Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Yet again, NOM fails to claim an employee. And in a post about truth, no less

NOM Exposed

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.

“Full marriage equality [would provide same-sex couples] with about 1,700 rights.” [Prop Politifact]

…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.


  • 1. Alan E.  |  April 22, 2011 at 3:20 am

    Many of the G-A-Y reposts are deja vu for me since I started following them on Google Reader.

  • 2. Straight for Equalit  |  April 22, 2011 at 3:20 am

  • 3. Ann S.  |  April 22, 2011 at 3:44 am


  • 4. Kathleen  |  April 22, 2011 at 4:12 am

  • 5. JonT  |  April 22, 2011 at 7:40 am

    NOM being dishonest?


  • 6. Chris in Lathrop  |  April 22, 2011 at 10:37 am

    NOMbies being dishonosting posting to a NOM blog entry? Shocking!

    I just love the memes that a) marriage has never included same-sex partnering, and b) that a few people in the Netherlands feeling dejected about having to share a word with teh GAYZ means that marriage equality will ruin marriage for heteros.

    A simple search of Wikipedia (I know, not a thesis quality source, but look to the references) shows quite a tendency for recognition of same-sex pairings in ancient China, for a not-uncommon practice of same-sex pairings in Rome, and even a marriage ceremony for a gay couple in Spain dated 1061. The same article also mentions 11 other countries which permit same-sex couples to wed, making the Netherlands argument disingenuous.

    But what do I expect of people who feed from Brian "BS" Brown's teat?

  • 7. Chris in Lathrop  |  April 22, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Ugh! Whatever "dishonosting" is! *dishonest* is what I meant, of course. 😉

  • 8. Ed Cortes  |  April 22, 2011 at 3:32 am

    more reading material

  • 9. Sagesse  |  April 22, 2011 at 3:38 am

    NOM… also known as 15 people talking to each other.

  • 10. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  April 22, 2011 at 3:52 am


  • 11. be4marriage  |  April 22, 2011 at 4:06 am


  • 12. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  April 22, 2011 at 4:12 am

    LOVE IT!!!

    15 people and a church checkbook

  • 13. StraightGrandmother  |  April 22, 2011 at 6:34 am

    To bad there is not a "Like" button here..

  • 14. Ronnie  |  April 22, 2011 at 4:08 am


  • 15. fiona64  |  April 22, 2011 at 5:44 am

    Why am I reminded of NARTH citing articles in "Journal of Human Sexuality," which is their house (non-peer reviewed) "journal"/propaganda organ?


  • 16. Carpool Cookie  |  April 22, 2011 at 5:48 am

    NOM is suing the Miss California USA Pageant (or its head, Keith Lewis) (I'm not sure which yet) over releasing sensitive information when Carrie Prejean was their spokesperson.



    Remember the Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean, who Bible thumped her way to an anti-gay marriage stance, which seemed strange considering she had gotten biblical with herself for various photos and videos that seemed extremely unholy when they surfaced for the frothing masses?

    Carrie was promptly deprived of her Miss California crown, which was followed by a mess of juicy lawsuits and countersuits.

    Well, outside Sister Act last night, a guy approached me and said,

    "Hi, Michael, I'm Keith Lewis from the Miss California USA pageant."

    "Oh, you're the one who ripped the crown off Carrie," I noted, grinning. "Congrats!"

    "Well, now we're being sued by NOM," he informed me, meaning the National Organization for Marriage group that Carrie had been a spokesperson for.

    The suit has something to do with NOM accusing the pageant of releasing damaging (i.e. true) info about Carrie, as opposed to the press having dug it up by itself.

    "Huh?" I screeched. "NOM is suing you? But NOM fired Carrie too!"

    "Well" said Lewis, "nowadays people can do just about anything."

    Except run for beauty queen with any kind of consistent behavioral attitudes!

  • 17. Ronnie  |  April 22, 2011 at 6:14 am

    So there you go, NOM's bff's at the Liberty Council & a so called good Christian missionary may have taken part in the kidnapping of a little girl & violating a court ruling as well as both U.S. law & international law because they didn't want the little girl to stay with her mother…….

