Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Filed under: NOM Exposed

Golden Oldie: Chick-Fil-A’s WinShape Foundation: Now partnering with NOM’s Ruth Institute

This Golden Oldie recalls the story Jeremy broke on Chick-Fil-A partnering with NOM, which made headline news around the country and spurred a continuous boycott. The extensive comment thread on the news with 234 comments can be found here.

We at P8TT are taking Christmas through New Year’s off, with occasional light posting. Golden Oldies you requested will run in the place of regular posts. If you’d like to suggest one from this year, please leave your suggestion in the comment thread. Regularly scheduled programming will resume on January 2nd -Adam

This is a very weird story Jeremy just broke- and which includes video of Jennifer from right here at NOM Tour Tracker.

Also, if a logo at the bottom of the Ruth Institute’s new site isn’t good enough for you, consider that the logo is that same as that of Winshape Marriage, which is Chick-Fil-A’s project to strengthen “traditional marriage” through camp retreats and counseling. That project is also listed on the Wikipedia page for Winshape Foundation. It can also be accessed through http://www.winshape.org.

Basically, Chick-Fil-A and Ruth Institute are, apparently, now working hand-in-hand. Read on -Adam

Cross-posted at Good as You

By Jeremy Hooper

Okay so this is going to take a little explanation. But stick with it. It’s a good find, especially in light of the recent Chick-Fil-A/Pennsylvania Family Institute sponsorship controversy and Chick-Fil-A’s corporate silence on the matter.

So alright, let’s begin with some background on the two players we’ll be discussing:

  • Screen Shot 2011-01-06 At 2.46.27 PmThe Winshape Foundation is the charitable of Chick-Fil-A and its founder Truett Cathy. The foundation has several Christian focuses, all focused on strengthening certain values. Fair enough. In a perfect world we would all be able to come together and jointly work for some of their very valid goals.

Okay, so Ruth has been pushing something called The Reel Love Video Challenge. We showed you a promo for the contest back in December. Basically, the idea is for young people to make :30 second videos telling what lifelong love means to them. And again, just like with the Winshape Foundation’s work, the whole contest would be totally benign and even positive, if not for Ruth/NOM’s agenda towards LGBT people.

Right, so today we were mindlessly knocking around the Reel Love video site, primarily as a distraction. However, through our bored surfing we happened to catch note of a few new references to something unfamiliar to our “culture war” eyes. Something called LoveIsHere.com:

(red arrows are ours)

201101061447

[SOURCE: Ruth Institute’s Reel Love Video Challenge]

Never before hearing of such a site, we grew curious. So the next thing we did was take a look at the coding of the Ruth Institute’s “Reel Love” site as one commonly does, right?). This is what we found:

201101061433

[SOURCE: Ruth Institute’s Reel Love Video Challenge]

For the non-HTML geeky: Basically the highlighted coding shows that the frame on the site into which the videos are posted is actually not hosted on Ruth’s “Reel Love” site, but rather is coming from a separate, unannounced ‘Love Is Here” site. So growing even more curious, we headed over to LoveIsHere.com, where the only content at this point is this:

Screen Shot 2011-01-06 At 2.34.40 Pm

[SOURCE: LoveIsHere.com]

Okay, so this landing page is written in the same theme and style as the “Reel Love” contest. So it would seem that this is a planned effort that Ruth will use to turn this contest into further movement for their cause. Right. Whatever. Not out of line for them to do so, as far as the effort itself goes.

But — but, but but: It’s when one looks down a little further on this launch page that it gets interesting:

Screen Shot 2011-01-06 At 2.36.50 Pm

[SOURCE: LoveIsHere.com]

See what it says down there? Yup, that’s right: This planned site with undeniable ties to Ruth (and therefore NOM) is a project of Chick-Fil-A’s WinShape Foundation. The same Chick-Fil-A that already has some unanswered questions regarding a (now-scrubbed) sponsorship claimed by Pennsylvania’s leading anti-marriage equality group.

