A recent NOM blog post titled "Narrowing the Halls of Higher Education" accuses marriage equality campaigners of double standards:
[T]he same double-standards cutting through all of the institutions in society as part of the march to redefine marriage and sexuality are taking firm root in the halls of higher education, it seems, and those halls are becoming too narrow to accommodate anyone who won't step into line with the new radical ideology.Hypocrisy is something I've encountered a lot with NOM. I decided to look back at their history of double standards. A warning: it's a long history.
Hypocrisy over the use of children in campaigning
The FCKH8 campaign is obviously is offensive to some people for its use of children swearing. I’m not taking issue with NOM’s criticism of the swearing. But I am taking issue with their taking issue of the use of children.
On December 22, 2010, they released this video about the campaign. They are reasonable in their criticisms of the profanity, but they also take issue with the fact that children appear in it at all. The video says:
“These innocent young children are being used to push an extreme agenda.”But the previous year, on March 16, 2009, they released this video, which relies on the premise that chidlren will be confused by marriage equality.
“Is this how [gay marriage advocates] want to indoctrinate our children?”
Is this how NOM wants to indoctrinate our children?
Hypocrisy over legislative priorities
The passage of marriage equality in New York was controversial because of how strongly Andrew Cuomo supported it, causing some concern that the legislature and the executive were too close to each other. Amidst his support for it, NOM criticized him for ignoring what they believed were more important issues:
This is sad for New Yorkers, because they need a governor who's totally focused on taming the budget and reviving the economy, not winning media accolades while alienating voters with his priorities. (I'm guessing the media is not going to release a poll, as they frequently did when the federal marriage amendment was the issue, asking voters what their top three priorities are and see how many New Yorkers say "gay marriage.")Media Matters’ Carlos Maza calls out their hypocrisy here:
That was Sen. Díaz's point in his sharp public criticism of Gov. Cuomo's priorities. Díaz is a liberal Democrat from the Bronx, and his constituents have other priorities: "It is a shame that Governor Andrew Cuomo is using his efforts and the resources of the governor's office to push for homosexual marriage instead of saving New York's rent control and rent stabilization laws," Sen. Díaz said. "Governor Cuomo, please help New York's poor and needy people... instead of pushing for gay marriage!" Republican senators' constituents probably have different priorities that Sen. Díaz's, but in neither case is gay marriage high among them.
Where was NOM’s economic focus when Speaker Boehner announced the House would be wasting time and $500,000 in taxpayer money to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court?A very good question, Carlos. But we can’t expect NOM to give a good answer.
Hypocrisy over letting the people vote
One of NOM’s favourite lines is “Let The People Vote”. No matter how ridiculous their other talking points, this one isn’t as ridiculous (but still wrong). For a long time, this was useful to them, as 31 popular votes out of 32 had gone against marriage equality (the exception being Arizona in 2006). Until November of 2012, a popular vote went against marriage equality 31/32 times, making them a useful tool for opponents like NOM to fight it. They used this message in Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina and Iowa, to name a few states.
In the 2010 elections, the Republican Party gained majorities in both house of the New Hampshire legislature, giving rise to the possibility of repeal of the marriage equality law passed in June of 2009. The repeal effort was led by State Rep. David Bates (R). On October 25, 2011, NOM praised the effort, and emphasised their support for voting on other people’s rights:
The people of New Hampshire had their rights hijacked in 2009 when the Legislature and Governor John Lynch redefined marriage without giving the people a say. Voters let the politicians know what they thought about that in 2010 when dozens of towns passed measures in favor of giving the people a say in defining marriage in New Hampshire, and they elected a strong pro-marriage majority in the Legislature.Two methods of repeal were considered: a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (which would be a popular vote), and legislative repeal. However, Bates dropped his efforts for a constitutional amendment after a poll revealed that only 27 percent of New Hampshire adults supported repealing the law, and 50% strongly opposed repealing it. Legislative efforts had a higher chance of repeal than constitutional efforts. With the amendment gone, so was the people’s right to vote. But this time, NOM was totally fine with it. They said:
Congrats to Rep. Bates for making a difficult decision to unify the fight in NH[.]Their message should be amended to “Let The People Vote (Only The Way We Tell Them).”
Hypocrisy over boycotts
Following Starbucks’ announcement in January of 2012 that it supports marriage equality, NOM launched the “Dump Starbucks” project, a boycott of the company, to protest their position. When General Mills announced that it supports marriage equality, NOM launched the “Dump General Mills” project.
On September 16 last year, they explained that one can take a stand on issues by what they buy:
We only vote at a ballot box once a year at most. But we vote with our wallets every day. That’s why NOM maintains its Corporate Fairness Project - which includes the Dump Starbucks, Dump General Mills, and Thank Chick-fil-A initiatives – to inform you of what companies are taking active stands in the marriage battle, and where your money is best spent in defense of this sacred institution.But when we did the same thing to Chick-fil-A over its opposition to marriage equality, it wasn’t “voting with our wallets” as much as it was... well, you’ll see:
ACTION NEEDED: Chick-fil-A Under Attack!Brian, it was a boycott, not a war. Dozens of LGBT rights groups rightly condemned the FRC shooting. Do you see yourself as “threatening, bullying, and attempting to destroy” and “declaring war on” Starbucks and General Mills? I doubt it.
Let’s be clear about something: the homosexual lobby and their puppet politicians’ assault on Chick-fil-A is just the beginning.
You see, wealthy homosexual activists, such as the so-called Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, are not merely threatening, bullying, and attempting to destroy a great American business—they are declaring war on anyone who disagrees with their radical agenda.
And why? To bully and intimidate the media and enough politicians and activist judges to force homosexual marriage as the law of the land—thereby destroying the time-tested, God ordained, traditional institution of marriage.
This is unacceptable. It’s time to send a crystal-clear message to the gay activist bullies who want to silence Christians and people of faith who stand up for marriage in America.