    Nice friends you got there NOM..but as we all know, law breaking birds of scale & slime stick together in crime…. >I …Ronnie:

    Arrest Made in Child Custody Case
    By Andrew Harmon and Michelle Garcia

  • 18. JoeRH  |  April 22, 2011 at 6:15 am

    Barely true is still somewhat true. If it was false, I'd be concerned.

  • 19. Linda  |  April 22, 2011 at 8:42 am

    @JoeRH–I had the same response. 'Barely true'….how is that different that just plain 'true'? Could they have said 'almost false' instead? 'Barely true' is meaningless, but it is rich with implications, all of which NOM can deny if called on the carpet.

  • 20. Sagesse  |  April 22, 2011 at 6:35 am

    Unlikely to succeed.

    Iowa Judicial Impeachments Sought

  • 21. Tigger  |  April 22, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    This is a defiant act of desperation by a soul-less people and decidedly anti-American. Mobilizing and "taking out" judges when you disagree with their decision flys in the face of everything our constitution and judiciary stand for.

    Those idiots should be fined and censured for filing a frivolous impeachment action.

  • 22. JuliaL  |  April 22, 2011 at 9:09 am

    The large number of rights involved is interesting and frightening. However, if even just one benefit or right is denied to same-sex couples, then it's unconstitutional and immoral.

  • 23. Ronnie  |  April 22, 2011 at 9:19 am

    NBC Universal employees say "It Gets Better"…..<3…Ronnie:

  • 24. Tigger  |  April 22, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    So well done and so powerful.

  • 25. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  April 24, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Agree! lovely video!

  • 26. DazedWheels  |  April 22, 2011 at 9:26 am

    Thanks for sharing this, Ronnie. 🙂

  • 27. Ronnie  |  April 22, 2011 at 10:34 am

    You're welcome…..<3…Ronnie

  • 28. Sagesse  |  April 22, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Equality Md. leader fired

  • 29. seth from maryland  |  April 22, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    this was really sad news when i found about this , she really helped the state move in the right direction. i have really bad feeling about this, i hope the board knows what its doing, we have really hard fight coming in 2012.

  • 30. Ronnie  |  April 22, 2011 at 10:34 am

    This is the America NOM is creating….& YES since NOM & that soulless Harry Jackson repeatedly attack the LIVES of LGBT people with derogatory epithets, offensive comparisons & HATE in Maryland, they are just as responsible for this as the women who did the bashing…..Hey Maggie Gallagher I wonder if these women are members of Maryland's so called "black church" or the employees who did nothing to stop them from beating a woman to the point where she was having seizures & her hair ripped out all over the floor. An old lady had to step in & place herself over the victim & they still didn't stop.

    I'm going to stop right there, because the rest of the words I have are not appropriate…..

    Warning, extremely violent video (that I will not post)….I can't even eat dinner…. > I …..Ronnie:

  • 31. Sagesse  |  April 22, 2011 at 11:01 am

    NOM’s Gallagher: “Don’t Call Me a Bigot!”

  • 32. Ronnie  |  April 22, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Awee…poor Maggie G…tears really….rivers full…yeah my tears for her are the ones that flooded the Passaic River…. (rolls eyes) …. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 33. Leo  |  April 22, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    <cite>If you want to know how same-sex marriage is going to affect traditional believers, mainstream Christians and other faith communities, ask yourself how do we treat racists who are opposed to interracial marriage in the public square.</cite>

    No, what we should ask is how interracial marriage affected faith communities that were opposed to it 40 years ago, not today. And I don't know the answer to that. Does anyone?

  • 34. Sagesse  |  April 22, 2011 at 11:08 am

    Sounds like a challenge.

    Ruben Diaz Calls For Anti-Gay Marriage Rally;…

  • 35. Joe  |  April 23, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    A marriage license in Rhode Island costs $24. Name me any way to get all of these rights for a mere $24 other than with a marriage license.

  • 36. Kathlene  |  April 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    I'm side-eyeing Politifact so hard rn. : /

  • 37. Rhie  |  April 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm


  • 38. ignardsmarnoff  |  April 24, 2011 at 12:54 am


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