NOM's animus towards gays

NOM likes to argue that it "Defends traditional marriage and the faith communities that sustain it". Except they reach much further

http://www.nomblog.com/15157

Homosexual groups in Scotland have received nearly ten times as much Government funding as church groups over the past decade.

New figures reveal that since 2001-2, three homosexual lobby groups have received a total of £5.9m. However over the same period only £600,000 has gone to church groups.

Christian groups Solas and CARE for Scotland as well as a national newspaper criticised the news.

This has nothing to do with marriage, nor does it have anything to do with the USA. They are not an "international" organization for marriage, after all. But I suppose I could forgive ONE blog article on the matter.

http://www.nomblog.com/15086/

If we said it, we'd be homophobes.

We have no clue how representative Richard and Jeremy are, but gee, does FOX think they could be?

Watch and let us know what you think:

Really? Commenting on a show on the FOX network? read some of the comments, people want to boycott the network over this. But hey, let's give NOM the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this really does have to do with marriage...except their tweet accusing Hollywood of "trying to normalize homosexuality" towards children... Just for the record, that means NOM dislikes it when gay people are in shows on TV. NOM wants to remove gays from television, because it might give children and teens the idea that it is "okay to be gay."

NOM also tries to defend a teacher who said (indirectly, but you can tell) on her PUBLIC facebook page that homosexuality breeds like cancer. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with marriage, mind you. But hey, maybe I'm over-reacting. It's not like NOM has tried to play the victim or say that parents need to be notified of a play consisting of two boys kissing being shown in school . Speaking of school, NOM is against LGBTQ history being a part of the curriculum.

http://www.nomblog.com/15218

Ireland had its presidential election over the weekend and Sen. David Norris (who jumped back into the raceafter withdrawing over a scandal involving his support for pedophilia) came in a distant fourth:

David Norris had led polls early in the race to become Ireland's president, before he dropped out and then jumped back in amid a scandal. But the senator, who could have become the world's first openly gay president, has conceded defeat today.

Early poll results show him finishing a distant fourth, and so Norris became the first candidate to congratulate Labor Party candidate Michael Higgins on what appears to be his win. -- The Advocate

What does an IRISH presidential race have to do with marriage? What's it have to do with America? And WHY is NOM trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia?

So, just to recap. NOM thinks all gays are pedophiles, are against gays being on TV or on stage, or being part of a school curriculum, and has the audacity to claim that "Christians are in the closet" (previous link on victim). NOM has a DEEP animus against gays. Don't let them tell you otherwise; all evidence shows that they have a deep, deep animus

Brian Brown's "bipartisan"

http://www.nomblog.com/14979

"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do: defend a law passed by bipartisan majorities. The cost of hiring lawyers to defend DOMA should be deducted from the budget of the Justice Department," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "The $1.5 million cost of defending DOMA represent less than one-one hundredth of one percent of the Justice Department's huge $28 billion budget. President Obama's defection of duty is responsible for incurring this cost; he should trim some fat and find the money to pay for it."

Really, Brian? You have the gall to try and repeal the law passed by "bipartisan majority" in New York, and THEN TRY AND DEFEND ANOTHER ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT'S BIPARTISAN? And who are YOU to criticize someone not doing their job, when you blatantly defend the cowardly New York clerks who refuse to issue gay marriage certificates (a sin of hubris, mind you, putting one's "religious" [I use the term loosely, given the blatant cherry picking of a 2000 year old book] and call them heroes?)

Brian Brown, you are a hypocrite of the highest order and I sincerely hope you have some sort of epiphany so that you may realize how morally bankrupt you truly are, you money-stealing law-breaking right-wing sycophant.

Bible Quotes from Comments

This one is just too good to pass up, from Faye.

Why is part of the Bible quoted, "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and render unto god what is god's."

But these parts of the Bible are ignored:

"G-d said, 'It is not good that man be alone'. . .and G-d built the rib that He had taken from the man, into a WOMAN, and He brought her to the man."

"Male and Female, He created them. G-d blessed them, and He said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'"

"Therefore shall a man leave his father (not 2 fathers) and his mother (not 2 mothers), and he shall cleave unto his wife (not his husband)."

"Like the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled, do not do."

"You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

Green because I want to mix it up. But to answer Faye's question, those parts of the bible are probably ignored for the same reason these quotes are ignored.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall bean abomination unto you (Leviticus 11:12)

They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. (Leviticus 21:5). This refers to priests, but I know plenty of bald priests that do not have beards.

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19)

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

“‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. (Leviticus 15:19-23)

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31) ~ Would you really want someone to deny YOU a marriage license?

So please, if you want to quote the bible, quote other stuff from the Old Testament as well, Faye.

NYC Marriage Clerks

http://www.nomblog.com/14462

Town clerks forced to choose between their jobs and their convictions

WASHINGTON –The Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance (MADA) is releasing three videos with town clerks in New York State who have faced discrimination for their belief in one man-one woman marriage.

Ruth Sheldon, Laura Fotusky and Rose Marie Belforti have all been town clerks in various New York towns for several years, with part of their duties including signing marriage license applications. With the New York legislature voting to enact same-sex marriage in the state, these women, who support traditional marriage, faced religious discrimination for their refusal to sign same-sex marriage licenses.

