Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Dear NOM: You're going to lose the hubris war.

NOM Exposed Right-wing

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

This from NOM Blog:

Mike Gronstal, the Democratic Majority Leader in the Iowa Senate is practically throwing his body in front of the door to the voting booth, promising to block a state marriage amendment no matter how many Iowans want it. And yet today he had the chutzpah to accuse Republicans of “[stopping] at nothing to take away the constitutional rights of Iowans”?

Mike, the constitution of Iowa gives the people the right to change their constitution–by a vote of both houses in the Iowa legislature two years running. Right now you are the one man taking away the right of Iowans to vote for marriage.

Mike Gronstal, Are You Kidding Us? [NOM Blog]

Women’s right to vote.

Eighteen-year-olds’ right to vote.

Heterosexuals’ right to marry independent of race.

Atheist heterosexuals’ right to marry without a church ceremony.

Nondiscrimination laws or various stripes.

Etc. etc.
The issue, NOM, is that you always talk about the people’s “right” to change the constitution, but never mention the actual implications of changing the constitution in this way! If we were talking about a public, 50% + 1 vote wherein the majority might feasibly rollback the high court-tested right of any other population, you all would (rightly) be talking about what such a vote would mean in terms of our shared society and its fair recognition. But since it’s gay people? Eh — let “the people” vote against those people.

It’s beyond hubris, NOM. You are trafficking in cruel and discriminatory ideas, passing them on in the vehicle of marriage through a carefully-worded campaign…


…meant to mask all reality behind a layer of false “protection.” It’s PR, passed off as good citizenship.

And unfortunately, NOM, we don’t have to ask whether or not you all are kidding, the way you’ve asked Mike Gronstal in your contrived blog post. We’ve more than felt the punch of your unfunny lines! Personally. Painfully.


  • 1. Alan McCornick  |  January 29, 2011 at 12:48 am

    Seems to me the whole question comes down to this:

    You have the right to live as you choose. But you don't have the right to choose how others should live. Could you not counsel people to prepare for marriage better so there will be fewer divorces? Help struggling married couples with marriage counseling? Why are you putting all your efforts into banning same-sex marriage? There are only so many hours in the day. Why are you tearing down civil rights when you could be building up marriage and the family?

  • 2. Ed Cortes  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:29 am


  • 3. Ann S.  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:53 am

  • 4. JonT  |  January 29, 2011 at 8:32 am

  • 5. truthspew  |  January 29, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Precisely! I call the name of the organization an oxymoron since they aren't FOR marriage at all. They are FOR denying a significant number of the population from marrying the person they love.

    They really need to be shut down and shut up and I think the folks here do a very respectable job of doing just that, shutting them down and shutting them up.

    I've even gotten under NOM's skin enough that they've banned me from commenting on their videos. But it doesn't stop me from either linking or keepvid'ing the vids and blogging about them.

  • 6. Don in Texas  |  January 29, 2011 at 12:51 am

    Same-sex marriages targeted in New Mexico
    By Milan Simonich Santa Fe Bureau
    Posted: 01/29/2011 12:00:00 AM MST

    SANTA FE — A legislator has filed a bill to overturn the New Mexico policy that recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

    The measure, sponsored by Rep. David Chavez, would be retroactive to negate state acceptance of same-sex marriages that have already occurred. His proposal is HB 162.

    "New Mexico's law is out of step with most other states," Chavez, R-Los Lunas, said in a statement Friday.

    He said New Mexico and New York are the only states that recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

    Twenty-nine states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Thirteen others ban them by statute.

    Chavez, a lawyer, said an attorney general's opinion that allows New Mexico to recognize same-sex unions motivated him to file his bill. "I don't believe the people of the state support that action," he said.

    Chavez has also proposed a state constitutional amendment that would put same-sex marriage before New Mexico voters in the 2012 general election. That measure is HJR 8.

    Placing the question on the ballot would require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.

  • 7. LCH  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:29 am

    “New Mexico’s law is out of step with most other states,” Chavez, R-Los Lunas, said in a statement Friday.

    He said New Mexico and New York are the only states that recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries."