While others have backed down to gay “marriage” thugs and bullies, NOM isn’t afraid of a fight. But we can’t sustain this battle unless our supporters step up their urgently needed contributions right now.
Remember: the only way to stop a bully is to fight back and fight harder. And if you make an immediate contribution, NOM will continue to expose and defeat the gay activist bullies who want to silence Christians and impose homosexual “marriage” on all of us.
PS — The homosexual lobby’s assault on Chick-fil-A is a full-frontal assault on all of us who believe in the historic definition of marriage as one man and one woman. And the only way to stop a bully is to fight back and fight harder.
Hypocrisy over court decisions
The one thing NOM hates more than marriage equality is marriage equality through the courts (which is the ideal place for it to come from).
When the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state in April 2009, NOM said:
Injustice has been served today. The gay marriage movement today once again used the courts to push an untruth on unwilling Iowans: Same-sex unions are not marriages and Iowans should not be forced to treat them as such.When Vaughn walker struck down Prop 8 in August of 2010, NOM said:
With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman.When SCOTUS struck down DOMA in June last year, NOM said:
There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court. They've allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal. It's an illegitimate decision. We and millions of other Americans will refuse to accept this rogue decision rewarding corruption.When the New Jersey Superior Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state in September last year, NOM said:
This is another outrageous example of judicial activism. An activist judge has overreached her authority and chosen to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire state of New Jersey.When the New Mexico Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state in December last year, NOM said:
Once again, activists judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico.When Hawaii State Rep. Bob McDermott launched a (now failed) constitutional challenge to Hawaii’s same-sex marriage law, Brian Brown wrote (emphasis original):
And now, one courageous representative is even challenging the new law in court — demanding that the people have the final say on marriage.When the... wait, what? Brian, that’s a complete 180. As the goal of the court challenges did a 180, so did you. When the court challenges went against you, you decried the decisions as judicial activism and overruling the people. But when they went for you, it was all of a sudden “courageous”.
Hypocrisy over ties between politicians and activists
Following Dan Savage’s April 13, 2012 anti-bullying speech, Brian Brown had one of those flipouts that are only reserved for special occassions. Part of his statements about the speech included a call for President Obama to disassociate himself from Savage.
From May 2, 2012:
[D]id you know that President Obama has endorsed Dan Savage and his "It Gets Better" campaign as a core part of the official White House campaign against school bullying?From May 3:
Is this what stands for "anti-bullying" inside the Obama White House?
Please take a moment right now to tell President Obama that Savage's hostility toward Christians has no place in an anti-bullying campaign.
It's time for Savage to go, and I hope you'll join me in calling on President Obama to make it clear that the Obama Administration does not condone Dan Savage's attack's on people of faith.
Pres. Obama needs to disassociate our nation's White House from a man who behaves in this fashion.Moving on: Last November, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) refused to allow the World Congress Of Families, an ally of NOM, to use the Dirksen Senate Office Building for a meeting. There is good reason: the group is an extremist anti-LGBT hate group that has worked extensively in Russia to pass its anti-LGBT laws, contributing both to the increase in homophobia and anti-LGBT hate crimes during and since the passage of the laws. Kirk has a right to have nothing to do with them. This was the reason that his spokesperson gave for his cutting ties with the group:
Sen. Kirk doesn’t affiliate with groups that discriminate.But this time, NOM didn’t see Kirk’s actions as his right to have nothing to do with a group he disapproves of. On November 21, Brian Brown wrote:
Another call for renewed value of our freedoms has come in the wake of the recent cancellation of a pro-family symposium by Illinois Senator Mark Kirk in response to pressure from bullying by the extremist gay activist organization, Human Rights Campaign. (The symposium was graciously hosted instead by House Speaker John Boehner.)I think that Dan Savage shouldn’t have said “pansy-assed” in that speech, because then it did turn from a legitimate argument to a personal attack. Nonetheless, the World Congress Of Families is infinitely times more dangerous than Savage is (he’s not dangerous at all, just a little too outspoken at times). There’s much more reason to cut ties with them than to cut ties with Savage, but while demanding that Obama do the latter, NOM was outraged that Kirk did the former.
The World Congress of Families and others (including NOM) are encouraging folks to call Senator Kirk's offices and let him know how outrageous it is that he would shut his door to groups based on libelous smears from HRC. Click here to find information on how to contact Senator Kirk.
Hypocrisy over the First Amendment
One of NOM’s other goals is to “protect religious liberty”, as if it’s under threat. They say that it is inextricably linked to marriage, and that adopting marriage equality threatens it. They will point to the First Amendment to reinforce this idea.
When the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against Elaine Huguenin in August last year for discriminating against a same-sex couple, they said (rather ignorantly, as New Mexico did not have same-sex marriage at the time):
NOM and scholars on both sides of the issue have long agreed that redefining marriage will be a direct threat to Americans' First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.When Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E, they said (rather ignorantly, as the First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies):
It is ludicrous, in America in 2013, that Christians and other people of faith should feel the need to "duck and cover" when it comes to expressing their beliefs, which are protected by the very first clauses of the very first amendment to our Constitution! Of course, that same amendment, in addition to protecting our free exercise of religion, also guarantees us the right of free speech.and:
And remember, defending and defining marriage in our constitution is essential to protecting our First Amendment rights. If marriage is redefined nationwide, traditional views and values like Phil Robertson expresses will be forced from the public square and even possibly made grounds for criminal action!They later removed the latter post from their blog. That’s a conspiracy theory I’d expect from Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.
But while NOM loves the free exercise clause, they don’t seem to be aware of the no establishment clause, which prohibits the passage of laws that establish or endorse religion, such as laws defining marriage based on what you think a god made it to be. They are strongly supportive of this policy.
