Today's Press Release from NOM

Sorry -- excuse me: they're calling it an amicus curiae brief. It just reads like a press release, starting with NOM's version of the questions to be argued:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to redefine marriage and license a marriage between two people of the same sex, contrary to express, recently reaffirmed vote of the people of the state?

2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex performed out of state, when doing so is contrary to the state’s own fundamental policy decision?

The questions the court actually wanted addressed are as follows:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

It goes downhill from there. The whole brief is at the first link above. I may come back to it -- it's a cloudy, nasty day, so I may get bored enough to pick it apart.

Never Say Die!

The "Christian" right never gives up -- I guess because they have God's Truth™ on their side. The downside, of course, is that they get farther and farther away from any recognizable reality. Take this little rant from Brian Brown, which I'm going to parse on the run. You can read the whole thing, if you really want to, at the link.

Fanfare! With trumpets!

Over 50 million Americans who stood for marriage in 30 states will finally have their day in Court! I have to tell you that I am totally pumped to finally get our day in court.

I don't know how to break it to you, but you've had your day in court -- dozens of times. And all but eight times, you lost. Six of those eight cases are going to the Supreme Court, buttressed by a decision that deals with none of the issues the Court wants to hear.

I think the mainstream media is wrong and it will turn out that we win this case!

It's not the mainstream media, it's the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuit courts. (The 2nd and 3rd are moot -- those states already have marriage equality; the 1st has one case on appeal -- Puerto Rico -- and marriage equality in all other states in the circuit. And based on the reaction of the judges during oral arguments, the 5th looks like a win for our side.)

I just don't see how Justice Kennedy, likely the swing vote, can distance himself from the strong reasoning he used in the Windsor case where he said that states have historically regulated marriage and the federal government could not substitute its judgment for the decision of a state.

1) Exactly -- Kennedy was talking about the Congress overriding the states; and 2) He was also quite clear that those state regulations have to conform to constitutional guarantees of individual rights.

. . . we will never lose marriage because marriage is a universal truth.

Um -- is that supposed to mean something? Because it doesn't.

And regardless, defeatism is a recipe for disaster, a byproduct of the gay 'marriage' lobby's carefully crafted strategic plan: to convince ordinary Americans that the battle is already lost and to give up the fight.

OK, this is funny. Brown seems to think that the "gay marriage lobby" is in control of the federal court system -- mind-control waves or something? Oh, and the majority of "ordinary Americans" support marriage equality.

Some things are too easy.

Oh, by the way -- according to Joe.My.God., there are three separate money begs in that post.

Marriage News Watch, November 24, 2014 (Update)

We picked up three states with marriage this week. But in one of those states, some clerks are refusing to issue licenses. Alabama's attorneys are using a discredited anti-gay researcher to build a case for banning marriage. And we have more bad news for what's left of the National Organization for Marriage.

Citing the Regnerus (Witherspoon Foundation) study? At this stage of the game? Well, it's Alabama.

And I wrote about NOM's troubles here, although I did neglect to mention the $50,000+ fine they're facing in Maine, which is still outstanding.


Update: Equality Kansas has provided some clear information on the state of marriage in Kansas. And isn't Sam Brownback just a mean-spirited, spiteful little bitch?

Now We Know

Why Brian Brown's fundraising appeals have gotten so desperate:

In a time when virtually every nightly newscast, political debate, even television series delves into discussions about marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, the beleaguered National Organization for Marriage (NOM) can’t seem to raise enough money to cover its expenses. According to analysis of the organization’s 2013 tax filings done by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), NOM raised $5.1 million in 2013, dropping by over 50% since 2012. Just 2 donors accounted for more than half of the organization’s funding – further evidence that everyday Americans have little interest in furthering NOM’s extremist agenda. In addition, the NOM Education Fund also dropped by nearly $3.5 million in funding -- a drop of almost 70% since the previous year. NOM ended the year more than $2.5 million in debt.

Any guesses on which two churches are the major donors? Oops -- did I say that out loud?

I don't normally gloat, but in this case, I'll make an exception.

