebellion against God," to name a few.
Here are two actual passages of the book:
Participation in same-sex intercourse is partly its own payback for turning away from the one true God, since Paul regards such behavior as itself unclean, a dishonoring of one's own body, and a self-shaming act of obscene indecency. At the same time, it is evidence of God's future judgment, since the participants have no excuse for not knowing that those who do such things are worthy of death. [Page 337]

[...]

A second negative effect of societal endorsement of homosexuality has to do with the problem of pedophilia and its role in "recruiting" homosexuals into the fold. There can be little doubt that affirmation of a same-sex lifestyle will increase the incidence of pedophilic activity, regardless of society's attempt to distinguish the two. The greater the latitude given to sexual expression, the more likelihood there will be of people crossing the line into illicit conduct. Indeed, a substantial body of literature emanating from the homosexual community entertains the morality of adult-adolescent sex. [Page 479]

Maza describes what happened next:
At the beginning of Gagnon's talk, Ruth Institute employees handed out packets of Bible passages related to homosexuality, ostensibly compiled by Gagnon himself. The four-page document included several references to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the passage from Leviticus which calls for gays and lesbians to be put to death[.]
That's the worst of the conference. His entire article about it gives a much fuller picture, and is worth reading in full. It's disturbing, but it's important as well.

February 2, 2013

With the Boy Scouts now considering a liberalization on their policy banning openly gay scouts, NOM decided to oppose the proposal, and suggested that gay men are not fit to monitor children.

For over a century, the Boy Scouts of America have stood for honor and traditional Judeo-Christian values, and taught millions of young people leadership and life skills by faithfully applying those values in their own lives. It's not surprising that advocates of alternative "values," such as gay and lesbian activists, would challenge these traditional family values. Indeed, homosexual activists argue that the Boy Scouts should change their values and allow openly homosexual men to serve as scoutmasters with the responsibility of mentoring impressionable youth.

[...]

They will settle for nothing short of capitulation – homosexuality-affirming troops in every locale across America, tolerating no exceptions, period. Any parent or young man who holds a traditional Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality will be attacked as bigoted and accused of discriminatory conduct. You can imagine the lawsuits that will follow.

The BSA Board of Directors will be voting very soon on this new policy proposal — perhaps as early as Monday — and they are seeking public input into their decision. We need to make it clear that compromising honorable values is no path to organizational victory.

[...]

The phone lines are flooded right now, so please keep trying if you have trouble getting through. When they answer the phone, simply tell them that you are AGAINST the proposed policy change.

In addition, we are reaching out directly to the members of the BSA Board of Directors who will be making this decision next week. Below is a partial list of board members — please call as many as you can and politely urge them to maintain their current policy with respect to homosexual scoutmasters, and not to sacrifice their longstanding moral beliefs in favor of political correctness or activist pressure.

April 22, 2013

That month, marriage equality was fast coming to Rhode Island. In response to the bill passing the State Senate, NOM made this statement:

For the first time, the state of Rhode Island is saying to its children they do not deserve both a mother and a father, and are backing a law that is designed to intentionally deprive some kids of either a mom or a dad. It's bad enough when families break down through divorce or death, but it's unconscionable when a state encourages this through policies that deprive children of the love of both a mother and a father. This is a very sad day for Rhode Island.
You read that right. Divorced parents, or a dead parent, are situations that are merely "bad enough", but same-sex parents is an "unconscionable" situation. The swift, strong reaction from the LGBT community indicated that this was a new low, even for them.

September 17, 2013

In September last year, author Stephen Jimenez (who is gay), a favorite of the right-wing, decided to rewrite history, specifically the history of Laramie, Wyoming on the night of October 6 and the morning of October 7, 1998.

I cannot think of anyone who has ever existed who is treated as disrespectfully in death as Matthew Shepard is. He has been smeared by the right-wing since 2004, when ABC questioned that his murder was an anti-gay hate crime in an edition of 20/20. So when Jiminez published "The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard" last September, it was no surprise that the right-wing, including NOM, embraced him. On September 17, the Ruth Institute published this piece by far-right anti-LGBT writer Michael Cook. Part of what they posted includes this:

But in a book published this week, Jimenez debunks this hagiography. After interviewing more than a hundred people, including the murderers, he has concluded that the murder had little to do with Shepard’s sexuality and a lot to do with drugs. America’s most reviled hate crime was not a hate crime after all.

[...]

But the hallowing of Matthew Shepard is just the latest chapter in a mythology of grievance and sexual oppression.

