I'm sorry for not getting a reply to this earlier, but I've been quite busy lately.
One of the stories in the fight for LGBT equality recently has been the (failed) attempt by bigots in Houston to repeal the city's sexual orientation and gender identity inclusive anti-discrimination ordinance. NOM has endorsed their work. Their report is as follows:
Dear Marriage Supporter,Okay, firstly NOM, it's protections against discrimination, not "nondiscrimination". That would be protections against not being discriminated against, which doesn't make sense.
The ousting of Brenden Eich from Mozilla and the attempts by Chase Bank to ID employees based on whether they are "an ally of the LGBT community" were two powerful and extreme examples of efforts to marginalize and punish people who believe in a biblical or traditional view of sexual morality.
NOM is leading the charge to push back against these attempts to target ordinary citizens like you and me for simply holding to the truth about marriage.
Will you please consider standing with us today by making a gift of $35, $50, $100, $500 or whatever you can afford to provide the financial resources we need to carry out our efforts?
The latest example is found by simply looking at what's happening in the city of Houston.
The City Council (led by the city's lesbian mayor) passed an ordinance giving gays and lesbians special protections against "nondiscrimination." Citizens worried that the ordinance would become a tool to punish anyone who does not affirm the LGBT agenda have collected signatures on a referendum to put the issue on the ballot for voters to consider.
Secondly, ordinances like that in Houston don't provide special rights, because they apply to straight people as well. They make it illegal to discriminate against someone for being gay or bi, but also straight, or for not being transgender.
And before a single vote has been cast, the fears of opponents of the ordinance have already been realized.I'm not very trusting of NOM, so I don't know if this is true. If it is, then I would recommend that they do reveal themselves for the sake of being consistent. I do think that there is considerable merit in the names of the petition signers being made public, because that's how you know that the petition was signed properly, and that it does have genuine support. I also think, though, that if you want to reveal someone else's name, you should reveal your own name.
Backers of the ordinance have put the names of petition signers online so that their harassment can begin immediately. They've launched a campaign called, "HEROPetition.com" that has publicly identified all the petition signers for the alleged purpose of independently verifying the validity of the petition.
But get this: the organizers of the HEROPetition.com campaign are refusing to identify themselves, claiming they must remain anonymous to "protect our personal safety."
In 2012, the respected Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University was suspended from her job solely because she signed the Maryland referendum petition to allow voters to consider whether the legislature's redefinition of marriage should be permitted.While I don't think that that should have happened, NOM's tying in of "gay activists" with the incident is disingenuous. They provide no evidence of any LGBT equality supporter calling for that to happen. The actions of a university, wrong as they were, are not evidence of the actions of LGBT equality supporters.
After public protests, the university eventually allowed her to return to work, but demoted her. When it comes to LGBT matters, "diversity" and "tolerance" extends only to those who agree with gay activists.
In California, gay activists pioneered the organized harassment campaign through the use of the notorious "eightmaps.com" website which allowed people to see online maps showing where donors to Prop 8 lived.I don't think that anyone should do that. That is suggesting of harassment and intimidation.
While I may have appeared to agree with NOM for large parts of this post, this is where they inevitably turn stupid.
As is the case in the current Houston example, the organizers of the campaign did not identify themselves, nor did they show where donors opposing Prop 8 lived. The resulting harassment of Prop 8 donors was widespread and unrelenting.Wikipedia's article "Protests against Proposition 8 supporters" provides further detail as to what really happened:
Mozilla's Brendan Eich is only the latest person to lose a job over showing support for traditional marriage:
The manager of a Mexican restaurant was hounded from her family business in Los Angeles over her $100 contribution in support of Proposition 8.
Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento was forced to resign over his $1,000 contribution;
Similarly, Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, was forced to resign after contributing $1,500.
Following the passage of the proposition, opponents obtained donation lists of those who had supported the ballot measure by contributing to the "Yes on 8" campaign, published the list, organized an activism group, and began calling for boycotts of the supporters' places of work.In two of the cases that NOM cited, this is what happened: a worker at a company resigned because they caused their company harm (remember that the LA Film Festival wanted nothing to do with Richard Raddon) by donating to a measure that their customers disapproved of. In the third, the worker didn't resign.