Poor Brian Brown

He just can't seem to win one these days. From the NOM blog, via Joe.My.God.:

This is another outrageous example of judicial activism. An activist judge has overreached her authority and chosen to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire state of New Jersey. Judge Jacobson has trampled on the right of the people of New Jersey to define marriage, a right that the Supreme Court has upheld in the very case she misuses to redefine marriage. This is a gross abuse of power that cannot be allowed to stand. We urge Governor Chris Christie to appeal this lower court ruling immediately. It’s essential that a single lower court judge not be allowed to impose her own views of marriage on the entire state

.

The real story, via Good As You, from NJ.com:

Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal had argued that after the U.S. Supreme Court extended more than 1,000 tax and inheritance benefits to same-sex couples in June, New Jersey was left behind with "second-class" civil unions that could not reap those legal boons and protections.

Jacobson, the head judge in Mercer County, agreed.

"The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts," she wrote.

For example, the judge said, "civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy."

Gov. Christie's administration will appeal, but given the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2006 decision that the state must grant equal rights to same-sex couples, I don't see any reversal happening. The full opinion is at the link.

Now, comparing the reality of the case with Brown's over-the-top hysterics, I think we can unanimously present Brown and NOM with the Through the Looking Glass Award.

Happy Fourth!

I've just had my ritual 4th of July hot dog, with cole slaw, and am determined to take it easy for the rest of the day, after my second visit to the emergency room in ten days.

I thought it might be a good time to ruminate on just what the holiday means, because it obviously means different things to different people. Take this little rant from Brian Brown, of the hysterically mis-named National Organization for Marriage, via Joe.My.God. I'm going to do a little parsing on this one.

First, the headline with graphic:

Who said we have to? No one on our side of the fight. I can be gay and American at the same time, and there are millions like me, much as it might sour Brian Brown's stomach. Any guesses as to who is trying to cast whom as "The Other" (cue scary music, with storm clouds)?

We're a nation where citizen rights come from God, not from government, and where the people are sovereign, not politicians or judges.

And that happens to be whatever god you worship. The government merely recognizes those rights, which is what the two cases that have raised Brown's blood pressure lately were about. Oh, and the people do not have unlimited sovereignty and never have -- we have this little thing called "The Constitution of the United States of America," which among other things guarantees those rights, in spite of everything "the people" might do to circumvent them. See in that regard Romer v. Evans.

But those principles are under siege, by the culture, by our federal government and, increasingly, by the US Supreme Court. We need your help to fight to preserve America's founding principles such as religious liberty which is greatly at risk wherever marriage is redefined.

Let's see, "under siege" by "the culture" -- that would be "the people," if I remember correctly. The members of a society are, after all, the ones who determine the culture's direction.

As for religious liberty being "greatly at risk wherever marriage is redefined" -- what the Supreme Court did, in both Perry and Windsor, is to restore the religious liberty of those whose beliefs were being dismissed by the government, although the question was never couched in those terms. Think of it this way: if a sectarian idea of "morality" and/or "marriage" is imposed on society as a whole, particularly a society as diverse as ours, by definition the beliefs of those who do not hold that sectarian idea are being violated. That's a no-no. See Lawrence v. Texas.

Our opponents blithely claim that religious liberty and same-sex 'marriage' [sic] can peacefully coexist, but experience shows that is not the case. Anybody who doesn't abandon their faith principles and fully cooperate with the new gay marriage regime is likely to face consequences.

Of course religious liberty and same-sex marriage can co-exist. The ones who are having problems with it are the ones who want to impose their personal religious beliefs on everyone. No one is stopping them from believing what they wish, nor from worshipping as they wish. No clergy is being forced to solemnize a same-sex wedding against the doctrines of their religions. What Brown is attempting to do is conflate same-sex marriage with existing non-discrimination laws governing public accommodations. That's the new mantra from the right, and it applies equally to pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control to business owners who don't want to pay for insurance coverage for family planning, to bakers and florists who do not want to "participate" in same-sex weddings. (Which frankly I think is laughable -- you're being asked to provide goods, not be part of the wedding night.)

As for the "consequences" -- yeah. People are going to think you're a small-minded bigot. Know what? You are.

I think one reason my blogging has fallen off as marriage has risen to the front of the civil rights debate is simply that the likes of Brown and Perkins and their ilk have gotten terrifically repetitive. The didn't have very good "arguments" (see, I can use sarcasm quotes too) to begin with, and they haven't come up with anything new. It gets pretty boring refuting the same bullshit over and over again.