On November 7, 2012, after losing popular votes on marriage equality in four states, they said:
Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it.On September 16 last year, while preparing for fights in New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii (which they all lost), Brian Brown wrote:
True marriage champions like you and I must continue to stand and defend God's definition of marriage.On February 9 this year, while preparing a rally for the restoration of the second sentence to HJR3, Indiana’s propsed marriage discrimination amendment, Christopher Plante wrote:
Otherwise you can join us in the hallways as we stand for marriage as God designed it and the sovereign right of the people of Indiana to vote on the issue.On March 27 this year, while applauding World Vision’s denial of employment to people in same-sex marriages, Brian Brown wrote:
Standing up for marriage can be difficult in today's world, as you and I very well know. That is why it is so important to stand together with those who have the courage of their convictions to speak up boldly for marriage as God designed it.On April 17 this year, while preparing supporters for their March For (Straight-Only) Marriage, he wrote:
It all boils down to this: mobilize the American people to defend God's truth about marriage and stand up to the radical extremists that want to redefine marriage, marginalize its supporters and stifle free speech and the democratic process!You don’t care about the First Amendment, Brian. To you, it’s just a rhetorical device that can be used to complain that your rights are under attack.
Hypocrisy over refusals of service
NOM has consistently defended businesses that discriminate against gay couples, claiming that the right to free speech of freedom of religion protects the discrimination. When the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against Elaine Huguenin, a Rasmussen poll found that 85% of respondents oppose forcing business owners to violate their religious beliefs in their business (that was how the question was framed. If it was framed in terms of discrimination, the answers likely would have been different). NOM reported on the poll like so:
We've heard a lot of stories recently about people of faith being forced to compromise their religious beliefs over same-sex marriage (bakery owners in Oregon, a florist in Washington state, innkeepers in Vermont...). But a new Rasmussen poll shows the vast majority of Americans are highly opposed to business owners being penalized or sued for running their business according to their own personal beliefs and values.And when the Arizona state legislature passed SB 1062, they said:
Both the Arizona Senate and House have approved a bill that would prevent business owners from being targeted in lawsuits for declining to participate in same-sex wedding celebrations on the grounds of religious objections.But their support for the right of business owners to refuse service if it offends their conscience goes one way. On March 6 this year, they reported on a New Mexico hairdresser who refused service to Gov. Susana Martinez over her opposition to marriage equality (a refusal that I believe is a mistake). They said:
With the spate of lawsuits we've seen around the country brought against business owners who have declined service for same-sex 'marriage' celebrations, we know how critical legislation of this nature is to protect the First Amendment rights of people of faith.
What did the New Mexico Human Rights Commission do? Did they investigate the denial of service as they did with Elaine Photography when those marriage supporters didn't want to photograph a same-sex ceremony?So if a business owner refuses service to a gay couple, that's "running their business according to their own personal beliefs and values" and "the First Amendment rights of people of faith." But if a business owner refuses service to an opponent of marriage equality, that's "discrimination and harassment." NOM, if someone assesses two similar situations differently over the fact that they like one but not the other, that's hypocrisy.
Did they move to protect the rights of individuals from discrimination and harassment for simply believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman?
Hypocrisy over representative government
NOM believes in a state’s right to define marriage to include or exclude same-sex couples. They have endorsed this statement from Ted Cruz about the State Marriage Defense Act, which would limit federal recongnition of same-sex marriages to only those marriages where the couple lives in a state with same-sex marriage.
I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.When the legislature of Illinois did not take up a vote to legalize same-sex marriage in the state in May last year, they tied the lack of a vote back to the will of the people:
Even in this deep-blue state, home to what Newsweek magazine dubbed as the "first gay president," the people have stood up for the truth of marriage, and let their lawmakers know in no-uncertain terms that they want marriage to remain as the union of one man and one woman.Statements like these might indicate that NOM believes that laws passed by a legislature are on behalf of the people. That is, of course, unless the legislature votes for marriage equality, in which case it’s...
a terrible vote that damages society, tells children they don’t deserve a mother and a father, and brands supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.and...
abandon[ing] society's most important institution and put[ting] their constituents on a collision course with the law.aaand...
endanger[ing] people of faith who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman.NOM, a legislative vote that doesn’t go your way only means that your views are the minority. Not everyone agrees with you. Government does not stop being representative just because you lost. But considering that you once contemplated suing after losing a legislative vote, it’s no surprise that you don’t understand how they work.
Hypocrisy over inappropriate politicization
One thing that really irks NOM is when same-sex marriage is promoted by the federal government. They believe that when this occurs, the branches of the federal government are being inappropriately politicized:
The lawlessness of this administration has reached epic proportions with seemingly every facet of the federal government attempting to force same-sex marriage on the country despite federal law and the Supreme Court ruling that marriage is the purview of the states.But that’s not the case when NOM’s doing the politicizing. When all seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court upheld their constitution and gave same-sex couples their right to marry in April of 2009, NOM embarked on a campaign to have the three justices who would face judicial elections in November 2010 voted out. As the judiciary is supposed to be free from political influence, and be able to make decisions that enforce the law and the Constitution even if they are unpopular, this is very inappropriate, and was condemned by Iowa’s newspapers.
The sad thing is that the campaign worked. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit were all voted out. They all chose not to run for reelection campaigns, understanding the importance of remaining apolitical. Despite NOM’s cries of judicial activism over their ruling, it was they who kept their integrity, and I commend them for it.
This time, NOM saw nothing wrong with inappropriately politicizing Iowa’s judiciary. They bragged about their efforts against Ternus, Baker and Streit, saying:
As you have heard by now, for the first time in the entire history of judicial retention elections in Iowa, the Supreme Court justices were defeated. And not just one, but ALL THREE judges up for retention who forced same-sex marriage on the state were resoundingly defeated by roughly 54 percent. Amazing.The federal government is only giving effect to the Windsor decision, as ordered by the Supreme Court. NOM’s actions were on an entirely different level. But in their minds, they were reasonable and it’s Eric Holder who should be impeached.
As I said last week speaking next to Congressman Steve King in sunny Des Moines, a victory in Iowa will send shockwaves through the political establishment. The people have spoken and they will not tolerate judges imposing same-sex marriage on the voters. Period.
