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".

NOM's Double Speak

http://www.nomblog.com/13941

“It makes little sense to claim you care about educational failure, violence and poverty, and then say you don’t care about people getting and staying married,” countered Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage. Lack of support for traditional marriage, she said, “is the source of a huge part of these problems in Maryland.”

... “It is sad the the only thing the governor wants to do for marriage is redefine it by cutting it off from its roots” in child-rearing, said Gallagher.

Firstly, I've already addressed the lack of link between marriage and child-rearing, so Mrs. Gallagher is wrong on that count. Though I must commend Mrs. Gallagher, who, despite having a bastard child, is still committed to making sure that no children are born out of wedlock in the future.

Second, it's blatant double-speak to call for people to get married and then actively deny them the right to marry whom they love. It's as if Mrs. Gallagher is telling people to get married, so long as Mrs. Gallagher says it's okay. And NOM's side has the audacity to call equality activists tyrants. 

Censorship

http://www.nomblog.com/13905/

One of the biggest promises of the Internet was that it would have unfettered free speech for all.

However, a new study released Thursday revealed that Christians are one of the few groups being censored online.

The new media platforms of our world -- Facebook, Google, Apple, and MySpace -- all promise a world filled with much more free speech and democracy.

But the National Religious Broadcasters has warned these platforms could well be the new anti-religious censors of our day.

The NRB conducted a study of the social networking websites that showed even among the largest of the sites, only Twitter hasn't censored Christians.

I'm going to propose a new rule. When you censor comments on your own blog that are contributing to the discussing but offer a differing viewpoint (as many of my comments have been but not made it past NOM's censors), then you aren't allowed to complain when someone censors your point of view. Does that seem fair to everyone?

As for the study itself, it was conducted by the National Religious Board. I am not going to say that they have an agenda to fill, but I will say that the study would have more weight behind it, in my mind, if it were conducted by an independent group, or a group that looks at civil rights and censorship (like the ACLU). I am against censorship, even censorship of unpopular views. 

I would like to point out my favorite quote from the original article, however.

"Then you're thinking, 'Wait just a minute. We've crossed over into this netherworld where offense is now the justification upon which the rights we have as Americans to fully engage in the culture and to debate all issues is going to be decided?'" May asked"


It's funny, because Christians, the group allegedly being censored, oppose gay rights and gay marriage because it morally offends them. I guess that it is a worse crime to have your first amendment rights violated than it is to have your fourteenth amendment rights violated.


The last thing I will add is that gay people, in some countries and in some areas of the US, also have their first amendment rights trampled upon, not being able to say "I'm gay" without fear of community backlash (e.g. bullying in school, which has lead to suicides). So please, NOM and Christians, do NOT play the victim here; if anything, you perpetuate a culture of dehumanizing someone for their identity. That is FAR worse than not being able to say "Gay marriage is bad because..."

NY Clerks and Marriage Licenses

http://www.nomblog.com/13839

People for the American Way Foundation (PFAW) is threatening legal action against a New York town unless its clerk starts issuing same-sex marriage licenses — or resigns.

Rose Marie Belforti made national headlines last month when she announced that her Christian beliefs would not allow her to sign same-sex marriage licenses, and that a deputy clerk would now fulfill this particular task.

According to PFAW, Belforti has committed a misdemeanor for refusing to personally issue two women a marriage license on Aug. 30. If the board fails to force Belforti to “perform her essential duties” or resign, the liberal advocacy group vows to take legal action on the women’s behalf.

So, NOM has decided to take the side of Ms. Beiforti in this scenario of Ms. Beiforti refusing to do her job based on moral reasons. It's funny because NOM attacked Obama for doing the same with DOMA. I guess so long as it's "defending marriage," any tactic is okay. Of course, if Maggie or Brian wishes to dispute this, I would love the chance to present an interview on this blog so that they might explain the double standards of their organization.

And this wouldn't be complete without ignorant comments from the site, so, let's begin with one from Michael Ejercito

Just like the NYC government forced its police department to issue pistol permits to those not legally prohibited from carrying pistols?


So, Mr. Ejercito, in your mind, the proliferation of gay marriage in the state of New York is similar to the proliferation of handguns in New York City? That certainly reveals the feelings of Mr. Ejercito towards gay marriage and it's impact on society.




Here is a comment from Louis E.


Like the ACLU,PFAW is a group my family *used* to support,until they got involved in issues where we were not in agreement with their stand...


Yeah, why would anyone want to support an organization whose stated purpose is to protect the rights of Americans everywhere?




Last one, from TC Matthews.



Live and let live right? Why is it so necessary to *force* everyone into agreement? It's not enough to force the redefinition of marriage on the nation, but we all have to like it too. Ridiculous.


This one requires a little more dissection.


1). Live and let live? Sort of like this marriage clerk is doing? 
2). It's not forcing anyone into a moral agreement, it is just trying to get Ms. Belforti to do the job she was elected to do. 
3). You don't have to like it, you merely have to abide by the law. For example, I find it absolutely appalling that there are speed limits on the road. I do not agree with them morally (why should the government tell me how fast I can go?). And yet if I break the law, I get in trouble. Weird, right?
4). The only thing ridiculous is the outrage of Mr. Matthews, surpassed only by the sheer inanity of NOM for implicitly defending someone deliberately not doing her job. 

NOM's own echo-chamber

http://www.nomblog.com/9301/

All of which serves to create the desired "echo chamber" effect:

A report by the Media Consortium detailed how progressives had created an "echo chamber" of outlets "in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times." According to the report called "The Big Thaw," "if done well, the message within the echo chamber can become the accepted meme, impact political dynamics, shift public opinion and change public policy."

NOM accuses George Soros of an echo-chamber effect? It's funny, since NOM does the exact same thing (Ruth Institute is deeply connected to NOM, as part of it's "education fund").  And if that wasn't enough, NOM constantly blogs or tweets when it gets coverage in other media. Except when it's bad. 


I wouldn't be upset about this, but don't accuse others of a tactic that you yourself are doing. But then again, when you are desperate for attention as NOM is, then you're allowed to go against your own words.