At any rate, I think Brown gets a Tony Perkins Award for this one. It's pretty much a lie from the beginning to the end.

I Leave Home for a Couple of Hours

And another country mandates marriage equality.

Brazil makes fifteen.

Note to Brian Brown: Sorry, Brian -- it's a wave.

Repent!

Or should that be "The sky is falling!"? Brian Brown, working himself into a frenzy:

The National Organization for Marriage today condemned the Minnesota Legislature for redefining marriage and predicted that the vote will lead to the DFL losing their majority in the 2014 election.

"Just six months ago advocates of redefining marriage said that there was no need for the marriage amendment because Minnesota already had a traditional marriage law on the books. Now, they’ve changed that law and imposed genderless marriage,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Make no mistake, this vote will bring the demise of the DFL majority and end the
careers of wayward Republicans in the Legislature once voters have their say."

[. . .]

"The people of Minnesota did not vote for gay marriage in 2012,” said Brown. “They voted to maintain traditional marriage by maintaining the status quo. Our opponents bought a victory by claiming that marriage was not under threat of redefinition, but in fact they always intended to redefine it at the soonest possible moment. Legislators who voted to redefine marriage were foolish to do so. They cast a terrible vote that damages society, tells children they don’t deserve a mother and a father, and brands supporters of traditional marriage as bigots. We predict that this vote will be career ending for many legislators in Minnesota."

Well, it's nice to see them admit that maintaining the status quo means voting for discrimination.

And actually, the people of Minnesota voted against restricting marriage to NOM-approved couples. Seems to me that same-sex marriage is a natural result of that.

The rest of it is the usual BS, but I really wish I were in a position to pin Brown down on one thing: how, exactly, does same-sex marriage destroy society? I mean, there has to be a way that happens, right? What is it?

And I think this probably has something to do with the rant:

NOM was the largest funder of the marriage amendment campaign in 2012.

Loser.

Via Joe.My.God.

And as an antidote to Brown, here's a speech by Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk:

They Can't Help Themselves

Tone-deaf, to say the least (AP, via NOM Exposed):

"You're looking at what is the best course society wide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief [Justice] Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. Eastman also teaches law at Chapman University law school in Orange, Calif.

I'm sure Eastman meant it to be a positive comment, but the way it's being interpreted (at least in the gay blogosphere) is anything but -- the take is that the's slamming adoptive families. Positive or not, I wonder how the Chief Justice would react to being called "second best."

Read the AP story -- it's very interesting.

I know, I know. . . .

I haven't been posting much lately. That's what reading the news these days will do to you. Let me see if I can find something of interest. . . .

First off, one of the Liars for Jesus(TM), Brian Brown, who has this to say in the wake of Maryland's successful ballot initiative to recognize same-sex marriages:

Well, actually no. No one's being "forced" to do anything.

"We’re a Christian-owned company, and we just can't support gay marriages," Grubbs said. "We're not trying to make a statement. We're not trying to make a point. We're just trying to be faithful Christians."

A couple of things about this: Maryland has had a gay-inclusive non-discrimination law on the books for a while. Suddenly, when it involves legal recognition of same-sex relationships, it's an intolerable burden on the religious beliefs of the owner of a public accommodation. Interesting timing, isn't it?

And yes, he is trying to make a statement -- if you read the story, he's petitioned for a religious exemption to the non-discrimination laws on the basis of his personal religious beliefs. The statement he's making is that his private beliefs trump everyone else's right to be treated equally under the law.

Read the comments at the article -- the ones about "government guns" are a scream.

And there you have a sterling example of why "Christian" has come to be synonymous with "bigot."

Oh, and Brian Brown is lying, but we sorta figured that. It's Brian Brown, after all, who I think gets today's Tony Perkins Award.

And next, the Liberty Counsel, trying to push the idea the belief is fact:

Pay special attention to the first sentence, and then read the rest. "Drug addiction"? That's certainly respectful, isn't it? It occurs to me that one could draw the same parallels, with a stronger correspondence, between drug addiction and adherence to certain forms of Christianity -- that certainly becomes a dependency, which, if you know anything about the science of sexual orientation, homosexuality is not.

The whole screed comes from some alternate universe, it really does.

Via.