And now those shockwaves are beginning to be felt. I'm getting calls from reporters around the country shocked that the people of Iowa stood up against activist judges.
NOM was pleased to partner with Iowa for Freedom, the Iowa Family Policy Council, the Campaign for Working Families, and Citizenlink in this historic victory. As we have done in state after state, NOM was the largest single donor to the effort, giving roughly $600,000 to the effort. God bless all of our supporters for allowing us to achieve this historic victory.
Hypocrisy over LGBT issues in inaugural addresses
President Obama’s 2013 inaugural address made history by being the first to explicity call for LGBT equality. NOM took issue with the inclusion of this ideology in the speech, saying:
Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), criticized President Obama’s decision to use his Inauguration Day address to further divide the nation on the question of what is marriage.Basically, they believe that taking a side in a polarizing issue should not be included in an inaugural address, which is supposed to be uniting, not divisive.
A presidential inauguration should be a time for the nation to come together; instead President Obama chose to voice his support for a radical agenda advanced by some of his biggest campaign contributors to redefine marriage for everyone.
Today the President should have thrown his support behind this beautiful vision of men and women coming together in love to raise the next generation.Oh, wait, sorry. I’ll revise that. They wanted President Obama to divide the nation, but only by taking their side.
Hypocrisy over civil debate
When Utah Gov. Gary Herbert gave his State of the State address, he said that the debate over marriage equality should be civil. Fair enough. NOM agreed:
Bravo to Governor Herbert, and we here at NOM agree entirely that this debate must be kept free of all manner of acrimony and animosity, bigotry and intolerance.But when your opponents are constantly kicking your butt, remaining civil can be hard. Here’s what they said about Starbucks for supporting marriage equality:
[W]e think it's fair to call a company dumb when it suggests that anyone who doesn't agree with its radical agenda to support redefining marriage should take their business across the street.And when Brendan Eich resigned as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to Prop 8, NOM engaged in a week-long, vitriolic and violence-tinged rant against the LGBT community, falsely accusing it of forcing him out, when he resigned voluntarily and no LGBT rights organizations lobbied for his removal. I wrote about it at time:
A week may have passed, but NOM is not calming down. On April 4, they began their response with a press release. They said (emphasis added):Brian: that and civility are polar opposites.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called on Americans to remove the web browser Mozilla Firefox from their personal computers to protest the company forcing out its CEO over his support of Proposition 8, the 2008 campaign to preserve marriage in California as the union of one man and one woman. NOM called the dismissal of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla a "McCarthyesque witch hunt" that reflects the desire of gay rights activists to punish anyone in society who fails to support their agenda of redefining marriage.Three hours and five minutes later, Brian Brown wrote (emphasis added):
"When Brendon Eich made his modest contribution to support Proposition 8, Barack Obama was on the ballot as a candidate who said he believed marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Now Eich has been the target of a vicious character attack by gay activists who have forced him out of the company he has helped lead for years," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "This is a McCarthyesque witch hunt that makes the term 'thought police' seem modest. We urge all consumers to remove Mozilla's Firefox web browser from their computers as a sign of protest."
Brown noted that when gay activists targeted the CEO of the Chick-fil-A company for expressing his support of marriage, the mayors of cities such as Chicago, Boston and Washington, DC declared that the company would not be permitted to do business in their cities. He also noted that the A&E television network suspended Phil Robertson from the Duck Dynasty show when Robertson, a prominent Christian, expressed his support for marriage.
"This attack to deny Mr. Eich his livelihood for supporting true marriage is a continuation of the shameful pattern we have consistently seen from gay activists. It basically says to all those in America and around the world who believe in a view of marriage that is consistent with the teachings of their faith that they are all bigots and haters and there is no place for them in civil society. This is the totalitarian worldview we will all be under if marriage ultimately is redefined in the law."
The bullies who now control the gay marriage movement have claimed another scalp in their never-ending quest to silence people of faith and others who continue to support the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.[...]
This is not the first episode of this type of totalitarian aggression by the gay 'marriage' thought police.
They continue (emphasis added):The only way to stop bullies is to stand up to them.From April 9 (emphasis added):
We're going to continue standing up to the bullies and haters who want you and me to shut up and get out of the public square.From April 10 (emphasis added, except for the word 'imagined' in the first paragraph):
In 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For that, he's been convicted of an imagined hate crime by the radical homosexual activist community.Brown then quotes Oklahoma State House Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, saying "she hits the nail on the head":
We must stand up to this outrageous assault on not just our values — but on the fundamental principles of free speech and our very democratic process! We cannot let a fringe group of radicals create an environment that will prohibit citizens from engaging in their right to enter the political arena without fear of reprisals!
I also recently had the pleasure of reading a blog post by Catholic blogger Rebecca Hamilton, who is also a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. She hits the nail on the head with a passionate piece she penned about Eich's downfall. This issue is about so much more than the debate over marriage. Hamilton wrote:They continue (italicized emphasis is original, bolded emphasis is added):
The issue here is the First Amendment right of Americans to petition their government, including by means of making donations to causes and issues they believe in, without fear of organized reprisals from a bunch of — here comes the word folks — haters.
This whole thing is getting awfully close to pressuring, bullying and threatening people about how they vote in an election. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for the secret ballot, that's exactly what the "equality" for us, "inclusiveness" for us, but not for anyone else crowd would be doing right now.
Indeed, this kind of freedom-hating campaign is a very chilling example to witness of the sheer intolerance and bigotry of those pushing same-sex ‘marriage' on our nation. It seems as if their real goal is to push Christians and others completely out of the public square.