From 1995 to 2008, 15,351 anti-gay hate crimes were committed accross the country. That's 1096 a year. That's three a day. To dismiss that frightening, disturbing statistic as "mythology of grievance and sexual oppression", and to dismiss the brutal murder of a gay man because you can't accept that there are problems that LGBT people face, and because you can't accept that your beliefs have created these problems, is cold-hearted and homophobic to the point of sociopathic.

September 18, 2013

NOM reported on the Pride Parade in Dallas and the fact that strict decency laws would be enforced. Criticism of these laws by some supporters of the parade led NOM to conclude this:

This leaves us wondering how public displays of nudity in front of children and sexual acts on public streets doesn’t equate to forcing others to be exposed to elements of a lifestyle that is understandably objectionable to many.
For the first time in a while, we had an explicitly anti-gay statement. And this time, it was from NOM itself, not from an external publication.

September 20, 2013

At this time, California had just passed its School Success and Opportunity Act, which allows transgender students in the state to use facilities in accordance with their gender identity. The law does not allow you rock up to school one day and say "oh, by the way, for the next five minutes while I use the bathroom, I'm a girl." You have to be legitimately identifying with the gender of the facility you are using.

This policy has been in effect for almost a decade in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Judy Chiasson, Program Coordinator for Human Relations, Diversity and Equity of the district, writes that the policy there has seen "nothing but positive results."

But NOM won't have it. They joined the Privacy For All Students coalition, a right-wing group which unsuccessfully attempted to collect enough signatures to put the law up for a referendum this November. The group was headed by NOM's poplitical director, Frank Schubert.

On September 20 last year, Brian Brown wrote on NOM's blog:

How bad is this new co-ed shower and bathroom law? It's truly outrageous. This new law invades the privacy of our children while they are in the most vulnerable areas of a school — showers, rest rooms and locker rooms. The law allows any student to use the facilities reserved for the opposite sex simply by asserting a vague "gender identity." The bill contains no definitions, rules, standards or guidelines. It simply creates a right for students of the opposite sex to use the most sensitive private areas at school.

Can you imagine how your daughter or granddaughter would feel having to share a shower with a male student following gym class? All the male student has to do is claim a female gender identity, and this new law gives him the absolute right to shower with female students!

Brian, a male-to-female transgender student is female. Transgender people are not pretending to be the opposite sex. They are not a man living their life as a woman, or vice versa. Being transgender is the result of one's biological sex and gender not matching. For probably over 99% of us, they do match. But they don't always. The gender is most important, not the sex. Someone with the female gender is female, even if their biological sex is male.

He then wonders if being transgender even exists:

Our opponents and the political elite will try to portray this new law as being necessary to prevent discrimination and bullying. But the fact is that California already protects so-called transgender students against bullying and discrimination, including actions based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and non-conforming gender appearance and behavior.
A great way to oppose giving people rights is pretending that they don't exist.

October 18, 2013

NOM posted an article by University of Notre Dame senior Michael Bradley, who criticized National Coming Out Day and Notre Dame's participation in it:

Notre Dame cannot host events the purpose of which is to tell its students who identify as LGBT that their identification as LGBT is worthy of celebration, while simultaneously aiming to form those students in the Christian sexual ethic.

[...]

Notre Dame has no reason to celebrate patterns of same-sex attractions or bisexual attraction, or confused understandings of one's sexual identity as male or female, as "beautiful." These conditions are particular trials, more difficult than some but not as challenging as others, with which some people are burdened. To celebrate these attractions or understandings as unique and beautiful is morally problematic and pastorally catastrophic.

[...]

NOCD is not like Alcoholics Anonymous: a support group to which people turn in order to seek support and guidance as they first, acknowledge their problem, and second, strive to overcome it. In fact NCOD, in its celebratory nature, does exactly the opposite: it teaches individuals to accept as entirely unproblematic attractions and understandings that stand in need of continual moral purification.

In the mind of Bradley and NOM, same-sex attraction is a "problem" that needs "continual moral purification."

November 1, 2013

With the Senate set to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, NOM decided to lie about it to try and derail it. Brian Brown wrote:

This disastrous piece of legislation is modeled on various local and state non-discrimination statutes that have already been used as tools in advancing the same-sex 'marriage' agenda around the nation. In the wake of Justice Kennedy's misguided opinion in the DOMA case (Windsor v. U.S.) it is certain that this federal ENDA bill will become a fulcrum used by same-sex 'marriage' activists to try to foist a marriage redefinition regime on the entire country.