Now, who knows how LGBT-focused this yet-to-launch site will be. The content plan that we dug up doesn’t seem explicitly LGBT-focused:

Screen Shot 2011-01-06 At 2.40.22 Pm

But still: The Ruth Institute is *BEYOND* focused on gays and the civil discrimination thereof. Morse even tours around on NOM-sanctioned buses for that “godly” cause:

When we see major American companies getting in bed with that which threatens our own bedrooms, we can’t help but take note. Here’s hoping Chick-Fil-A/WinShape (to whom we’ve registered contact) will this time offer a response.

***

*UPDATE: In a very odd turn of events, the site seems to have somewhat launched in the literally minutes since our post went up. Now when one loads the site, the 1/11/11 landing page is (usually) gone and there is some aggregated content from other sources. We say “usually,” because sometimes we still get the landing page.

*UPDATE2: Here’s the direct LIH page where the Ruth contest is hosted: http://loveishere.com/partners/videos/2/drjweighsin.html. Also, Ruth’s E.D. created a pdf document wherein she encourage bloggers to embed the contest, complete with LIH URL, onto their own sites. The connections could not be more obvious.

**UPDATE3: It seems the plan is to launch this LIH effort on Saturday January 8th, with a featured 60 second spot airing during the TV movie CHANGE OF PLANS (on FOX, 8pm EST). This per an email posted on Bill Coffin’s site. The same Bill Coffin who, on 12/1/10, Tweeted the following:

Screen Shot 2011-01-06 At 4.08.07 Pm

1 Comment December 28, 2011

NOM’s donor base revealed to be small and shrinking

By Jacob Combs

As you may recall, NOM’s been facing an uphill legal battle in Washington to keep the identities of individuals who signed its anti-gay petitions secret.  In an article published today, The Washington Independent brings us the not surprising but still telling revelation that the overwhelming majority of NOM’s financial contributions come, in fact, from just two individuals.

2010 was a good year from NOM in terms of dollar signs–the organization reported its greatest individual donations since its creation in 2007.  But NOM’s donor pool, while deep-pocketed, is extremely small.  According to NOM’s own IRS filings, which were obtained by the Independent, just two donors gave over $6 million to NOM’s political operations, accounting for almost two-thirds of the organization’s operating costs.  Single donations of less than $5,000 made up just 8 percent of reported revenue.

Even more revealing is the fact that NOM’s donor base seems to be shrinking.  In 2009, contributions over $5,000 made up around 78 percent of contributions; last year, they made up 92 percent.  This is the kind of duplicity we’ve come to expect from NOM, and it just goes to show how laughable their attempts to portray themselves as a ‘grassroots’ organization really are.  Don’t forget, this is the group that used an Obama rally photo as part of its press releases to pretend its events could actually draw crowds.  NOM may rich and powerful, but representative of a broad community of like-minded individuals it is not.

22 Comments December 12, 2011

Days and Slights: This Week in NOM (Nov. 6 – Nov. 12)

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

Dear NOM Watcher,

My husband hurt his knee this week. Not sure why or how, but he’s been in some real pain that’s proving slow to heal. Sucks.

I’ve done all that I can to help him. Knee brace. Naproxen. Ice packs. Johnnie Walker. Because that’s what a spouse does: He or she steps up at a time of weakness, helping his or her beloved regain lost footing.

It’s at these times of illing and ailing that the NOM agenda really makes me angry. Not annoyed, determined, weary, or humored by the organization’s lack of self awareness, the usual emotions that NOM engenders within me in various combos at various times. No, no — when I’m watching my nearest and dearest cringe in a pain that I’d gladly take on so that he wouldn’t have to, that’s when all of the “protect marriage” bullcrap really makes me mad. During the richer, better, healthier parts of the marriage vow, I can more easily limit my focus to the politics of the fight. But when experiencing the “in sickness” part? I can only see the humanity. Or lack thereof, as is the case with the NOM view.

Andrew will be better in a few days, of that I am sure. At which point I can dedicate the larger portion of my brain to this contrived “culture war” filled with talking points that carelessly toss around terms like “sanctity” and “defense” in ways more decontextualized than the ephemera that adorns the walls of a typical T.G.I Fridays. But even when I do go back to indulging the game, that won’t change one major fact: That the humanity lies on our side of the fight, not theirs. The heart of this fight is in our homes and in our passionate push to protect the same. We are the ones who fight for our loves ones, so that we can live out both the good and the bad without this extra layer of cruelty. They are the ones who’ve turned said cruelty into a vehicle for collecting paychecks, political invites, and a more divided America.