    *rolls eyes" When will the right wingnuts stop making sh*t up. This statement is patently wrong,

  • 8. Marlene  |  January 29, 2011 at 10:59 am

    If Mr. Chavez is a lawyer, then he's done a varied number of things:

    1) Graduated from a "law school" diploma mill like Ave Maria, Regent, or Liberty "University.
    2) Believes the Fourteenth Amendment is invalid when it comes to covering certain segments of society, not unlike "Justice" Scalia's.
    3) The man is a moron and doesn't have the intellectual capability to fathom what the words "Equal treatment under law" really means.

  • 9. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 29, 2011 at 8:24 am

    They just can't stop hating, can they? Chavez must figure that this stance is more likely to keep him in power.

  • 10. Sagesse  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:01 am

    "…practically throwing his body in front of the door to the voting booth"

    I could swear he was just saying no.

  • 11. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 29, 2011 at 8:23 am

    At least they didn't say "literally," because that would really grate on me.

  • 12. Sagesse  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:06 am

    NOM do not seem to be censoring the posts on this page… or the previous on quoting Tony Perkins.

  • 13. John B.  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:03 am

    I suspect they want to appear fair by showing a "balance" of supporting and opposing opinions but they are definitely censoring comments posted to their the blog. Although they do allow a few opposing opinions through "moderation", I know from past experience that the majority of comments that disagree with them will never be posted (while they continue to allow multiple and frequently offensive postings from their supporters, like the guy who keeps comparing same-sex partnerships to the relationship between a pet and its owner).

  • 14. Sagesse  |  January 29, 2011 at 3:17 am

    I don't hang out on the NOM blog, or try to post, but it seems they are being somewhat more permissive, and not entirely consistent in their censoring. The posts I saw were pretty mild, and I know folks here report their posts being removed. I believe they are trying to clean up their act to avoid designated a hate group by SPLC.

    Or maybe their webmaster sleeps in on Saturday mornings :).

  • 15. Peterplumber  |  January 29, 2011 at 3:28 am

    I don't "hang out" there, but I do occasionally try to post a comment there. Most of my comments seem to simply disappear, without any moderation at all. One or two of my comments do make it thru. I never use vulgarity or argumentative terms. No matter how calm my message it, POOF it is gone. My name must be on their black list.

  • 16. anonygrl  |  January 30, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    Mine too. I read things over there occasionally, but don't bother trying to post any more, because I am on their black list. Why? Because I calmly and reasonably explain what is false about their points.

    Can't have that. The sheep might learn that the shepherd is actually a wolf.

  • 17. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:00 am


  • 18. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 31, 2011 at 3:25 am

    Or the guy that goes on and on about the Communist Party of the USA and how they are supporting the homosexual agenda!

    I have asked everyone I know – maybe an open question here will help – "where can I get a copy of the *official* homosexual agenda"?

    I've been gay my whole life, and have yet to see even an underground, plagiarized, stolen, made-up or other wise illicit agenda, let alone *the* agenda!

    And yes, most posts to NOM's blog, no matter how rational and polite, go poof! I suspect they have a "crew" that specifically write and post comments, including a few that appear to support marriage equality.

  • 19. Peterplumber  |  January 31, 2011 at 3:40 am

    Not only that, but most of the things that are posted on the NOM Blog go without comments. Unless one of us shows up there, their own people could care less about commenting.

  • 20. anonygrl  |  January 31, 2011 at 3:48 am

    True. They should actually be thanking us, because we are keeping their readership numbers from dwindling away. 🙂

    Note that we don't have that particular problem over here, although we do know that they read us too. Hi Brian, Hi Maggie, Hi Louis!

  • 21. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:14 am

    There is that pod person talking point again:

    "Gays & Lesbians have the right to live as they choose, they don't have the right to re-define marriage"

    NOM why do you want your BIGOTED followers to sound like oxyMORONS?

    I, a gay man, chooses to marry a man. That is how I choose to live my naturally born Gay life(which I didn't choose…Mother nature, aka. Gaia… blessed me with it….just thought I would point that out) in the future….oh but wait in your 1st sentence you say I have the right to do whatever I want, then you contradict yourself by basically saying "but you can't do that"……So not only do you want your supporters to look & sound like people with a superiority & control complex, but you want them to look & sound like complete idiots while saying something BIGOTED…

    NOM employees & supporters, please go back to school & learn the definition of an oxymoron….that's all, have a nice day……<3… ; ) …..Ronnie

  • 22. LCH  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:34 am

    Allowing marriage equality no more redefines marriage than allowing women and non-white-non-land owners to vote redefines democracy.