Why is ENDA so dangerous? Because with the precedent set by this bill, courts in states around the country would soon find easy rationale for ruling that any organization or business that treats same-sex 'marriage' as different from man-woman marriage are discriminatory by definition. Under the law, individuals holding the common-sense belief that marriage is about giving kids a mom and a dad would be subject to punishment. Expressions of support for true marriage in the workplace would no longer be a fundamental right, but discriminatory, bigoted and an actionable offense!

Brian, the First Amendment makes that impossible. When to lie to derail protections for LGBT people, you reveal just how much you want them marginalized.

December 19, 2013

This day will go down in history as the day NOM came out... as nothing more than an anti-LGBT group, not just an anti-equality group, that is not much different from the others. Phil Robertson had just been suspended by A&E for his homophobic comments in an interview with GQ magazine. He said:

It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

[...]

Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

While these got most of the attention, he also made racist comments, saying that black people were happy under racial segregation.

When I first heard about this, I thought to myself: "Imagine if Brian Brown came out and defended him. That would be a laugh riot." But later that day, that was exactly was happened. And while it may seem funny as a hypothetical, it's not funny in reality. On NOM's blog, he wrote:

Well guess what — homosexuality IS a sin in the bible, and virtually every other sacred text out there. Engaging in homosexual sex IS considered by God to be sinful according to the teachings of most religions. And sin is NOT logical. Sin is deceitful, harmful and degrading to the human soul.

What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality — decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us.

But Christianity, and every other major religion, be damned in the eyes of the HRC, GLAAD and their allies. They will brook no objection, tolerate no dissent and accept no disagreement when it comes to their orthodoxy. In their twisted worldview, anyone who dares to speak the truth about homosexuality must be punished and effectively banished from civil society.

[...]

It's important that we get thousands of people to sign our petition to let A&E, Hollywood, GLAAD and the HRC know they aren't going to get away with bullying Phil Robertson simply for expressing a true, Christian perspective on what the bible tells us is sinful.

None of us hate homosexuals. We have gays and lesbians as members of our own families and communities, and we love them as God has told us we should love all people. We're all created in the image and likeness of God. But loving our brothers and sisters does not mean we must love sinful behavior.

Deceitful, harmful, degrading. There you have it. That's what NOM thinks about homosexuality.

February 20, 2014

Carl DeMaio is a gay Republican running for the GOP nomination as a candidate for the representative of California's 52nd congressional district. In the light of their unbelievably overt homophobia the previous December, I was not surprised when NOM used DeMaio's homosexuality as a reason to oppose his candidacy for Congress. Brian Brown wrote:

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It's a beautiful summer day in southern California. Throngs of people line streets as paraders march by. They include transvestite brides (men in wedding gowns) who strut their stuff. Nearby a float with bare-chested, heavily muscled men in tight underwear that leaves nothing to the imagination hold hands and dance on a rolling stage as rainbow flags fly behind them. Not far away women kiss other women and tattooed men embrace, pulling their half-naked bodies tight to each other. A confused-looking child watches this scene unfold as she holds a 'we celebrate diversity' sign, not exactly the type of plaything we'd expect innocent youngster to cling to.

In their midst the candidate walks down the street holding the hand of his gay lover. He waves at the crowd and smiles approvingly. These are his people, and he is at home.

Who is he? He's Carl DeMaio. A homosexual activist who calls himself a Republican. And he wants to be a Member of Congress.

Do you want a person like Carl DeMaio in Washington serving as a role model, voting on issues affecting hard-working American families? If not, please help Kirk Jorgensen stop him.

Carl DeMaio claims to be 'one of us' but his vision of America is very different from ours. He comes from an environment where sexual morality is a thing of the past, where children are indoctrinated into questioning their own sexuality, where gender is considered fluid but sexual orientation is fixed, and where a candidate who supports abortion, gay 'marriage,' gun control and medical marijuana can call himself a conservative — and a "reformer."

If someone is gay, they are not fit to be in Congress or to be role models. If gay people can be open, then "sexual morality is a thing of the past". If gay people can be open, then "children are indoctrinated into questioning their own sexuality".

Brian, you and NOM and all the other right-wing anti-LGBT fundamentalist "Christians" deserve to be called bigots and haters. And worse.

Originally posted to leftprogressive on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 03:22 PM PDT.

Also republished by Angry Gays and LGBT Rights are Human Rights.

Poll

Which of NOM's anti-LGBT actions is the most objectionable?

4%1 votes
16%4 votes
12%3 votes
33%8 votes
4%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
20%5 votes
4%1 votes
0%0 votes
4%1 votes

| 24 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site