Don’t ever lost sight of that. Not even as we move on to this week’s attempts to divide us…

 

Mined for Golding, came up with coal

The biggest NOM news of the week came out of the Iowa special state Senate election, where pro-equality Democrat Liz Mathis prevailed over NOM-backed candidate Cindy Golding. This was the race that NOM dropped-in to the tune of $40,000. $40,000 that could’ve gone to one of those Catholic Charities that they’re always talking about helping, but instead went to unsuccessful politicking. Priorities, ya know?

One interesting development came just hours after the Mathis win was announced. NOM Cultural Director Thomas Peters immediately tweeted his belief that Golding was a “weak” candidate, even though earlier in that same night, he’d told those same tweeters to get out to the Iowa polls and vote for Golding. So basically, we have a man who works for an organization that threw a ton of cash and capital at a certain politician and who himself solicited votes that would bring that politician into an influential office, all while he himself saw the candidate as weak. Doesn’t that say much more about NOM’s negligent “win at all costs” strategy than it does about us, Ms. Golding, or Iowa voters? I’d say so.

But regardless of their view on Ms. Golding’s candidacy, what matters it that NOM tried and failed in this high profile race. I see it as a turning point in the familiar NOM playbook; time will tell us if I’m right.

 

Fox blues: NOM’s Kurt/Blaine chorus needs some autotune

If there’s one thing that’s truly shocked me about NOM over the past year or so it’s how far off the “it’s only about marriage” script they now frequently stray, instead committing the organization to the generalized anti-LGBT animus we see from other “pro-fam” groups. Not that I ever thought the NOM crowd had deep regard for homosexuality, mind you. It’s just that they used to be nothing if not pragmatic, always cognizant of that “moveable middle” that both sides are courting. But now they seem to have either changed tactics, or they simply don’t care to hide what was always underlying the “protect marriage’ work.

Latest case in point: This week NOM went after “Glee” for having two of its lead characters, Kurt and Blaine, sensitively discuss and then ultimately lose their virginities. NOM staff took to the organizational blog, Twitter, and Facebook wall to denounce the “filthy” show:

Screen Shot 2011-11-11 At 2.15.36 Pm

Now obviously this episode had nothing to do with marriage, as Kurt and Blaine would both rather star in “Tony n’ Tina’s Wedding” than have one of their own. But with the new NOM that we’ve come to know over the past many months, it doesn’t have to be about marriage. The organization is now actively courting that small, hyper-motivated crowd that’s driven by good old fashion contempt for LGBT lives, loves, and fictional portrayals thereof. They now routinely trade pragmatism for denunciation.

It’s a gamble on NOM’s part. If I were a betting man, I’d put my big money on team Klaine!

 

“Beginning to worry”

I absolutely adored the way NOM President Brian Brown began a fundraising e-blast that he sent around this week. In what I’m taking as an admission greater than he’d ever let on, Brian began with the four words “I’m beginning to worry.”

We can all think of a million reasons why someone who heads an anti-equality group would see a need to worry, from increasing poll numbers to the astounding strides we equality advocates have already made in a relatively short time. But of course Brian couches his worries behind the smokescreen of NOM being the little guy who is outpaced by the huge, pro-LGBT money machine, saying that NOM’s limiting itself to “real America,” “grassroots” support is the reason why everyday folks need to cough up some cash right here, right now. Brian’s “worry,” we come to find out, is that poor NOM is just spreading itself too thin, considering how expansive/expensive the fight now is.

To which I say: “Brace yourself, Brian!” This push forward is only going to get bigger. And better. And stronger. And louder. And more active. Because this train is moving in one direction, and it aint stopping until it reaches the only acceptable destination. And that destination is not at the beginning of Brian Brown’s worry — it’s at the end of our time worrying about groups like NOM!