Please stand with these two courageous Americans and fight back against this unconscionable behavior and deplorable tactics which are so severely damaging marriage, free speech and our very democratic process. As we know, the only way to stop bullies is to stand up to them.In NOM’s mind, “gay activists” and “the radical homosexual activist community” are “bullies”, “haters”, “a fringe group of radicals” and “thought police” with a “totalitarian worldview”; guilty of “totalitarian aggression”, “sheer intolerance and bigotry”, “unconscionable behavior and deplorable tactics” and “intolerance and uncivil behavior”; who are “awfully close to pressuring, bullying and threatening people”; who “push Christians and others completely out of the public square” and “poison democratic discourse and fray the bonds on which democracy itself ultimately depends”; and who are carrying out “a McCarthyesque witch hunt”, “attack”, “assault”, “organized reprisals”, a “freedom-hating campaign” and “a scorched-earth policy.” NOM is calling for “stand[ing] up to them” and “fight[ing] back”.
As Ryan [T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation] observed, "The debate over the meaning and purpose of marriage will continue. We should conduct it in a civil manner. Bullies may win for a while, but theirs is a scorched-earth policy. They poison democratic discourse and fray the bonds on which democracy itself ultimately depends."
This is our hope — knowing that this kind of intolerance and uncivil behavior simply cannot go on for much longer before the American people put their foot down and say enough is enough.
Hypocrisy over lawlessness
Some of the funniest things to read on NOM's blog are their absolute freakouts when a government official undertakes an action they don't like. In July last year, Pennsylvania's Montgomery County issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the state's statute against same-sex marriage (personally, I think that he shouldn't, because it opens the door to ignoring laws that we don't like). Cue NOM:
These county officials are brazenly flaunting the law; substituting their personal views for those of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in state government. Their actions go beyond marriage and implicates the integrity of the rule of law. This cannot be allowed to stand. We will explore every opportunity to hold these officials responsible for intentionally violating the law, including paths leading to their removal from office.On August 21 last year, New Mexico's Doña Ana County clerk Lynn Ellins began to properly enforce the state's Constitution and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in violation of no New Mexico law. Cue NOM:
This latest action goes beyond the pending lawsuits in New Mexico and moves into the realm of lawlessness and anarchy. County Clerks are not free to make up law on their own; it is there job to uphold the law and serve the people who elected them. But rather than wait for the legal process to conclude Mr. Ellins has gone rogue and chosen to defy the Governor and the Attorney General.In January this year, Virginia Attorney-General Mark Herring stopped defending the state's marriage discrimination amendment, and in a display of pure awesomeness, actually asked the state's Federal District Court to strike it down. Cue NOM:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called for the impeachment of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring for "malfeasance" and "neglect of duty" and violating his sworn oath of office to support the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Instead of defending the Commonwealth's duly enacted marriage amendment, Herring is supporting a federal lawsuit by gay activists to redefine marriage in Virginia's constitution.In February of this year, the attorneys-general of Nevada and Oregon, Cortez Masto and Ellen Rosenblum, followed suit. NOM said:
Attorney General Herring swore an oath to defend the constitution of the Commonwealth, yet now he is participating in a lawsuit against the very people he is sworn to represent, the citizens of Virginia who preserved marriage in their constitution. This malfeasance and neglect of duty is not only a disgrace, it's an impeachable offense under the constitution.
This is an erroneous and shameful decision — it's that simple. In addition to showing very poor legal reasoning, this move reveals cowardice and an embarrassing lack of integrity on the part of Governor Sandoval and Attorney General Masto. Rather than stand up for state voters who overwhelmingly adopted Nevada's marriage amendment against the bullying lobby trying to push marriage redefinition through the courts, Sandoval and Masto have turned their backs on the voters and betrayed their own sworn oaths of office.And:
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon. She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with.Despite the fact that with the exception of Montgomery County, no laws or constitutions were violated, NOM still decried lawlessness that wasn't there. But they have supported lawlessness at other times; that it, when it's favorable for them.
I have already mentioned how they consistently defend businesses who discriminate against gay couples. Often, these businesses are in violation of anti-discrimination law. Respect for the rule of law would require that they either don't violate the law, or at least accept the consequences of doing so. But NOM wants those businesses free from the law. They believe that the law shouldn't apply to them.
NOM has also defended county clerks who did not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in New York. Such an action would be in violation of New York state law. The Nassau County District Attorney explains:
The Marriage Equality Act provides that an application for a marriage license cannot be denied on the grounds that the applicant parties are of the same sex and the law affords no discretion to public officials charged with granting marriage licenses. Therefore, any such refusal may be subject to criminal prosecution.One clerk did not want to do her job, obey state law and fulfill her obligation to treat everyone equally as a state official. NOM labelled her the "First Casualty of SSM".
The religious exemptions in the Marriage Equality Act are inapplicable to town and city clerks serving in their license-granting roles, and a public official’s intentional refusal to issue marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples may constitute Official Misconduct, a Class A misdemeanor defined in section 195.00 of the New York State Penal Law.
Additionally, Brian Brown and NOM are signatories to the Manhattan Declaration, a document signed by many conservative Christians which expresses opposition to causes like marriage equality, reproductive rights, etc. In part, it reads:
Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.Earth to NOM: another word for civil disobedience is "lawlessness".
Hypocrisy over statements by medical organizations
In the lead up to June 26 last year, the date of the two marriage equality decisions, The American Academy of Pediatrics supported decisions in favor of marriage equality, as it is good for children. NOM wasn't happy:
We are disappointed that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has taken the transparently political step of endorsing same-sex marriage in an attempt to influence the US Supreme Court. They have done a grave disservice to America’s children by endorsing a policy that intentionally deprives children of either a mother or a father. Their position seems to be that the unique contributions of both mothers and fathers do not matter. Which parent can a child do without — her mother or her father?A mere two days later, they posted this from the American College of Pediatricians, which is not a medical organization, but a socially conservative advocacy organization:
The AAP has not conducted any new research to justify their preposterous conclusion, adding evidence that it is a political act, not a scientific one.