Scott Eckern, Artistic Director, California Musical Theatre. Resigned on November 15, 2008. In a statement, Eckern pledged to donate $1,000 to LGBT lobbying group Human Rights Campaign to match what he donated to Yes on 8.
Richard Raddon, Director, Los Angeles Film Festival. Resigned on November 25, 2008, after the LA Film Festival publicly distanced itself from Raddon's actions. Raddon donated $1,500 to Yes on 8.
Marjorie Christoffersen, Manager, El Coyote Restaurant, Los Angeles, a lifelong Mormon, the niece of El Coyote’s founder, and the daughter of its current owner. The restaurant was popular as a late-night hangout for gay people, but was picketed after it was learned that Christofferson had donated $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Christofferson said she felt pressured to resign but did not.
Boycotts should not be controversial at all. Everyone has the right to do their business whenever they want. NOM boycotts Starbucks, General Mills, Mozilla, JP Morgan Chase and Target over marriage equality, as is their absolute right. Funnily enough, they don't see boycotting businesses of anti-equality workers as our absolute right. They see this as harassment and intimidation and forcing them to resign, when they always resign voluntarily.
Others faced death threats. Catholic and Mormon Church groups were mailed packages containing white powder, feared to be anthrax.I never want to validate NOM's persecution complex and rarely want to validate their complaints, but that violence was very wrong, and we can't deny that, as much as we can't stand NOM or Prop 8.
But now it gets really stupid:
This cannot continue! Please help us stand up to this undemocratic and unpatriotic assault on our basic civil liberties by making a generous donation today.Oh, for crying out loud. That is just ridiculous. NOM, you need a history lesson.
There are hundreds of documented cases of harassment by LGBT activists against Christians and other people of faith who support traditional values, and scant evidence of such incidents against lesbians and gays.
From 1995 to 2008, 15,351 anti-gay hate crimes were committed. That's 1,096 a year. That's three every day.
In California's Santa Clara County, anti-gay hate crimes increased to 14 in 2008 from 3 to 2007 because of Prop 8.
On October 6, 1998, 21 year-old Matthew Shepard, a student at the University of Wyoming was taken from a bar, driven to a field in Laramie, tied to a fence, beaten to within an inch of his life and left to die because he was gay.
On July 1, 1999, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder were murdered in their California home because they were gay.
On February 12, 2008, 15 year-old Larry King, a student in California, was shot twice in the back of his head by a classmate because he was gay.
On July 9, 2010, 15 year-old Justin Aaberg, a gay student in Minnesota, killed himself after being bullied for two years. From 2009 to 2011, eight other students from the same school district ended up like him.
On September 22, 2010, 18 year-old Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped off the George Washington Bridge because his roommate filmed and broadcast his relationship with another man.
On September 18, 2011, 14 year-old Jamey Rodemeyer, a gay student in New York, committed suicide after being bullied.
On May 17, 2013, 32 year-old Mark Carson was murdered in New York after his killer asked him if he was gay and he answered in the affirmative. You should know about this. You rightly condemned it. When you say that this is scant evidence, have you forgotten it?
In September of 2013, 24 year-old Aaron Keahey, a man from Texas, was lured to the home of a man who he met online, who immediately beat and almost killed him.
On December 24, 2013, San Diego resident Dwayne Wynn was beaten and almost killed because he was gay.
On March 29, 2014, a Florida man tried to burn down a family's home because it was headed by a lesbian couple.
When someone is tied to a fence in Wyoming and beaten to death, or bullied to suicide for opposing marriage equality, I'll reconsider. Until then, STFU about how persecuted you and you alone are. Nobody cares! (Jon Stewart)
Yet cities like Houston pursue special "nondiscrimination" ordinances, Congress is being pressured to pass "nondiscrimination" statutes and President Obama has issued an executive order on the subject.If you want to know why those laws are necessary, look no further than Latta, South Carolina. In April this year, Police Chief Crystal Moore, a 20-year veteran of the force with no disciplinary record, was suddenly written seven reprimands by the town's mayor and then fired because she is a lesbian. She was fired after the town's local government was restructured. That is legal in 29 states (and 33 for gender identity), and on a state level, that includes Houston's state of Texas. It is illegal to fire someone for their religion. No one should be punished in employment for opposing marriage equality, but that's not because of their religion, but their politics.