On the home front, so to speak, marriage equality is coming to Illinois, one way or another, pretty soon. Some interesting numbers from PPP:

Fifty-eight percent of voters under age 45 support marriage equality, compared with 37 percent who oppose it, the poll found. Black voters supported same-sex marriage 60/16, PPP said. Latinos supported Illinois marriage equality at 70/23. The majority of white voters did not support same-sex marriage in Illinois with 40 percent supporting and 51 percent opposing.

The overall figure is still a plurality, and there's no way to figure how that's going to translate into votes in the legislature, but there's a court case that the state if refusing to defend, so the whole question of legislative action may become moot.

Maybe I should start husband-hunting.

The "fiscal cliff." Gods! what a bunch of bullshit. Margaret and Helen, bless 'em, have the best take:

In truth, I am pretty disgusted with all politicians right now. They’ve all gotten a little too predictable for my taste. Republicans want more money for the wealthy and more war. Democrats want to take care of the poor, the elderly and want more money for education programs… On second thought, I’m really just disgusted with Republican politicians.

If this is the best we can expect from Republican leadership, we have a bigger problem than going over some cliff. How about we just pass the President’s plan? If it fails, the Republicans might actually stand a chance in the next election. If it succeeds, the Republicans might finally have to move into the 21st Century.

Show me a fiscal cliff and I will gladly push McConnell and Boehner over the edge. Maybe then the grown ups can roll up their sleeves and get something done. Because how the hell is any deep thinking going to happen if those two insist on spending the whole day pissing in the baby pool? I mean it. Really.

Footnote: This is just the frosting on the cake:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced legislation to raise the debt ceiling on Thursday, apparently with the intent of showing that even Democrats would not support such a bill.

However, McConnell’s plan backfired after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a vote on the legislation, which would have given the president the authority to raise the federal debt ceiling on his own. The top Senate Republican was forced to filibuster his own bill.

And here I though Rand Paul was the stupidest sitting senator.

This is the Republican-controlled Senate:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

And on the happy side, Washington State began issuing marriage licenses at 12:01 am yesterday. And lots of couples were there to take advantage of the early opening.

Jane Abbott Lighty and Pete-e Petersen, a West Seattle couple of 35 years, were the first couple to get a license, after waiting decades to get marrired. As the clock struck midnight, a crowd led by King County Executive Dow Constantine clapped and cheered, and Lighty, 77, and Petersen, 85, raised their hands to take an oath.

"People who have been waiting all these years to have their rights recognized should not have to wait one minute longer," said Constantine, who stayed up into the wee hours to issue the county's first marriage licenses.

"To have our 35-year loving relationship publicly honored and celebrated and have this be a legal marriage means everything to both of us," said Lighty, a former nurse. She and Petersen, a former Korean War flight nurse, will be wed at a Seattle Men's Chorus concert at Benaroya Hall this weekend.

Because of Washington's three-day waiting period, the first weddings will take place on Sunday.

And in Maryland, which also began issuing licenses yesterday, the couples have to wait until Jan. 1 to be married, although the attorney general said it was OK to issue post-dated licenses.

Maine's marriage law takes effect on Dec. 29, a Saturday, but there's no waiting period. And the Portland City Hall will open at 12:01 am.

There, that's enough of a catch-up.

The Tony Perkins Award

To Brian Brown, of NOM, via Joe.My.God.:

Starbucks supported same sex marriage, saw their support from Republicans dwindle, missed sales projections, and watched the company lose $4.4 billion overnight and over $10 billion from their 2012 high. While executives of publicly traded companies have had a wonderful time claiming that not supporting same-sex marriage hurts their employee recruitment and retention efforts, we now have a case study in how alienating millions of customers can directly affect the bottom line of a public company and damage shareholder value."

As Joe points out, Starbucks missed their forecast, but sales increased 7% in the U.S.
And their stock price has soared.

No Comment

Because no comment is necessary. Via Box Turtle Bulletin from NOM:

“Bachelorette” star Ryan Bowers tweeted his support for Chick-fil-A and the “sanctity of marriage” on the Appreciation Day:

“Everyone is eating at chik fil-a today to support the Kathy family and their stand for the sanctity of marriage!!! Lv it!”