“The American College of Pediatricians reaffirms that the intact, functional family consisting of a married (female) mother and (male) father provides the best opportunity for children. The College, therefore, disputes the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) claim that supporting same-sex unions promotes the “well-being of children.” In its newly released statement, “Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian,” the AAP ignores important research on risks to children in favor of the wants of adults.The status of the AAP as a legitimate medical organization, which the ACP does not have, makes it qualified to give legitimate opinions on marriage equality and the welfare of children. Because of this, it would not be hypocritical to consider the former and dismiss the latter. But NOM has done the reverse: endorsed the unqualified latter and dismissed the legitimate former. When the former did it (because it was qualified to), they dismissed the statement as political. But when the latter did it (even though it's not qualified to), they endorsed the claim without any critique of the claim as political, even though the ACP is political, not medical. They also did not criticize the fact that the ACP did no new research either. In short, they held them to different standards.
“The College does not support the alteration of this time-honored and proven standard to conform to pressures from “politically correct” groups. No one concerned with the well-being of children can reasonably ignore the evidence for maintaining the current standard, nor can they or we ignore the equally strong evidence that harm to children can result if the current standards are rejected,” says Den Trumbull, MD, President of the American College of Pediatricians. “The AAP ignores generations of evidence of health risks to children in advocating for the legality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage and child-rearing.”
Hypocrisy over donations
In April of 2011, gay millionaire Tim Gill pledged to donate $2 million to elect pro-equality legislators in Colorado. NOM decried the decision:
In 2006, Colorado voters rejected civil unions by a strong margin: 53-47%. (At the same time, Coloradans voted for an amendment defining marriage as "a union of one man and one woman" by an even wider margin of 55-45%).Funny. Less than a month before, on March 9, they explained their tactics to fight marriage equality in Maryland:
Last week, the Colorado House Judiciary narrowly defeated a SSU bill on straight party lines, after it was passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.
This decision comes as a bitter defeat to gay mega-millionaire Tim Gill, who has been pouring millions upon millions of dollars into Colorado for a decade to elect pro-SSM politicians (including $5 million in 2006 alone).
But what remains to be seen is whether or not politicians who conscientiously reflect the views of Colorado voters on marriage will be able to continue representing those views in office, if Tim Gill and his mega-millionaire friends have anything to say about it.
NOM Announces NOM MD PAC, Will Spend $1 Million to Hold Maryland Legislators AccountableIt's exactly the same as what they criticized Tim Gill for. (H/T Equality Matters)
Hypocrisy over people of faith
NOM's stated goal is to "protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it". They always claim how marriage equality is somehow a threat to religious freedom.
From October 4, 2012:
Consequences of SSM for Pastors, Religious Groups and People of FaithFrom May 3, 2013:
Besides advocating a flawed marriage policy, the so-called "marriage equality act" contains a shocking lack of religious liberty protections, potentially ghettoizing people of faith unless they compromise and remain silent in the public square.From May 9:
The Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill have endangered people of faith who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman.From August 22:
National Organization for Marriage Denounces the New Mexico Supreme Court's Decision to Force People of Faith to Compromise Their Religious BeliefsFrom November 6:
The legislation that has been adopted contains no meaningful protections for religious liberty. We will see a torrent of actions aimed at people of faith and religious groups.From December 19:
We're not going to take the bullying of Phil Robertson and every other person of faith quietly.From December 20:
It is ludicrous, in America in 2013, that Christians and other people of faith should feel the need to "duck and cover" when it comes to expressing their beliefs[.]From December 31:
Your voice, combined with countless other voices pouring in from across the nation, was heard loud and clear by A&E executives, and it sent an unmistakable message: people of faith in America will not be bullied and made into second class citizens whose views have no place in the public square.From February 21, 2014:
The bill in Kansas does essentially the same thing as the one in Arizona: it protects people of faith from onerous lawsuits that threaten their livelihood simply because they would decline to lend their support to the idea of genderless marriage.From February 22:
Increasingly, Christians and other people of faith are being told that their values have no place in civil discourse... that they should keep their beliefs to themselves and only talk about them in their homes or houses of worship!But while NOM pretends that it stands up for people of faith, they really only stand up for people of their faith, their faith of bigotry, discrimination and hatred. When it comes to pro-equality people of faith, NOM's treatment of them is dismissive and insulting.
From February 19, 2014 (emphasis added):
Almost from the start of the debate over redefining marriage, experts on both sides have warned of the coming conflict involving religious liberty. What were once hypothetical controversies have now become very real, as people of faith — those who believe that God designed marriage as the union of one man and one woman — have repeatedly been forced to compromise and violate their consciences with respect to same-sex 'marriage' — all in the name of 'tolerance'!Apparently, the only people of faith are the people who support marriage equality.
From May 19, 2014:
Graham: "True Followers of Jesus...Cannot Endorse Same-sex Marriage"Apparently, people who support marriage equality "cannot" be "true followers of Jesus".
Rev. Franklin Graham, son of world-famous evangelist Billy Graham, said that “true followers” of Jesus “cannot endorse same-sex marriage,” regardless of what others, including President Obama, the media, or the Supreme Court say about the issue.
Graham maintained that Christians cannot compromise on the issue of marriage and must remain committed to biblical principles.
From May 21, 2014:
Some people of faith make arguments in support of marriage based on their religious views. The scriptural narrative Whitekettle examines is important for Christians to understand so that they can be ready to address the claims that because a variety of unions are described in the Old Testament, it is somehow okay to redefine marriage.They apparently have no idea that some people of faith also make arguments in support of marriage equality based on their religious views. They also state that Christians need to argue against "redefin[ing] marriage", which implies that Christians, as a rule, oppose marriage equality. And this is not true at all.
From June 11, 2014:
The mayor of San Francisco, liberal politicians, and a group of radical activists who call themselves Christians are attempting to shame Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for his involvement with the March for Marriage."[W]ho call themselves Christians"? NOM doesn't think they're true Christians.
While I have also stated what I believe constitutes a true Christian, the difference between me and NOM is that I don't pretend to stand up for all people of faith while dismissing those of a different faith as not genuine. They are entitled to do the latter, but to do it even while claiming to do the former is hypocritical.