Meanwhile, it's indisputable that a gay activist walked into the offices of the Family Research Council with a plan to murder dozens of employees there because of their opposition to redefining marriage and the gay and lesbian agenda.This was, once again, a terrible act, and I condemn it unequivocally. But NOM is wrong to say that Floyd Lee Corkins was a "gay activist". He wasn't gay. It is dangerous to tie extremist violence to homosexuality, because it fuels homophobia. The other thing is that the FRC was targeted because it was an anti-gay hate group, not merely because it opposed same-sex marriage. That doesn't make the attack any more justifiable, but that does need to be pointed out.
And yet, this incident has spawned no proposed "nondiscrimination" legislation to protect people of faith and religious groups, nor has President Obama issued any executive orders.That's because you've been protected for your religion since 1965. It's called the Civil Rights Act. You are protected across the entire country. Literally nothing more can be done.
NOM opposes harassment and violence of any kind against anyone engaged in the public square. We also oppose ordinances like that passed in Houston and being advanced in Congress.Well there we have it. They don't just oppose marriage equality, they oppose all anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT people. NOM: your stated goal is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." What the bloody hell does fighting to make legal anti-LGBT discrimination have to do with that? Nothing. The reason that you have that stance is not because you oppose marriage equality. It's because you're a hate group.
The record shows that if anyone needs special protections from retaliation and punishment based on who they are, it's Christians, people of faith and religious groups, not gay and lesbian activists.There is quite a lot of analysis to be done here.
1. NOM is openly advocating for "special protections" for "Christians, people of faith and religious groups". Yet in this same blog post, they criticized what they inaccurately perceived as special protections for LGBT people. Hypocrisy cannot be more blatant. The other thing is that I find that statement to be quite insulting to many religious people, who reject NOM's beliefs and support equality and justice for all. It suggests that it is inherent in religious people to want to discriminate. In some cases, that's true, but definitely not all.
2. Thank you, NOM, for accidentally admitting that being "gay and lesbian" is "who they are". Sexual orientation is a much more intrinsic identity than religion, which is chosen.
We always hear from the religious right that homosexuality isn't who you are, but what you do. Let the USCCB explain:
More specifically, the Church strongly opposes both unjust discrimination against those who experience a homosexual inclination and sexual conduct outside of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman. But the executive order, as it regards federal government contractors, ignores the inclination/conduct distinction in the undefined term “sexual orientation.” As a result, even contractors that disregard sexual inclination in employment face the possibility of exclusion from federal contracting if their employment policies or practices reflect religious or moral objections to extramarital sexual conduct.And let's now here from FRC as to what religious faith is:
Religious faith is not simply a matter of intellectual affirmation but of active practice.The religious right wants what they do to be who they are, yet when it comes to homosexuality, they say that there's a difference. They always talk about how freedom of religion is more than just freedom of worship. You can't have it both ways. In fact, because sexuality is more innate than religion, one's sexual activity is more of who they are than one's religious practices are.
3. NOM, you have expressed a desire for ""nondiscrimination" legislation" and/or "executive orders" for "Christians, people of faith and religious groups" who face "retaliation and punishment". Funny. One of the tactics that you have criticized in this blog post were mere boycotts. So you want legislation or executive orders to make pro-LGBT boycotts illegal, do you?
Religion is protected from discrimination, but you are not, and should not, and cannot, be protected from boycotts. You can't make it illegal for people to boycott things. It would obviously be unconstitutional, as well as a genuinely totalitarian law.
I've never seen a more clear, blatant, overt, obvious reversal of the reality of discrimination when it comes to religion and homosexuality. Now, while I don't think you genuinely want pro-LGBT boycotts to be made illegal, that's how it sounded. I'd tell you to stop saying stupid things so this doesn't happen again, but there's no point. You'll never learn.