NOM's stolen photo

http://www.nomblog.com/15222/

For this one, I've decided to break it down by sections, because, quite frankly, Mr. Brown is ridiculous. My responses will be in italics

My Friends,

Rachel Maddow and her friends on the left are all atwitter about a photo collage created for the www.NHforMarriage.com website that NOM is sponsoring with allies in New Hampshire who are working with us to repeal same-sex marriage there.

You may recall that marriage was redefined in New Hampshire in 2009 after Tim Gill funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into the pockets of Democratic legislators and Governor John Lynch. Lynch ran for office as a traditional marriage supporter, but he betrayed the people of New Hampshire when he agreed to sign the same-sex marriage legislation into law

Brian, who are you to attack Tim Gill for funneling money towards campaigns? After all, Brian, aren’t you pledging 2 million dollars to defeat the four Republican Senators who voted for marriage equality in NY? With all due respect, Brian, you don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to money issues, given NOM’s history of flouting campaign finance laws. Second, he didn’t BETRAY anyone. A majority of senators voted for it, and he signed it into law. You see, Brian, our government works by electing representatives who vote for us. Those representatives voted for it and Lynch agreed to sign it. That is not betrayal, that is how government works.

NOM is committed to overturning that terrible legislative decision, and the people of New Hampshire are with us. Last year, voters in dozens of towns passed referenda demanding their right to vote on the definition of marriage. The referendum measures passed overwhelmingly (the average vote was 63% Yes to 37% No). Not a single town that considered the issue defeated it. Then a year ago, the voters threw out the Democrats who had voted to redefine marriage and replaced them with an overwhelming pro-marriage majority!

Terrible in your opinion. Popular opinion would suggest that you are in the minority, Brian. And Brian, there is not “right to vote on the definition of marriage”. Why? Because, as much as you like to argue that marriage-equality supporters are trying to “redefine” marriage, allowing the populace to vote on a definition of marriage is by its very nature redefining something. Additionally, it sets two dangerous precedents. 1). Allowing the majority to vote on the rights of the minority, and 2). Allowing popular opinion to determine “definitions”. I’m sure Sarah Palin could scrounge up enough support to make refudiate a word.

It's no accident that Maddow and her allies in the gay activist community chose Tuesday to issue their breathless "expose" about NOM's photo "controversy"—on Tuesday the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly to repeal same-sex marriage! Neither Maddow nor her friends at the Human Rights Campaign can defend imposing same-sex marriage on New Hampshire with no vote of the people

Gay marriage has NEVER been imposed on anyone, Brian. We have three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. In cases like Massachusetts and Iowa, the judicial branch ruled that marriage equality was constitutional. In New Hampshire, the legislative branch voted on marriage. The people voted by voting in their state representatives and senators.

So they issue "reports" and press releases criticizing NOM over a photo collage! They object to us using a photo of a crowd scene, which symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort. They're upset that the photo was not taken at a NOM rally. Seriously?! NOM using a common use photo in the public domain is considered a great scandal, yet they can redefine marriage—the most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire voters—and nobody is supposed to object?

Okay, Brian. I’ll play your game. So, I have taken the liberty of making a (badly) photoshopped image of a Nazi rally in WWII Germany, and superimposed your image over that of Hitler. I mean, a public image is a public image, right? And It’s not the photo that matters. It is symbolic of the effort of traditional marriage supporters like yourself. And again, it wasn’t against the wishes of New Hampshire voters. They voted in those politicians to represent their views. That, and again, public opinion supports marriage equality.

It's as if the institution of marriage gets mugged, and they complain about speeding in the neighborhood when someone rushes it to the hospital!

Mugged? Really? That’s the analogy you’re going to use? That’s pretty tasteless of you considering all of the gaybashing that goes on in the real world and bullying that leads to suicides, and the callous response of teachers, who tell students to "act less gay". But then again, Brian, I expect that from you, given your deep ties to the Catholic Church who says that the devil causes gayness. And I don’t know about you, but most people I know that have gotten mugged didn’t need to go to the hospital; they need to go to the police station to report it, and when they do, they don’t speed to get there or run. And just so we’re clear, you’re advocating speeding (breaking the law) in order to “fix marriage”. If that’s not Machiavellian “ends justify the means” I don’t know what is.

Let's teach Rachel Maddow and her pals at the HRC what's really important in this debate in New Hampshire. We've swapped out photos on the www.NHforMarriage.com site to avoid the distraction, now it's time to focus on the real controversy.

So you stopped plagiarizing and are now ready to focus on “the real controversy”. Would that be you now asking people to donate only $99 so that they can remain anonymous? Washington State ruled that there is no threat of harassment, after all, so what are you people afraid of? Don’t you want to take a public stand against marriage? Hell, Strom Thurman took a public filibuster stand against equal rights for blacks in the fifties.

Join with us to restore the law to what it was before Tim Gill and John Lynch hijacked it following hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions.

Call your legislators and ask them to support HB437 to restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman and reinstate civil unions for gay couples. And please make a contribution of $43.70 to help us win this battle. This is going to be a tough fight. Maddow and her uber-liberal allies can be expected to try every dirty trick in the book to defeat us because they know that if we are successful, it will be a tremendous setback for them. But by supporting HB 437 and making a contribution of $43.70 (or whatever you can afford), you'll be showing the left that we are going to win!

Hijacked? Are they terrorists now? And they didn’t hijack anything. IT WAS VOTED ON. Stop spreading your lies, Brian, because people will always be there to call you out on them. And $43.70 is a cute donation total. I like that you also failed to mention that it allows for civil unions for incestuous couples, too. Just for the record, you are okay with brother and sister marrying and having kids if it means marriage is “one man one woman”. And you can’t really accuse others of using dirty tricks, given that NOM bussed in supporters to protest gay couples getting married in NY on July 24^th, and that NOM constantly ignores campaign finance disclosure laws. NOM also has tried numerous scare tactics regarding children to try and win.

Mr. Brown, your attempt to get attention from the real issue here is far from admirable. NOM blatantly LIED to misrepresent its own public support, and then, when called out on it, says that it did not matter. It is great to know that you are okay with telling lies to support your own position, Mr. Brown. I can see that Ms. Gallagher has taught you well.

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.

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 lying headline

http://www.nomblog.com/12893/

NOM"s headline reads "

NJ School District Yanks Lesbian Sex Book From Required Middle School Summer Reading List"

And yet the article describes it as a high school. So NOM blatantly lied in the title of their headline. 

And as for the matter itself, it's a book. There have been several banned books that are of great literary merit, such as The Catcher in the Rye, Fahrenheit 451, or even Lord of the Flies. It always deeply troubles me when parents attempt to censor what students in high school read. Reading gives us new ideas and forces us to think about ideas we might not have thought about otherwise. 


For the record, the book in question (at least according to NOM's picture on the site) is Norweigan Wood which is really well reviewed. Also, in case you are lazy and not fond of clicking links, the book was insanely popular when it came out in Japan, selling nearly 4 million copies.