And if, like me, you don't watch much TV:

For those who are not familiar with the series, Bachelorette is a television show on which a couple dozen men compete for the privilege of marrying a woman.

By all means, let's preserve the sanctity of marriage. I mean, what could be more in line with "traditional marriage" than making it the prize in a game show?

(OK, so I made a comment -- I really couldn't resist.)

The FRC Incident -- Today's Round-up

It's interesting that the FRC incident is causing a fair amount of introspection in the gay blogosphere. In the "Christian" blogosphere, not so much. Here are some of today's commentaries.

First, a very good post from Pam Spaulding on FRC's statement (which boils down to "It's all somebody else's fault") and SPLC's response -- because, of course, Tony Perkins blamed SPLC.

Sadly, Family Research Council’s honcho Tony Perkins took to the media today in an attempt to discredit the Southern Poverty Law Center’s accurate assessment of FRC as a hate group, charging that the organization gave shooter Floyd Corkins a license to shoot the security guard at its building in DC.

Isn't it sort of fascinating that the right insists that everyone else take responsibility for their rhetoric? Does anyone remember the rending of garments and the "mea culpas" from Perkins, or Bryan Fischer, or Peter LaBarbera, or Brian Brown, or any of them over the rash of teen suicides because of bullying over the past year or two? I thought not.

Digby, as usual, is very much on point on this one.

I left a rather lengthy comment on that one, which will serve as my commentary on that post.

A thoughtful commentary from Timothy Kincaid on words and consequences, although I think he's perhaps shouldering too much of the blame.

I know that most people who read here would never ever see anything that might cause them to think that violence towards Perkins, or any of our adversaries, is in anyway encouraged or acceptable. Most people know that “it goes without saying” that such a response would condemned without exception.

But for some people, it doesn’t go without saying. For some people, it has to be said. Some people have to be told that we will not see them as heroes if they take – or even threaten – the life of someone else.

Do I say it enough?

I left a comment there to the effect that we need to divorce the words from the people. Tony Perkins, in and of himself, is nothing. It's his words that are damaging and hateful, and that is what we need to respond to. In his case, it's easy -- just start hauling out facts. He has no answer for that, except to change the subject. Don't let him.

Shifting focus to NOM, for a moment -- you'll remember that Brian Brown was first out of the gate with accusations that the shooting was the fault of SPLC, "the left," and "the vast homosexual conspiracy" -- Joe Jervis has reposted Rob Tisinai's summary of some of NOM's "civilized" discourse. I like Joe's comment, though:

Regarding the first item, I was there in the Bronx that day last year when NOM's invited speaker declared that gay people should be put to death, first in Spanish, then in English via the onstage translator. When I heard the translation, I whipped my head around to see Brian Brown smiling and rocking his heels as he nodded in approval.

Jervis has another one, this time from conspiracy theorist Dana Loesch. This time, we're at war with religion, which is a concept that I find ludicrous in the extreme. It's really nothing more than pandering on Loesch's part, in a particularly cheap manner. (For my own part, I'm admittedly not terribly observant, but I am very devout -- I can honestly say that my religious beliefs form the basis of my behavior. I'm just not a "Christian" -- or even a Christian.)

At any rate, that's enough to give you the drift: Perkins is projecting like crazy because he sees a way to capitalize on an unfortunate incident, and like his comrades in the anti-gay industry, is demanding that someone else take responsibility for the climate he has created. It's his usual tactic -- blame somebody else. But he does get the quote of the day on this one:

Asked by reporters why he thought the shooter was motivated by his distate for the group rather than mental incapacity, Perkins quipped, “How many unhinged individuals walk around with 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches?”

I would think the answer to that one would be obvious.

Word Salad

Or a reasonable facsimile thereof. There really ought to be an award for this, but I can't think what to call it. The Sarah Palin Award?

From NOM's very own Ruth Institute:

REI is the latest corporation to take a stand against biological parenthood by supporting redefining marriage. Any company and any individual who supports redefining marriage is opposing your right as a biological parent. Biological parenthood says your rights come from God. REI, Starbucks, Best Buy, Nike, Microsoft, Google, Proctor & Gamble… the list is quite extensive and they are all in opposition to the biological status of parents. They may or may not know this. But that is the what will happen if marriage is redefined. And they will be responsible for the resulting harms.

WTF? "Biological parenthood says your rights come from God"? What does that mean?