Hypocrisy over political bullying
NOM's definition of political bullying is incredibly inconsistent. Basically, activism for marriage equality is, while activism against it isn't.
When the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in February of 2011, the Republican-controlled House intervened to. Law firm King and Spalding decided not to join the defense of the law after the Human Rights Campaign noted that doing so would be inconsistent with the firm's stated policy of diversity. NOM described the effort as "jihad", "cultural intimidation", "silenc[ing] and marginaliz[ing], and "nothing short of despicable."
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo deserves a lot of credit for the passage of marriage equality in his state. He lobbied the legislature to support the bill (I have no concerns there). NOM described his efforts as "bullying of the legislature".
Despite decrying these tactics as bullying, they engage in them anyway. While denouncing the Human Rights Campaign for asking King and Spalding to not defend DOMA, they engaged in much more intimidatory behavior than HRC ever did. They launched a "nationwide web campaign" targeting the firm. The campaign includes a petition and a website entitled "We're There Until You Need Us, denouncing its "cowardice" and "abandonment of professional ethics".
And their criticism of Andrew Cuomo is extremely disingenuous. Isn't it the job of politicians to support or oppose laws? His lobbying of the legislature was not unfair targeting or bullying, like what NOM said. What is much closer to that is this ad that NOM promoted, warning Republicans against supporting marriage equality:
Carlos Maza sums it up nicely:
Does that clear things up?Hypocrisy over retroactive legislation
It’s only “bullying” when LGBT groups refuse to sit down and accept discrimination without putting up a fight.
When NOM spends millions of dollars pressuring lawmakers, ousting judges, and targeting law firms in order to deny countless LGBT Americans equal rights, they’re just doing what’s right.
On July 31, 2013, NOM revealed its opposition to a sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination ordinance on San Antonio, Texas. While it's just more proof of their general animus toward LGBT people, there was one reasonable criticism of the ordinance:
But it goes even further, the measure is retroactive. If someone has "ever" spoken out in public against same-sex marriage or homosexuality they are subject to the sanctions of this ordinance.Excluding people from public offices based on what they've done in the past (or even for expressing unpopular opinions after the ordinance's passage) is obviously absurd, although that language was removed.
But while NOM didn't want the San Antonio to be retroactive, they did want Utah's Amendment 3 to be retroactive. When it was invalidated last December 20, about 1,300 same-sex couples married before the decision was stayed by the Supreme Court. Utah decided it would not recognize the marriages, which has triggered another lawsuit. However, the federal government, correctly applying the Windsor decision, announced it would.
NOM was ropeable:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today responded to the announcement that the United States Justice Department would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Utah in violation of that state's constitution.Firstly, the factual fail. This is in no way an encroachment on states' rights. The federal government did not require Utah to do anything. They left the state free to not recognize the marriages.
"It is outrageous that the Justice Department would move so brazenly and publicly to undermine Utah's standing constitutional provision regulating marriage as the union of one man and one woman" said Brian Brown, NOM's President. "It is the right of states to determine marriage, and the voters and legislature of Utah have done just that. Their right to do so is encoded in the U.S. Constitution, and was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court this summer in the Windsor decision. But with this move, the Department of Justice under this Administration signals that it simply has no regard for the Constitution and the rule of law.
And that's the other thing. NOM wants Amendment 3 to be retroactively enforced during a period where it was not in force. In my mind, Utah should be required to recognize the marriages. They shouldn't be allowed to apply the amendment to a time when it didn't apply. But while NOM took that attitude when it suited them in San Antonio, when it didn't suit them in Utah, they took the opposite attitude.
Hypocrisy over slavery rhetoric
On May 15, 2011, NOM held a hate rally to fight marriage equality in New York, where one speaker declared "those who practice" "sexual acts between man and man" "are worthy to death."
In his speech at the rally, Brian Brown said (emphasis added):
Do not accept the lie that redefining marriage will not affect you. It will. It changes what is taught in the schools. Kids as young as kindergarten in Massachusetts are taught that their parents are bigots because they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. They have shut down Christian adoption agencies in Massachusetts, in Washington, DC, because Christians could not adopt children to same-sex couples. This is a question of civil rights, it’s a question of our civil rights. Remember where we come from. People of faith stood up against the great evils of the Coliseum in Rome when people were being put to death. People of faith stood up against slavery under William Wilberforce and abolished slavery in England. Hispanics, African-Americans, whites, everyone came together to stop the evils of slavery in the United States and stood together in the Civil Rights movement. I ask you today, stand up for your civil rights, stand up for marriage, pray for our civil rights leaders.On May 17, 2011, NOM had this to say about Minnesota State Sen. John Harrington's argument on opposition to the failed Amendment 1, that argument being that the Bible is not a good authority to base legislation on because it supports stuff like slavery:
Minnesotans are nice people. That's why it was especially disheartening to witness the nasty jabs that legislators opposed to the Marriage Amendment hurled at the bill's supporters once it became clear that the Senate was indeed going to pass the bill (as it turned out, in a bi-partisan vote) on to the House.1. That's not what Sen. Harrington said.
So, to review, in the combined opinion of the Senators mentioned above, people who believe Minnesotans should be able to vote on the definition of marriage are pro-bullying, Nazi-inspired, slavery-sympathetic, pro-stoning, anti-woman, and (of course) anti-gay bigots.
2. The comparison they falsely accused of making and criticized him for is the same comparison that they made two days earlier.
Hypocrisy over exploitation of legacies
Part of NOM's race-baiting tactics is to have conservative black pastors flip out over any drawing of parallels between the black civil rights movement and the LGBT civil rights movement. This is deemed "hijacking" and "distortion".
From January 20 this year:
The struggle for civil rights in America as envisioned by Dr. King is ongoing, and I am personally very honored and proud to be able to call some of its greatest leaders my close friends and allies: people like Bishop Harry Jackson, Bishop George McKinney, Bishop David Hall, Pastor Eugene Rivers and so many others. And of course, there is Dr. King's own heroically pro-life, pro-marriage niece, Dr. Alveda King.From May 19:
In a particular way I acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude the work of the Coalition of African American Pastors, led by Reverend Bill Owens and his wonderful wife Deborah, with whom I have been able to work closely over the years and whose excellent work for the true legacy of the Civil Rights movement cannot be praised too highly.