 

DOMA going way of DODO: Step 1

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the Senate Judiciary Committee’s historic approval of the Respect for Marriage Act, a measure that would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. It was the first legislative move forward on DOMA since its mid ’90s passage, which is [a] annoying in the sense that it’s taken fifteen years of hard work to get that, yet [b] comforting in the sense that we’re talking about this rather than talking about something like an even nastier Federal Marriage Amendment (so-called). In terms of our ongoing civil rights struggle, this was a great highlight.

And how do we know it was a big deal move? Well, for one: Brian Brown “charmingly” called the the theoretical repeal “a suicide strategy on marriage.” And as we all know: The coarser the language, the greater the fears.

But even with so much good, we shouldn’t get overly confident. It’s still a very long road ahead for us, for DOMA, and for our overall attempts to get beyond this rocky path that NOM has unnecessarily laid before us. And I can assure you that there will be more setbacks along the way. All we can do is commit ourselves to doing the work, celebrating the good while learning from the bad, so hopefully we can reach peace sooner rather than later.

Forget Kurt and Blaine’s first time: It’s their wedding night, in Ohio with full state and federal rights, that I really can’t wait to see! And we’ll get there if we just plow through.

Until next week,

-Jeremy

11 Comments November 13, 2011

Days and Slights: This Week in NOM (Oct. 30 – Nov. 5)

Cross-posted at NOMExposed.org

By Jeremy Hooper

Dear NOM Watcher,

I’ve never seen one episode of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians.” The only reason why I know anything about the family is because the “Today” show’s current incarnation has some sort of obsession with the E! Network mainstays. While Ann Curry was Meredith Vieria’s announced replacement, I seriously question if this one reality family didn’t get the show’s top billing instead. But I digress.

This week it was announced that the most famous of the crew, Kim, was divorcing after seventy-two days. Which is sad, anecdotally. I’m a romantic through and through, and I have nothing but love for love. So even if I did hold some wishes of Schadenfreude towards the Kardashians (which I don’t), it wouldn’t be directed at any member’s relationship breakdown. On the contrary, in fact.

But that being said: Kim’s reality, in life, is that she has sold her personal story for fame and profit. That’s not a criticism, just an observation. She makes money for existing, with any offshoot brands coming by way of little more than good genes and determination.

Likewise, Kim’s reality on TV is that of a person who tells her personal story for the same fame, profit, and red carpet invites. And most recently, hers is story that included a splashy, two-part wedding that was sold to viewers as a fairy tale. Literally: That was the name of the TV special pertaining to the nuptials, “Kim’s Fairytale Wedding.”

But now, after only seventy-two days, the fairytale is over. With our culture being what it is, this means that Kim, someone who has millions upon millions more eyeballs than any politico could ever hope to have, is now part of a national conversation about marriage and what it means to this generation. And as someone who has aired it all as a job, the unbelievably quick divorce is also now the story. The biggest part, in fact.

I’m not going to suggest that Kim (apparently a marriage equality supporter, btw) needs to answer to any of it in any one, expected way. It’s her life, her love, her marriage, and now her divorce. She and her husband are human beings, first and foremost, and their private dealings should come before the public commodity. Well before, in fact.

However, when it comes to that public commodity that the Kardashians have chosen, on their own volition, to sell to us? Well that’s a different issue entirely. That aspect will surely play out for weeks and months to come on TV and in the entertainment press (or as it’s quickly becoming here in America: the press). And for that reason, I do think it should now become the “sanctity of marriage” crowd’s number one source of public debate. Maggie Gallagher should be duty-bound to explain to us why, exactly, imagery of happy gay couples getting married is more of threat to children’s views of this institution than is something like this current media obsession. And I don’t mean in the contrived, offensive, gay-marriage-knocking way that Maggie has chosen to address it: I mean in a real way that makes sense to anyone outside of her own choir. I want to know — in a frank, conversational way — how, if there is a culture that contains within it a spectrum of “traditional marriage sanctity,” this worldwide phenomenon known as Kardashian doesn’t logically rank as a 10 on the far-right’s chart of concern? And if doesn’t, then why not?