Sheldon and Fotusky have quit their jobs, both citing the threat of lawsuits against the town and their strong conviction about marriage as reasons why they could not continue in their roles. Belforti is currently striving to keep her job by finding a way to not be forced to sign same-sex marriage licenses. All three women are examples of why MADA was established: to create a supportive community for those who have been threatened for standing for marriage.

"These three public servants love their communities and the people in them, and they also happen to be women of faith," said Maggie Gallagher, board member of the National Organization for Marriage, the parent group of MADA. "It would be easy to accommodate these clerks--by letting another employee sign same-sex marriage licenses--instead gay marriage advocates are applauding the idea they should be forced to choose between their faith and their jobs. What good purpose is served by needlessly forcing Ruth, Laura and Rose Marie out of a job they love after serving their community well for years?"

"Decent, loving, law-abiding citizens should not lose their jobs because they believe marriage is the union of husband and wife."

Video interviews can be seen by visiting:

• ROSE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-BQSP95Tpw
• LAURA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak7Hjd5ojts
• RUTH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KG9otgfguQ

For more information on the new Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance, go to www.marriageADA.org.

Let's just be clear here for a moment. NOM is defending people who are blatantly refusing to 1). obey the law, and 2). do the job they are supposed to do. They are not "law-abiding" citizens because they are blatantly discriminating against gay couples looking to receive what they are entitled to receive - a marriage certificate. They are not being threatened for "standing by marriage". They are being asked to DO THEIR JOB AND NOT DISCRIMINATE - like any other American citizen. Attempting to hide behind a 2000 year old book is doing a disservice to their community and a blatant act of egoism attempting to put themselves above the community and above their job. Not only that, but it is also cherry-picking the bible to defend a political agenda. Maggie should be ashamed of herself for passing judgment on gay couples like this and should be ashamed of herself for defending someone discriminating against gay couples.

NOM's Freedom of Speech

http://www.nomblog.com/14154

An honors student in Fort Worth, TX, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.

Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.

“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”

NOM is really good at defending the right to free speech of people...when it benefits them and has absolutely nothing to do with marriage itself (Seriously NOM, you can't be an organization for marriage and say marriage is "one man, one woman" and then try and tie homosexuality into marriage.) But that's not the hypocrisy I'd like to point out.

NOM has YET to make a public statement regarding the assault of a student by a principal for wearing a GSA shirt. NOM has YET to condemn the principal for his heinous bullying actions, and yet is quick to condemn a teacher for trying to keep control of his classroom without resorting to physical contact. And in all honesty, the worse of the crimes is the physical bullying. And it is much worse for a student to willingly disrupt class than it is to wear a t-shirt that supports gays.

Gay adoption

http://www.nomblog.com/14344

We have no clue whether it was a planned motherless family or whether he and his partner stepped in to give a motherless child a family--since he will not say.

But he and his partner are proud to announce they were both "very excited to become new parents."

I find it more than a little hypocritical of NOM to criticize a Representative of Congress trying to start a family when Maggie had a bastard child herself. But hey, NOM doesn't like to point out its own inconsistencies. So I pose this to the (two) people who read this blog: what's the worse offense: attempting to raise a child in a two parent, loving household, or knowingly and willingly having a bastard child?

Marriage and Crime

http://www.nomblog.com/14306

A new study has found that marriage can potentially help reduce crime because married people tend to develop significantly greater self-control.

“Self-control is one of the strongest predictors of differences between people in terms of their involvement in crime,” said Dr. Walter Forrest, Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Australia’s Monash University, in a press release from Monash University.

“Our study shows that improvements in a person’s level of self-control are related to changes in their involvement in crime over time. It also shows that marriage is a significant source of those improvements,” said Dr. Forrest.

The researchers used data from the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) in order to test “empirical associations between the occurrence of key life events such as marriage, employment, and military service, and desistance from crime.”

NOM's Tweet on the matter says "promote marriage btwn 1 man 1 woman" and yet the original article makes no mention of marriage being "1 man 1 woman." If NOM really did want to reduce crime, they would promote gay marriage as well.


Of course, one could point out that states that allow gay marriage (MA, IA, CT, NH, NY, VT) have relatively few prisoners per 100,000 people compared to states that ban gay marriage (Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Arizona). I'd like to point out that the three highest incarceration rate per 100,000 people occur in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama. What do these states have in common? All of them ban same sex marriage and do not recognize other types of same sex unions. The next tier, containing Texas, Arizona, Mississippi, and Florida all ban same-sex marriage, with Arizona being the only one of those four that recognizes other types of same-sex unions.


Massachusetts and New Hampshire fall into the lowest tier of incarcerations per 100,000 people (Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 with the court ruling Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health). New York, Vermont, and Iowa all fall into the next-lowest tier for incarcerations, with CT falling into the third-lowest tier).


Therefore, one could make the argument that the legalization of gay marriage helps to reduce the crime rate in states, if incarcerations per 100,000 population are the measure of crime in a state. I think NOM's tweet should read "Want to reduce crime? Promote same-sex marriage".