I say the true legacy of the Civil Rights movement because these great men and women know, as well as you and I, how that legacy has been hijacked by those who try to claim it for the purpose of redefining marriage and imposing a radical redefinition of the family on our society. They know — as we all know through simple common sense — that this hijacking is a travesty and an insult.
They know that the fiction of genderless marriage... the denial of children's right to the love of a mother and a father... and the denial of the important irreplaceable roles that men and women separately bring to parenting... they know that none of these is part of Dr. King's great dream which has helped so much to shape our nation over the past forty years!
Last week, a coalition of black pastors said that it's incorrect and offensive to compare redefining marriage to the civil rights movement.But while they have a problem with our comparisons of African-American civil rights and LGBT civil rights (which should not be offensive, because both movements are aimed at advancing civil rights), they have no problem exploiting the legacy of dead veterans to further their goals.
["]The court drew upon legal precedent which rightfully allowed interracial couples to marry, inherently raising similarities between racial equality and same-sex marriage. The coalition has made clear that they believe this comparison is offensive."
The brief criticized the notion that the fight to redefine marriage is similar to the Civil Rights Movement, noting:
"Comparing the dilemmas of same-sex couples to the centuries of discrimination faced by Black Americans is a distortion of our country’s cultural and legal history. The disgraces and unspeakable privations in our nation’s history pertaining to the civil rights of Black Americans are unmatched.["]
The pastors expressed their offense at the comparison of black civil rights struggles to marriage redefinition.
"To state that marriage redefinition is in any way similar to the civil rights movement is intellectually empty, dishonest and manufactured[.]"
"On stage are many actors who pretend that redefining traditional marriage is as valid as Blacks fighting against the carnage of chattel slavery and the humiliation of Jim Crow. Never have I been so insulted. The curtain must be pulled down on this play of disinformation."
From May 26 this year:
Happy Memorial Day! As we remember the brave men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom, it sad to think how easily these freedoms have been trampled upon by an out-of-control judiciary, derelict politicians, or the mainstream media in the marriage debate.Regardless of whether or not African-American-LGBT civil rights comparisons are offensive, claiming that dead veterans fought NOM's fight, their fight of inequality and discrimination, is quite offensive.
Hypocrisy over employment and LGBT issues
In my discussion of their hypocrisy over civil debate, you saw how they strongly condemned the resignation of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla. But around the same time as that happened, World Vision announced that they would not be hiring people in same-sex marriages. This is forced denial of employment, not a voluntary resignation, as was the case with Eich.
But they didn't condemn World Vision like they condemned Mozilla. They said:
This week, World Vision, under pressure from radical gay activists, indicated that it would be changing its policies to allow the hiring of individuals engaged in homosexual 'marriages,' despite the organization's core commitment to engaging staff that bear witness to Christian values — including the value of the sanctity of marriage between a husband and wife.I observed at the time:
Very quickly, though, the organization's leadership changed course and decided instead to stand up to the same-sex 'marriage' bullies and to stand by its guiding principles and the values of its many supporters: on Wednesday the board voted unanimously to continue to "stand on the traditional belief on the authority of Scripture."
World Vision needs and deserves our thanks!
The National Organization for Marriage is joining together with The Manhattan Declaration and Christian Union, along with many other pro-family organizations, to support World Vision for its courage in the face of what must be intense pressure from the same-sex 'marriage' lobby. We know too well how intolerant and vicious the activists out to redefine marriage and family can be.
This is why it is so important, when an organization like World Vision stands up bravely against such pressures, to express our admiration and thanks. Won't you join me today in encouraging World Vision to remain firm in its commitment to marriage and its foundational Christian beliefs?
We also want to spread the word about this momentous demonstration of courage and commitment, using all means available.
Along with the Manhattan Declaration and Christian Union, we have launched a Facebook page called World Vision Standing for Marriage, and we are encouraging everyone to like this page and to share it with their friends.
Please visit the page today, and post a word of encouragement and support.
Standing up for marriage can be difficult in today's world, as you and I very well know. That is why it is so important to stand together with those who have the courage of their convictions to speak up boldly for marriage as God designed it.
Let us all pray for one another and for World Vision as we stand together to witness before our culture to the immense good of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
In summary, here are the two situations:Obviously the latter. So NOM, why did you direct it at the former?
Mozilla's CEO voluntarily resigned after being criticized for donating to a political campaign that wrote discrimination against LGBT people into California's Constitution.
World Vision ensured that they would refuse to hire anyone if they disapprove of an aspect of their personal lives.
What's more intolerant?
What's more deserving of outrage?
Hypocrisy over international activism
President Obama is to be commended for his strong stance against Russia anti-LGBT laws. Part of his sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine include sanctions against Yelena Mizulina, the Chair of the Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children Affairs and the author of the "propaganda" law.
NOM was furious that she was sanctioned. Christopher Plante wrote:
A recent LifeSiteNews article by Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D. should have Christians the world over very worried about the actions of President Obama and his Administration. In America we have seen his very active efforts to impose genderless marriage on all the states and the Department of Justice’s actions against our First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. However, now Mr. Obama has taken his attack on the Christian view of marriage across the globe.If NOM has a problem with international activism, it may want to explain why they have been active in Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, France, and Russia.
Hypocrisy over the word "haters"
I've saved the most blatant for last. On March 20 of this year, while promoting NOM's March For Marriage (Discrimination), Brian Brown wrote (emphasis added):
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.On April 9, he wrote (emphasis added):
We're going to continue standing up to the bullies and haters who want you and me to shut up and get out of the public square.How could he not have realized? Maybe he just doesn't care.
Anyway, that's it. Great job getting to this point.