  • 23. Tomato  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:22 am

    Hear, hear!

  • 24. Juli  |  January 30, 2011 at 3:18 am

    never mind that they consistently define marriage for everyone: "marriage is between a man and a woman" then say we don't have the right to redefine it. Who ever said their definition is correct to begin with?

  • 25. NetAmigo  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:40 am

    NOM, and organizations like it who advocate legal discrimination against gays and lesbians, represent more and more a solely religious viewpoint in this country. In the past, this was not true as fear and misunderstanding of homosexuality occurred in most sectors of society. However, that time has passed as evidenced by the overwhelming support for ending legal discrimination from all the leading medical and mental health organizations. Therefore, I think NOM and such groups who really are the religious right should be attacked as un-American and opposed to basic as well as longstanding freedoms in this country, namely the freedom of religion and equality for all citizens. All Americans can respond to our common heritage of freedom for all. I think the religious right should be attacked relentlessly for the religious fanatics they are.

  • 26. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:45 am

    What really gets my blood boiling about this is the fact that if NOM really wanted to protect marriage, and really wanted to protect children, then all this money they are wasting trying to prevent marriage equality would be used to pay for marriage counseling, parental counseling, food, shelter, etc. Since that is not how they want to spend their money, however, this will come around to bite them in the tuchus.

  • 27. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 29, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Indeed, and hope that will come to pass in the end (pardon the pun).

    I think serving with NOM requires a few things: 1) a basic fundamentalist belief that it's OK to push your religious-based agenda on to civil law AND/OR a sadistic nature that really feeds off the energy of hurting other people 2) a desire for money and power. None of which has anything to do with protecting marriage or children.

  • 28. Tomato  |  January 29, 2011 at 10:22 am

    None of which has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ, either.

  • 29. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 29, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    True that, Tomato.

  • 30. John B.  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:53 am

    Talk about hubris: "Mike, the constitution of Iowa gives the people the right to change their constitution–by a vote of both houses in the Iowa legislature two years running. Right now you are the one man taking away the right of Iowans to vote for marriage."

    So now it's up to the Iowa state legislature? People express their will through their elected representatives? Wow, what a concept! Now that we've gone from courts ("unelected" and "activist" judges) to elected legislative bodies enacting same-sex marriage, our opponents suddenly seem to understand the principle of representative democracy (now that they need to use it for their own purposes).

    So what about here in Washington, DC where our elected legislative body (the DC city council) voted 11-2 last year in favor of same sex marriage? These are the representatives we DC residents elected knowing full well that they support same-sex marriage, and who voted overwhelmingly in favor of it and our mayor happily signed the legislation, exactly as he had promised to do. Do NOM and their supporters really think we're that stupid? Apparently they do because NOM and other outsiders (I'm looking at you, "Bishop" Harry Jackson) are doing everything they possibly can to overturn the legislation of the representatives we DC residents elected (and then re-elected after the same-sex marriage vote; significantly, not a single supporter of same-sex marriage was voted off the council).

    They failed to make it an issue with DC voters and failed to influence our elections in any way. They failed at the ballot box, they failed in front of the DC Board of Elections, they failed in the DC Superior Court and the DC Court of Appeals. They've failed in the court of public opinion (polls show that a majority of DC residents support same-sex marriage). They failed to get Congress to step in at any step of the way (although not for lack of trying). They failed all the way to the Supreme Court. Having failed as high as they can go, now they're going back to Congress to try to get the newly empowered right-wing Republicans to step in and overturn the decisions of our elected representatives, our board of elections, and several courts. And that's about as un-democratic as you can get.

    Not sure whether it's chutzpah or hubris on NOM's part that not even getting smacked down by the Supreme Court is enough to make them shut up and go away. They're fond of saying "let the people vote" but it's pretty obvious that when the people do vote, they will come up with something else. The bottom line is that they will stop at absolutely nothing to ban same-sex marriage and destroy the marriages of thousands of same-sex couples in Washington, DC–among them my husband and me, who were finally able to legally marry in April 2010 after 28 years together.