Personally, I don’t see *ANY* of it is a “threat,” as I would hope kids are learning love and commitment values based more on their own insightful life experiences, informed guidance, and nurturing hearts than on anyone else’s public displays. But Maggie and her fellows do think ours is a world with a fragile marriage culture, where threats are all around us. So since this week, I saw one celebrity blog run a portrait of David Burtka and Neil Patrick Harris and their adorable family but saw a gagillion more than that run photos of Kim and her marital strife, I want to know how any of the self-appointed “marriage protectors” can, in good conscience, say that the gays are the ones who are currently futzing with the social conservatives agreed-upon paradigm (as contrived as it may be).

And with that out of the way, now onto this week’s episode of “Keeping up with the Wedding-Dashers”…

Trick or treat, move your feet, give me someone’s equality to beat

NOM started off the week on a thematic note. Tied in with Monday’s costumed vibe, the organization that so regularly disguises its own Screen Shot 2011-11-04 At 11.57.03 Amdished harms behind various kinds of masks launched a Halloween fundraising drive built around its work to oust the New York Senate Republicans who voted for marriage equality. Calling ‘Turncoat Republican Senator” the “scariest costume I’ve ever seen,” president Brian Brown asked folks to “give candy to NOM” in the form of cash donations.

No word on whether their campaign managed to collect more Paydays than Snickers. But either way, I personally can’t wait for NOM’s inevitable Thanksgiving effort, where I predict the pro-equality lawmakers will be shunned for declaring that all present at their table deserve an equal slice of the apple pie.

 

As a gay man taught us: “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word”

The far and away funniest NOM development this week came in reaction to the big focus of last week. Namely: The controversy over NOM’s choice to Photoshop a Barack Obama campaign rally pic into one of their own collages, in obvious hope of fooling people into believingNOM-fake-obama NOM crowds are historically large. Brian Brown diminished/responded in the most disingenuous way one can imagine.

In normal world, the person who was caught redhanded would apologize for the obviously unethical tactic, vow to engage in better practices in the future, and move on to other things. But in NOM’s world of consistent responsibility shirking, it was only the last part. President Brian Brown did in fact ask us all to move on from what he called a “distraction,” but there wasn’t one iota of remorse or credible explanation. He simply said the Obama photos were a “symbol” and that NOM merely utilized a “common use photo” as a shorthand way to represent their own supporters. In a word: He added great insult to the prior injury!

Bottom line: President Barack Obama is someone who stands against NOM’s agenda in most every way, something that has made him the focus of much NOM scrutiny. There is absolutely no excuse for NOM’s choice to take the President’s legendary crowds and use them to represent the NOM cause — a cause that he and a majority of his supporters resist!

NOM’s practice would’ve been unethical even if they had noted the source, and is especially so in light of the sneaky way they did it. But whatever, Brian doesn’t have to admit it. The Internet has a very good memory.

 

NOM: The Next Generation

I also learned this week that NOM is in the planning stages of something called “NOM NextGen for Marriage,” which will focus on rallying younger voters over to the “protect marriage” cause. At this point, little is known beyond Catholic blogger and NOM Culture Director Thomas Peters’ leadership in making the project happen. But I will be sure to bring you developments as they Tweet forth.

‘Defame’: It’s gonna live forever

Screen Shot 2011-11-04 At 1.33.36 PmNOM’s so-called “Marriage Anti-Defamation Project” launched yet another video this week. A few interesting things about the latest: (1) It has nothing to do with marriage, instead focusing on Illinois’ civil unions system; (2) It features a mom who Focus on the Family previously used to lash out against inclusive teaching in schools, with the mom admitting in the past that her problem is with the “normalization” of homosexuality itself; (3) The whole thing is focused on evangelical adoption agencies’ desire to simultaneously maintain public subsidization and anti-LGBT discrimination, and resistance to that same idea — court-tested resistance that may be any number of things, but is certainly not “defamation.”

Humorously, the video, as of this writing, has 133 YouTube “dislikes” and only 9 “likes.” So you know that means: YouTube’s rating system will likely be NOM’s next targeted “defamer.”

 

Iowa’s 18th district: You did invite a D.C. special interest to reduce your local race to one (non-)issue — right?

Keeping focus on the special election for an Iowa state senate seat: NOM tossed in even more cash to elect Republican Cindy Golding over Democrat Liza Mathis, in hopes that Golding will be able to tip the balance and put the state’s marriage equality before a public vote.