Via Joe.My.God. Joe also points out that the Ruth Institute post concludes by "glumly" linking to this Wikipedia entry on corporate support for same-sex marriage. It's quite an impressive list, headed by a disclaimer that it's not complete.

It seems to me that anyone who didn't have her head firmly planted up her ass would figure that she's missing something.

"Neutrality," and a Comment on Codes

NOM, in light of the dismal failure of its "Dump Starbucks" campaign (something like 60,000 supporters world-wide, last time I looked), has a new friend: Jitters and Bliss Coffee, which NOM is touting as an alternative to Starbucks. It's coming down around J&B's ears, apparently:

Jitters & Bliss has shown just what a scam NOM is trying to pull under the guise of this “neutrality” through the astounding mismanagement of its Facebook page today. Earlier today, J&B was censoring pro-equality comments, blocking posters who added such comments, and ultimately shut down its page for a period of time. The page rebooted this afternoon with the following message and comment, which have also since been deleted:

In light of Jitters & Bliss Coffee paid advertising on NOM website, our position has not changed. Like many companies we are NEUTRAL on the gay marriage issue. We respect our customers’ diverse views on it as with the many other issues facing our nation today. Yes, we are paying advertising on NOM, and would do so on gay sites too (with a NEUTRAL, inclusive position). Our nation is diverse as is our customer base. “God Bless you, and the USA!”

Please, no posts!

Jeremy Hooper has a couple of comments on this whole thing, here and here. (If you follow Hooper's blog at all, Good-As-You, you know he's about the most inoffensive person alive.)

Timothy Kincaid has a good take on the viability of J&B as an alternative to Starbuck's:

Now when you feel an urge for a caramel macchiato, instead of dropping in to a Starbuck you can instead go online and order a tin of coffee (comparably priced to Starbucks), wait for it to be delivered (shipping free with $50 purchase), brew it up, and enjoy a delicious cup of coffee free from the guilt of supporting the homosexual agenda.

As for Jitters & Bliss' "neutrality" -- get this (click to embiggen):

Via HRC/NOM Exposed.

Most of the coffee purveyors I've checked out emphasizes their "free trade" operations. J&B apparently does work on a free trade basis, but it emphasizes its "Christian" mission. Draw your own conclusions.

So, "neutrality" is code for acquiescence to the status quo -- that is, discrimination. It's instructive that the right feels the need to express itself in codes -- we hear code words and phrases for all those people and ideas that the right doesn't like (which is just about all of them). My own thought on that is, if what you're saying is likely to be acceptable to the public at large, you don't need to use codes.

BAM!

The cat is out of the bag. NOM Exposed has posted previously confidential internal documents from our good friends Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher that detail NOM's strategy for denying civil rights to GLBTs. And it turns out they're not only anti-gay, they're race baiters as well.

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

Alvin McEwen has a pertinent comment about this:

NOM has portrayed whatever African-American opposition to marriage equality its spotlighted as spontaneous attempts by leaders and members of the black community to keep its civil rights legacy from supposedly being "tainted" by a comparison to gay equality.

But now we see that there was nothing spontaneous about this. It was a cynically planned effort by NOM - which the organization continues to exploit - in order to drive a wedge between blacks and gays.

I wonder how the black community is going to react to the news that they've been manipulated by a bunch of white folks who want to get rid of President Obama.

Expose Obama as a social radical. Develop side issues to weaken pro-gay marriage political leaders and parties and develop an activist base of socially conservative voters. Raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level.

And then there is the Latino bloc:

"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."

Their problem there is that, while family is very important to Latinos in general, that can work against NOM: sons and daughters may be gay, but they are still family. It's also notable that Latin America is making great strides in equal rights for gays and lesbians, in some cases far ahead of the U.S. The assimilation argument is going to backfire, big time, if the folks back home in Mexico or Brazil or Argentina or Chile recognize same-sex marriages and adoption rights.

If you look at the documents (all available at the NOM Exposed link), it becomes clear that NOM is nothing more than a Republican front with a Republican agenda -- "traditional marriage" is simply a screen.

NOM is right in line with Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, the Catholic bishops, and the rest of the right-wing theocrats.

Jim Burroway has an excellent summary of the whole thing. Read McEwen's full post as well.