  • 31. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:55 am

    Congratulations, John B. That is a wonderful, happy ending to the story!!!!

    And you're absolutely right. NOM shouts 'Let the people vote' only so long as they thing voting will get them what they want. As soon as that tide turns, they'll be begging the court to overturn the 'will of the people.'

    And as Richard points out, this isn't about strengthening marriage one little bit. If it were, they'd devote their sizable resources to actually doing something that helps marriage and families instead of denying civil rights to a small minority of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. This is all about their fear and hatred of that minority.

  • 32. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  January 31, 2011 at 2:02 am

    ditto Congratulations, John B! : D

  • 33. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 31, 2011 at 5:18 am

    Congratulations John – on both your marriage and your post!

    You have NO IDEA how badly I wish it could be posted on the NOM Blog too…

    Does anyone have "anonymous minions" that could post that over there? That haven't been banned? LOL

    Seriously, very well written and presented – Kudos!

  • 34. Kate  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:07 am

    Actually, NOM is WINNING the hubris war…….

  • 35. anonygrl  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:08 am

    In that they have a LOT of hubris?

    But overall, they are losing the actual war, the one for rights. Every day we are getting closer to equality, and we will continue to do so.

  • 36. Peterplumber  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:07 am

    What is wrong with re-defining marriage to say, Marriage is a legally binding contract between two people who love each other so much they have committed to spending the rest of their lives together.

  • 37. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:16 am

    Marriage as it stands right now between two opposite sex persons doesn't even have to have anything to do with love to be legally recognized. Just look at all the crap that the TV networks put on
    The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, etc

    The LEGAL weddings of people like Britney Spears (55 hrs, done while drunk, but still somehow better than two SS people actually IN love)

  • 38. anonygrl  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:27 am

    Yes, wouldn't it be great if every time NOM said "you are trying to redefine marriage!", we answered "That's right! We are hoping to get love, caring, support, partnership, family values and concern for children ADDED to the definition of what you and the Bachelor watching, oops I got pregnant, better get hitched, Britney Spears fans think marriage is."

  • 39. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  January 31, 2011 at 4:43 am


  • 40. Tomato  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:31 am

    My church (which is over 600 years old) performs marriages between two consenting adults, regardless of gender.

    NOM's attempt to remove legal equality infringes upon my Constitutional rights to freedom of religion.

    They are trying to get the state to interfere with the rights of my church.

    (as an aside, I've noted NOM seems to have stopped beating the drum about the Puritan churches who founded this country in God's name, etc… someone must have told them those are Unitarian and United Church of Christ churches, which both perform equal marriages and are in the political fight to protect equality.)

  • 41. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:44 am

    Just scribin' then off to get coffee.

  • 42. Peterplumber  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:48 am

    It’s nice to see you have priorities.

  • 43. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2011 at 2:57 am

    Yes. First P8TT, then caffeine. 🙂

  • 44. Manilow  |  January 29, 2011 at 3:02 am

    Hey All – If you're in the LA Area, save the date for Wednesday, February 9th!

    There will be a fundraising cabaret featuring the cast and band of the SPRING AWAKENING National Tour!

    Wednesday, February 9th starting at around 11:30 PM (it's late because there is a performance at the Pantages that night).

    The venue:

    M Bar
    1253 Vine St, Ste 1
    Los Angeles, CA 90038

    There will be a $15 cover charge that will go directly to the Trevor Project.

    I will be there and I hope to see some other P8TT'ers too!

  • 45. Michael Herman  |  January 29, 2011 at 3:26 am


    NOM has the right to believe as they choose, but they don't have the right to strip others of their rights.

  • 46. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2011 at 10:24 am


  • 47. anonygrl  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:11 am

    I would agree, with one small addition…

    NOM has the right to believe as they choose, but they don't have the right to strip others of their rights by attempting to ban same sex marriage.

    (Since that is the phrase that, according to their own research, will do them in).

  • 48. Kathleen  |  January 29, 2011 at 4:07 am

    Rhode Island P8TTers and friends, this from Marriage Equality Rhode Island:

    Get ready to testify! The House Judiciary Hearings on the RI marriage equality bill will begin on Wednesday, February 2 in room 313 at the State House. Hearings will start between 4:30 and 6PM.