The election is Tuesday. So by Wednesday morning, look for NOM’s carefully spun press release, which will be equally defiant regardless of outcome.

Past Maggie, ongoing concerns

One last thing before I move into my weekend of enjoying my marriage rather than fighting for the same: On Thursday, I came across a piece of video that I’d never seen before. It was filmed just days after Prop 8′s ignoble passing in California, and features a highly boastful Screen Shot 2011-11-03 At 1.43.27 PmMaggie Gallagher touting the ways and means of taking away a court-backed Californian right.

Two things really stood out to me about the video: (1) Maggie admits that she aims to get equality activists to admit that they see people like her as “bigots,” an obvious way for her to spin her side as the one being victimized; (2) She detailed NOM’s founding role in getting Prop 8 on the ballot more fully than I’ve ever heard before, even revealing that the plan was fully set in motion of Christmas Eve 2007 (So much for gay apparel!!)

The first revelation is important because it shows just how strategic NOM is with their whole “we’re the victims” schtick. We must let schtick that fully sink in so that we know how to challenge it. It’s not enough for us to just talk about their self-victimization and hope others will catch on. We need to detail, in full and often, just how much the organized anti-equality movement is trying to cast equality activists as a mean, stop-at-nothing monolith that’s out to endanger the well-being of those who oppose. That is their game now. Nipping it in the bud must be ours.

The second revelation is important because we need folks in the equality movement (and media) to understand how instrumental NOM is to the anti-equality side. That’s why projects like NOM Exposed exist: Because NOM is, in essence, *the* marriage inequality movement in this country. All of the other “pro-family” groups have basically taken a backseat to NOM, letting Maggie and Brian and Co. take the lead (with a reliable assist from the local Catholic church) in every state where rights come up for public debate.

We can’t afford to look at NOM as just one of many players in the anti-equality fight. Their role is much more. Diminishing that role (or at least its power) must be one of our top concerns!

Until next week, my sillies,

-Jeremy

Jeremy Hooper

Good As You/NOM Exposed

11 Comments November 4, 2011

NOM prepping ‘Next Gen for Marriage’ project

Cross-posted at NOMExposed.org

By Jeremy Hooper

I have it on good word that Thomas Peters, the young Cultural Director of the National Organization For Marriage with a penchant for “gays can change” activism, is gearing up to launch a new NOM outreach effort called “NextGen For Marriage.” So what we might expect from the planned young people outreach? I have a few ideas.

(1) Fake polls. Since all credible polling puts young people drastically in favor of marriage equality, I’m sure we’ll get more polling from conservative outfits like Lawrence Research and QEV Analytics, purporting to show some stemming of a tide. It won’t work, of course — but we’ll probably still get it.

(2) Aggressive social media promotion. We know from NOM’s failed summer money challenge, its constantly abysmal YouTube ratings (latest Marriage ADA vid has 123 dislikes and only 9 likes, as of this writing), its forums that are always majority pro-equality when left open and fair, etc., that this organization is losing the Culture War 2.0 challenge. So they’ll surely try to NextGen up a young base of support.

(3) Stories of young love. In the age of Kardashians, Thomas and company will surely try to push inspiring tales of young heterosexual love, much like NOM’s young-focused cohorts at the Ruth Institute. Which would actually be fine and even nice, if not for the complete and utter blind eye they will obviously turn to young same-sex love and marriage.

(4) Denial of inevitability. Maggie Gallagher, in particular, loves to talk about the unfulfilled promises from her youth as a way of making it seem like same-sex couples’ freedom to marry is not as inevitable as it sounds. Mostly, Maggie trumps up straw men arguments that people weren’t making as strongly as she claims they were (The Soviet Union was the way of the future, for one) to pit past apples against current, legally sound, obvious oranges. But regardless, I predict this denial of marriage equality’s inevitably to be a rally cry for NOM NextGen, considering the obvious need to change the thinking patterns of the “Glee” generation.

