A story ran in the Oct. 28, 2008 edition of
Deseret News reporting of
Mitt Romney's $10,000 donation to National Organization for Marriage (NOM). We since have come to learn that NOM hatched some truly nefarious schemes to in pursuit of their global endgame.
Key things to keep in mind about the explosive confidential documents that have emerged is they were mostly donor materials. The lawsuit from which they emanated centered around donors, so presumably these pieces of evidence were once used to persuade donors that NOM's strategies were politically viable and a good investment toward the cause. The 42-page brochure titled "Winning the National Battle for Marriage" is very clearly a professionally-designed and forceful sales pitch throughout. Page 35 says: "How Can We Possibly Do All This? A Note to Donors." So... the ten thousand dollar question is...
Was Mitt Romney among the privileged few one-percenter, high-dollar donors who got an "eyes only" glimpse at NOM's confidential strategy memos?
In other words, it's worth asking, what did Mitt Romney know, and when did he know it? To be fair, Romney's 2008 donation predates the materials that have been made public. But his relationship, and that of his Church—a major donor to NOM—both predates and continues. And it stands to reason there were 2008 versions of this strategy memo, as well as 2010, 2011, 2012. The mind shudders to imagine what is in the memos we haven't seen.
When Mitt Romney cut his $10,000 check for Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown's National Organization for Marriage did he know that money would be used to "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies?" Did he know his money would be used to purposely and cravenly fan hostility between his fellow Americans?
It's a question American Bridge 21st Century is asking, and thus far almost 5,000 people have signed their Change.org petition asking Romney to denounce his ties to National Organization for Marriage.
Romney's connection to NOM doesn't stop at financing their repugnant, divisive political tactics. Romney also
signed NOM's marriage pledge. Its demands are:
- Support and send to the states a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,
- Defend DOMA in court,
- Appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution,
- Appoint a presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters,
- Support legislation that would return to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.
Those were heady days for NOM, they gleefully announced that "All Major Candidates Sign NOM Marriage Pledge, Commit to Concrete Steps to Support Marriage." Like almost everyone, they overlooked Ron Paul, but of the remaining candidates, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have also signed the pledge. NOM has, unsurprisingly, been especially supportive of Rick Santorum's candidacy.
And American Bridge 21st Century isn't the only one appalled any presidential candidate would involve themselves in such a divisive and contemptible organization.
Evan Wolfson
(Freedom To Marry)
Now,
Freedom To Marry is calling on GOP candidates to renounce their pledged fealty to NOM's agenda:
"Now that NOM's race-baiting strategy of pitting American against American, minority against minority, and family members against family members is out in the open, we call on GOP candidates to renounce their NOM pledges," said Evan Wolfson, founder and President of Freedom to Marry, the campaign to win marriage nationwide. "A president's job is to lead and unite the nation, not take part in a politics of division and cruelty. Anyone seeking the nation's highest office should not be affiliated with a group seeking to discredit the strong and clear voice of those African-American civil rights champions, such as John Lewis, Julian Bond, and Coretta Scott King, who have stood up for the freedom to marry and the equal civil rights of all people, including gay people of color."
The coalition of
Mayors for the Freedom to Marry also released a statement. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said:
"We need to come together as a country if we are going to tackle our biggest challenges. NOM's divisive effort to pit one group of Americans against another is offensive and takes us in exactly the wrong direction. If we believe in family values, we must value all families; and I believe that every adult – regardless of their race, religion, gender or ethnic heritage -- should have the freedom to marry the person they love.”
District of Columbia Mayor Vincent C. Gray said:
“Across our nation, gay and lesbian couples seek equal marriage rights because they believe in the same values we all do – commitment, stability, responsibility and family. That’s why it’s especially confounding that an organization that claims to support family values would seek to pit groups against each other in a hateful and cynical effort to deny equal rights to some families.”
Will the GOP presidential candidates continue to stand with National Organization for Marriage now that it has been made abundantly clear what a corrosive and unhealthy force Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, with the help of the Mormon and Catholic Churches, have created in American politics?