    For more information write to [email protected]

  • 49. Carpool Cookie  |  January 29, 2011 at 4:10 am

    From NOM: "Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they chose, they don't have the right to redifine marriage for all of us."

    The problem with this is that the two parts of the sentence are in conflict with each other. It's saying "Gays and Lesbians have the right to live as they chose, as long as the choice isn't to marry." (Where is the "choice" part in that?) Or "Gays and Lesbians have the right to live as they chose, they do not have the right to shop in our stores."

    It's not Gays and Lesbians who are "redefining marriage", anyway. It's the court system. Since it is the United States Supreme Court that has defined new American groups allowed to marry (interracial couples, prisoners on death row who will never have a chance to be alone with their new spouse, etc.) NOMs argument is really with them.

    Their complaint would more accurately be, "The American legal system does not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone," although of course then they would be WRONG WRONG WRONG.

  • 50. Carpool Cookie  |  January 29, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Uggh…I mean "choose" above, not "chose".

    I may not always be able to spell, but my opinions are as valid as those who can : (

  • 51. Peterplumber  |  January 29, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    You know, it's one thing about human nature, I read right thru your typo and knew what you meant as if you had written it correctly the first time.

  • 52. Carpool Cookie  |  January 30, 2011 at 2:42 am

    That must be because you're very intelligent.

    Everyone who likes my post is!

  • 53. anonygrl  |  January 31, 2011 at 12:17 am

    LOL!!! We always like your posts Cookie!

  • 54. Rich  |  January 29, 2011 at 4:57 am

    I like the suggestion that NOM has positioned itself as un-American (opposes the rights of elected officials to support issues that are important to their constituents) and anti-religion (denies my Church the right to marry my partner and me because it does not adhere to the bigotry of their church(s).) I just attempted to post this message on the NOM web-site; as usual no go but I intend to spread that message from here on out. As a designated group on a watch list of those that spew hate and bigotry, the people must come to know that the veneer of virtuosity is all a sham.

  • 55. Rhie  |  January 29, 2011 at 5:38 am


  • 56. Sagesse  |  January 29, 2011 at 10:05 am

    The NH bill that is supposed to be retained in committe until 2012. One can only hope.

    Text of gay marriage ban floated
    Republican's bill also outlaws incest

  • 57. Ray in MA  |  January 29, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    We're limped in with incest… (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

    Howz about the states with Marriage Equality pass legislation to forbid "Marriage Harrassment" ?

    The NH bill would fall under that.

  • 58. Ray in MA  |  January 29, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    funny how typos can change a sentence… lumped in

  • 59. Tweets that mention Dear &hellip  |  January 29, 2011 at 10:31 am

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tyler Breisacher, Testimony. Testimony said: Dear NOM: You're going to lose the hubris war.: […]

  • 60. Sagesse  |  January 29, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    A different take on 'race is immutable' :). Kids are so smart.

    Black? White? Asian? More Young Americans Choose All of the Above

  • 61. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:03 am

    A 'softball' tone, but still, the NYT Sunday edition gets attention.

    A Chicken Chain’s Corporate Ethos Is Questioned by Gay Rights Advocates

  • 62. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:50 am

    Short interview on NPR with additional detail on DADT repeal… if the embed works.

  • 63. Sagesse  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:54 am

    I am truly embed-challenged.

  • 64. Chad  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Thanks for revealing this for those who are actually stupid enough to fall for their arguments. I've said all along, there isn't one single logical argument against SAME-SEX marriage in the Yes On 8 briefs, anywhere. All of their arguments are for TRADITIONAL marriage, which ISN'T EVEN THE ISSUE IN PLAY. It's like their not even in the same court room with us! And we're not stupid. We know that the only reason the arguments aren't there is because there aren't any. So, instead, they argue for something completely different, and which is something which nobody can argue against. All of this, rather than simply realizing how wrong they are. What is wrong with certain people that it just never clicks? It's like they can't see the elephant in the room. Is it religion which makes them blind, or are they born that way?

  • 65. Chad  |  January 30, 2011 at 12:47 pm


Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!