(5) The victimization routine on a more specific scale. Think college students who are “silenced” by inclusive professors. Or high school valedictorians who want to mention marriage in a commencement speech. Or someone like Jennifer Keeton, the grad student fighting to tell potential counseling clients that “their behavior is morally wrong and then help the client change that behavior.” NOM is all about flipping the script these days — so we should expect NOM NextGen to be of the same book, just this one filed in the young adult section.

 

Of course we’ll all have to wait and see what NOM NextGen actually brings, since at this point there’s not even artwork (or even purchased domain names — hint, hint) to go on. So while we all wait, I’ll be at the open bar of a same-sex wedding in the growing number of states where such are legally-binding, collecting my Next Gin.

21 Comments November 4, 2011

Days and Slights: This Week in NOM (Oct. 23 – Oct. 29)

Cross-posted at Good as You

By Jeremy Hooper

Dear NOM Watcher,

Let’s start with the obvious. This week, there was one NOM story that vaulted above all other, going viral in ways that the more obscure NOM stories can’t always do. I’m of course talking about: That random post I did on NOM’s rhetorical use of the phrase “San Francisco values.” That one caught on like proverbial wildfire, didn’t it?

Just kidding. I’m actually referring to NOM’s unethical, arrogant, and, frankly, bizarre attempt to insert three-year-old 6A00D8341C503453Ef0162Fbe884C1970Dshots from one of then-candidate Barack Obama’s legendary campaign rallies into collages of their own organizational efforts, in hopes that people who visit NOM’s so-called “New Hampshire for Marriage” site would think they, as an organization, have an ability to drive “Yes we can!”-sized crowds. After I uncovered those duplicitous photos in a series of posts on Monday and Tuesday, the Internet went wild with that unique combination of uproarious laughter and appalled jaw-drops that we who follow this sort of thing know so well.

But actually, it wasn’t only the internet. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, in her own series of reports, noted NOM’s “Did they really think they’d get away with this?!“-style overreach. Then on Thursday, the Human Rights Campaign (the parent organization of this NOM Exposed project) issued an open letter to NOM’s Brian Brown, Screen Shot 2011-10-28 At 4.32.07 Pmin which HRC President Joe Solmonese called on the organization to “fess up” about “how far [NOM] will go to make people believe [NOM’s] pursuit – the denial of equal treatment under the law — is supported by New Hampshire voters and Americans in general.” These transcendent notices (and others) surely brought NOM’s typically deceptive work to whole new audiences. Yay for that!

That this one incident was able to connect with eyeballs (and in the process, connect so many dots about NOM and the habits of which we NOM Watchers are so accustomed) is a great testament to this work that you and I do in the name of equality!

 

So how did NOM respond to the attention, you ask?

In true NOM fashion, there has, to this point, been no apology for wrongdoing or even public acknowledgement of the obviously unethical practice. Instead, NOM staffers quietly changed the two offending images without comment. Only thing? In doing so, NOM actually upped the laughable failure even further, by posting replacement images that also had nothing to do with New Hampshire, the state they are purporting to represent. One of the shots comes from the New York marriage rally they held on the very day same-sex couples began marrying in the state, with NOM’s new image showing the largely bussed-in crowds that marched against other’s joy on that day. The other replacement shot was of a rally NOM held in St. Paul, Minnesota, which, last time I checked, is actually not part of the Granite State. Weird, because right alongside the offending images is the text, “NH for Marriage is a coalition of Granite State citizens committed to defending traditional marriage in New Hampshire.” One would think with pictures being as 1,000-words-loaded as they are, an organization purporting to speak on behalf of a certain state would see a need to show actual residents from there.

Then again, one would also think a group of American citizens who lead with their supposedly heightened values would see a need to treat their tax-paying neighbors equally. But I digress.

