Money

http://www.nomblog.com/13043

"With same-sex marriage legal in the state in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is reaping the political rewards: A source emails over an invitation to a $12,500 per person "intimate evening" fundraiser on Sept. 21 with Cuomo.

It will be hosted by medical-supply heir Jon Stryker, who is probably the biggest donor to gay causes in the country; and Jonathan Lewis, son of Democratic megadonor Peter Lewis.

"Having delivered on marriage equality in New York is going to get Andrew a lot of gay love, not to mention gay money. There is no one more passionate, and effective," my source emails."

NOM is criticizing Andrew Cuomo for receiving $12,500 per person at a fund raiser, illustrating how "corrupt" he is for doing this. NOM doesn't really have a leg to stand on in this argument, as they spent well over 700,000 dollars to fight marriage equality. If that were not enough, they also refuse to obey campaign donor laws. It seems to me that NOM is perfectly fine with accusing others of being corrupt when it comes to money, and yet cry foul when courts order them to obey the law.  The basic tenet of their argument is that donors will get harassed for donating to an anti-gay cause, which is funny because NOM encourages harassment of NY republicans who voted for SSM in June. If trying to cost someone his job for his belief doesn't qualify as harassment, I don't know what does. 

Religious Liberty?

http://www.nomblog.com/13025/

NOM is saying religious liberty is being infringed because religious employers should be offering benefits to gay couples, and that people cannot be denied benefits. Now, it's kind of funny that the (presumably) Christian Right is arguing for religious liberty so that they can actively discriminate against gay couples. Where is the hypocrisy in this? Quite simple, really. Let us look to Jesus for the answer.

"As ye that men would do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6:31)

I am just speculating here, but I doubt anyone would like to have benefits denied to them for a reason such as the religious beliefs of someone else. And I also find it ironic that Christians would therefore ignore the words of Christ Himself in favor of some epistle from St. Paul to the Romans.

Commenters

Many people comment on NOM's blog. I unfortunately am unable to do so. Something about NOM censoring comments and refusing to post any from this IP. Thusly, I think I will point out how commenters are wrong.

Here is a winner from a commenter named "Barb"

"Pseudo-marriage is not a right, and anyone who loves America would not voluntarily contribute to its demise by supporting it."


First of all, referring to gay marriage as "pseudo-marriage" is very mature, Barb. But let's address the crux of your argument, which is the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. By saying that anyone who loves America would not support gay marriage, you insinuate that people who supports gay marriage hates America. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actively support marriage equality, and I proudly honor my country each and every day. However, I will note that this is a great tactic to try and rally support to your side.


Here's another one from someone named P. Edward Murray

"Someone once said that you can lie with numbers well the same can be said about polling..it depends on how you phrase the question.

What can't be denied is the fact that when a State has the chance to vote for or against gay marriage, it is always the same thing...it is voted down!
That, in and of itself should speak volumes but if that doesn't then you have to pose the question to these activists if voting matters?

Does it matter in California where the people voted against gay marriage?

These proponents of gay marriage are Totalitarians just like their bretheren in the old USSR and Red China!"

Yes, that is true that states who have decided marriage equality based on popular vote have voted it down. However, I would like to point out that the United States is not a true democracy. It is a constitutional based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. That means that what is voted on needs to be in-line with the constitution, which ends up on one's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment (whether or not equal protection under the law protects sexuality). I believe it does. Those who argue it is not immutable do not believe it is protected. I, for one, cannot blame them. If Michael Jackson can change his race from black to white, so can a gay man become straight. I'd also like the point out that at no point was a public vote held to end slavery, extend suffrage to women, or to end segregation. Presumably a sane person, Mr. Murray is anti-slavery, pro women's rights, and anti-colored-drinking-fountain. And yet none of these were voted on by popular vote.

It is also a bit hypocritical that Mr. Murray accuses SSM supporters of being Totalitarians.

Totalitarian: of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercisesdictatorial control over many aspects of life.

Mr. Murray is presumably a NOM supporter, who supports their pledge which includes a request to set up a committee to find out if people have been harassed by SSM supporters. That, and a federal amendment banning SSM. Irony? Oh, and the communism joke is quite appreciated, given that neither Russia nor China have same sex marriage. 

Let's keep going with another comment from Barb

"

1. I believe that many of the folks who are OK with pseudo- marriage have never really given it much thought. They think it's a cool attitude to have and that's as far as it goes.
   Once people really think it through they begin to realize it's just plain silly, at best.
   Then there are those who begin to become fully informed of the negative consequences, the guerrilla tactics, the separation of children from their biological parents, the lawsuits, etc., that come as a result of of pseudo-marriage.
   That's when they begin to realize that it can't be taken lightly. And that's why the more informed folks are the less likely they'll be to support pseudo marriage or any candidate who supports it.
   Kudos to NOM for providing us with valuable information"
   
   
   Again calling it pseudo-marriage, qualifying it because it's different. You know, sort of like colored-drinking fountains. The attempt to say "thinking makes you realize it's bad" is kind of illogical, as you are reaching a moral conclusion from an internal perspective and projecting that onto others. It's funny that she mentions "tactics" of proponents of SSM, as if what is done disqualifies the idea itself. I am by no means trying to argue that ends justify the means, I am merely pointing out that disagreeing with an idea because of who supports it, not because of the idea itself, is kind of...shall we say, a lazy tactic.
   
   
   One more comment, this one from Louis E. 
   "Noreen,you shouldn't commit to doing something wrong,and you and your partner being of the same sex makes your engaging in sexual activity with each other wrong.It doesn't matter whether you do it with one person or a hundred."
   What makes it wrong, Mr. E?  Seriously, why is it wrong? Because the bible says so? (Shellfish are also an abomination). Jesus never said anything about homosexuality either. Is it wrong because it's not "natural?" What is "natural"? Existing in or formed by nature. It's a very interesting way to look at it. I could point out that many animals engage in homosexual activity making it natural, or I could point out that homosexual activity has been part of human history since Greece, but I'll settle for this line of logic, credited to a youtube user called "The Amazing Atheist" (and kind of a bastardization of his original argument). So, God is omnipotent. Nothing else in nature is omnipotent. Therefore, God exists outside of nature (we cannot understand God, therefore God must exist outside of nature). Therefore, God is unnatural. Does that make God bad?
   Or better yet, are buildings natural? Is the computer Mr. E used to post that comment natural? 
   Seriously, why is it "wrong?" Why is Mr. E making a moral judgment based on an activity that goes on in the bedroom of two legal, consenting adults that does not harm anyone?
   
   
   That's all for now.