Continues after the fold.
A recap of what some civil rights leaders had to say about
National Organization for Marriage's political tactics.
Dr. Julian Bond, NAACP's Chairman Emeritus
said Tuesday:
"NOM's underhanded attempts to divide will not succeed if Black Americans remember their own history of discrimination. Pitting bigotry's victims against other victims is reprehensible; the defenders of justice must stand together."
Bond also used the words "evil" and "filthy" when asked to share his thoughts with
The Hill paper. Bond spoke at greater length with Anderson Cooper on CNN saying "It's one of the most cynical things I've ever heard of" and it's "scary" that NOM tried to move people "around like pieces on a chess board."
The video is here.
Current president and CEO of the NAACP Benjamin Jealous said:
“This memo only reveals the limits of a cynical agenda,” said Jealous. “The truth is that no group, no matter how well-funded, can drive an artificial wedge between our communities. People of color understand what it is like to be the target of discrimination. No public relations strategy will make us forget that.”
Sharon Lettman-Hicks (
NBJC)
National Black Justice Coalition Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,
says:
“These documents expose NOM for what it really is—a hate group determined to use African American faith leaders as pawns to push their damaging agenda and as mouthpieces to amplify that hatred.”
Kara Suffredini, Executive Director of MassEquality
said:
"It has been obvious for years that one of the key strategies employed by opponents of marriage equality is to weaken Americans’ collective fairness by pitting parents against children, neighbors against neighbors, and minority groups against minority groups.
[...]
“Nonetheless, such toxic cynicism never ceases to be shocking. The casual tone with which NOM outlines how it will turn fair-minded Americans against each other solely to hurt LGBT families speaks for itself. This is the ugliest example of a “solution” in search of a problem.”
Minister Leslie Watson
Malachi (PFAW)
director of People For the American Way Foundation’s African American Ministers Leadership Council
had this to say:
“African American men and women of faith are not a political football to be tossed around in a cynical game of resentment and division. We, like all Americans, struggle thoughtfully with issues of faith, family and politics.
[…]
“NOM’s explicit attempt to drive a wedge between the LGBT community and African Americans is deeply offensive, and it exposes the depravity of their politics.”
Wade Henderson Esq., president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
said:
"The National Organization for Marriage's 'divide and conquer' tactics are desperate and despicable. African Americans, Latinos, and sexual minorities recognize injustice when they see it, and they recognize when they're being used. NOM has no standing in minority communities, and these documents further underscore this reality."
Mark Potok, Southern Poverty Law Center's Director of Intelligence
said:
"[T]he revelation of its bald attempt to exploit black people and Latinos should help end the idea that NOM is an honorable group that would never engage in race-baiting. Because that is precisely what it has done."
Again: Will the GOP presidential candidates continue to stand with National Organization for Marriage now that it has been made abundantly clear what a corrosive and unhealthy force Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, with the help of the Mormon and Catholic Churches, have created in American politics?
Update: Maggie Gallagher just showed for her Thomas Roberts appearance. This time Roberts paired her with GOP presidential candidate Fred Karger, who filed the original complaint to the Maine board of elections that exposed this entire scheme to the public. Will post video as soon as it's available.
Here's Maggie, Fred and Thomas, via Equality Matters.
What a crock. You can see her cycling through the stages of spin control. First she called it an "amusing" media-generated "non-story."
Now, she's taking it more seriously but still spinning furiously. She starts by trying to distance herself from the memos, saying:
"I don't like the language."
You were President and on NOM's Board at the time! The language didn't just appear it was approved. Who signs off on the "confidential" strategy documents if not the President of the organization and board member? Are you really saying these documents were circulated without your approval? Did the janitor approve the language you don't like Maggie? The receptionist?
Current President Brian Brown is listed Executive Director and as a contact person, also.
She also pulls out a Washington Post article to prove the divide is real. A move that would make Dick Cheney and Judith Miller proud, the internal feedback loop trick. They inflame the problem, and pass their talking points on to the media and when the media repeats them credulously, they use this as evidence.