 

Okay seriously, back to that “San Francisco values” thing…

While no, my post on the subject didn’t get the same sort of attention, I do think it’s important to note NOM’s latest campaign in support of the discriminatory Screen Shot 2011-10-28 At 4.33.00 PmDefense of Marriage Act and against pro-equality Senators’ efforts to repeal it. NOM has taken to using the phrase “San Francisco values” whenever referring to the DOMA repeal effort, an attempted knock at both chief proponent Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and the moral character of a famously accepting American city. (*image at left comes from NOM’s “Defend DOMA” site)

I called the use of the phrase “telling,” because I believe it’s one of those things that might say so little, but at the same time speak volumes about the organization who pushes it. Because just think about it: We all know that NOM is willing to say or do just about anything, against just about anyone, so long as the end justifies (in their eyes) the means. This trite “San Francisco values” thing exemplifies this willingness. Here we have a rich and vibrant city with so much charm, character, and contribution, and an out-of-state group like NOM, in the cockiest of nature, wants to isolate values that it sees as nasty (i.e. the acceptance of same-sex couples’ civil rights) and pit those should-be no-brainer qualities against “real America”? That should outrage not only the residents of San Francisco, but anyone who is tired of the divisive games so common to the far-right “culture war” (a “war” that is itself a divisive label crafted by the far-right for divisive purposes).

 

Golding for Cindy

This week, NOM also upped its expenditures in the Iowa special election for 6A00D8341C503453Ef0154349F168B970C-21a state Senate Seat (District 18). NOM’s total in favor of Republican Cindy Golding is now approaching $30K — a sizable (and likely growing) sum for a single state race!

We’ll keep watching this race, as it is crucial to NOM’s plan of rolling back the benign, peaceful, wholly nontroversial marriages that have been bettering Iowa for over 2.5 years now. If Golding prevails, she has promised to put marriage before the whims of a public vote. Democrat Liz Mathis, on the other hand, is against such a popularity contest. Voters will have to decide between getting behind discrimination or getting beyond distraction

 

Back to New Hampshire for a sec…

NOM touted a “victory” this week in the Granite State. The NH House Judiciary Committee approved a measure that would take away the currently-legal right to marry in the state (a right that is just as benign, peaceful, and nontroversial as in Iowa) and regress it back to an even lesser form of civil unions than the state had before. The effort is, in a word: Cruel.

But don’t be fooled by even that step, as mean-spirited as it may be. All involved admit that even if they succeed with this, they will then move on to repealing rights in full, civil unions included, via a theoretical marriage amendment. The goal is zero recognition, in the ironically nicknamed “Live Free or Die State.”

These newest efforts — be they in New Hampshire, Iowa, New York, or any other equality state — are a whole new level of injustice. Yes, attempting to ban marriage in a state that doesn’t have equality is discriminatory and antithetical to American values. But attempting to take away marriage rights in a state where no one can verbalize any true harms at a time when so many true harms plague us, in every state and federally? It seriously keeps me awake at night knowing that kind of mindset still exists. Or worse yet: Knowing that groups like NOM actively cultivate it.

 

Those who can’t remember the past…

To stop these future awful efforts, we need to learn from the past. That’s why NOM Exposed Project Director Kevin Nix was this week so insistent on NOM Watchers following the info stream that’s coming out about the Question One battle we waged and lost in the state of Maine in 2009.

Kevin noted two things about what’s coming out now: “The campaign manager for their side in the 2009 Maine ballot fight admits a few key things. (1) All they have to do to win is create ‘doubt’ in people’s minds (i.e., it’s not really about persuading folks their position is the right one); and (2) The infamous NOM line about gay marriage leading to teaching the gay in schools is ‘not completely accurate.’ Kevin’s right to isolate and highlight the importance of stuff like this, because if we are going to win, we are going to have to become even better about knowing groups like NOM better than they know their own efforts. And I don’t mean just know them in an anecdotal, “Yeah, yeah, they talk about school books — now can we go have a cocktail?” sort of way: I mean we must truly KNOW what the organized marriage opposition movement is doing in this country to stop or chip away at our existing rights, as well as UNDERSTAND how and why they are doing it.

It’s not the only way we will win, because equality is inevitable. But if we want to win sooner, we will become total geeks at this stuff. Because trust men, I know one thing, without a shred of doubt: The other side is certainly doing their homework on us! We must be as even more committed, as we are the ones with tangibles to lose. To stop such losses, there is no better place for us to focus than NOM, the siphon through which the other side is now agreeably funneling any and all marriage efforts.

 

Until next week, authentic photo fans,

-Jeremy

15 Comments October 30, 2011

Next page Previous page