April 22, 2011
Cross-posted at Good As You
By Jeremy Hooper
NOM is doing it yet again. We’ve seen them cite the work of Thomas Peters and push the supposedly independent words of John Eastman without mentioning that the former is on their payroll and the latter was one of their top 2010 candidates. Now the predominately Catholic marriage group (the Catholic predominance being something else they don’t reveal) is leading off a new blog post with this line:
What they again don’t tell you about this supposedly independent researcher who is agreeing with them? Well (a) that IMAPP is Maggie Gallagher’s own group. But even more than that is (b) the fact that this same Josh Baker is also on NOM’s payroll! Whatever conclusions he reaches are financed by and meant to embolden this very same organization. Might that be something a responsible commentator would see a need to disclose? We’re gonna go with “yes.”
As for the rest of the post in question, which is meant to discredit Rhode Island’s equality activists? Well, NOM sidesteps the harms of their work, as ably documented by Politifact…
Gay couples lose out on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits that would normally go to a spouse. They can’t transfer property between themselves without possibly incurring a tax penalty, a concern married couples don’t face.
They aren’t protected by the COBRA law or the Family Medical Leave Act the way the spouse of an unemployed person is. Death benefits don’t automatically go to the partner in a gay marriage the way they go to a widow or widower.
…and focuses instead on the more obscure or complicated denied rights that are harder to substantively nail down (but that are not untrue denials), acting as if these tougher-to-flesh-out complexities somehow discredit equality activists’ claims. Though as we’ve shown you time and time again: If NOM would spend more time focusing on their own lack of transparency and outright disingenuous behavior and stopped working so hard to “gotcha” their opposition, our political discourse would be much richer than it is today.