Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM’s long-term strategy revealed in memos: “Drive a wedge between blacks and gays”

NOM Exposed Right-wing

By Scottie Thomaston

The National Organization for Marriage has been ostensibly fighting to preserve marriage between a man and a woman for years now, waging campaigns and devoting time and money to promote anti-gay initiatives and defeat ones aimed at strengthening gay relationships and affirming the humanity of gays. The Washington Post once ran a profile of NOM’S Brian Brown telling its readers that he is someone to watch, because he is a sane, likeable, nice guy and they run a “reasonable” campaign.

Brown is confident that if people hear his message, they will believe it. “People already believe it,” he says, “but the issue is so deep-seated that they’ve never had to create an argument for it. Now we have to give people the language to do that.” Create talking points. Help them see.

NOM was put on a hate group watch list when the Southern Poverty Law Center named several anti-gay organizations as hate groups, because of their rhetoric and tactics.

Now, The Human Rights Campaign has obtained a lot of documents marked “confidential” that reveal what we have known – and what the media has refused to call out – all along. Their strategy for long-term gains in the fight to keep gay relationships from being legally recognized, marked December 15, 2009 and called the “National Strategy For Winning The Marriage Battle”, is available to read.

In their quest to deny legal recognition to the long-term, loving relationships of same-sex couples, NOM goes disturbingly far off into the fringe. The most jarring and horrific document shows that they created a project called the “Not A Civil Right” Project, aimed at the heart of coalition building between the LGBT community and racial minorities:

The strategic goal…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…

I find their mention of a “media campaign” quite interesting; at the very least it seems like it’s been effective, even if they didn’t directly push all these things into the spotlight. There have always been stories of a divide between the black and LGBT communities, but it is increasingly more prevalent. Stories are coming up left and right. In North Carolina, there are fears of “black pastors” (but not white ones) coming after gay people. In Maryland, it’s “black pastors along with black politicians” coming after gay people. And there’s the constant stream of media focus on the president’s stance on marriage equality and how, supposedly, he “can’t” come out in support of marriage for gays and lesbians “because he might lose the black vote.”

NOM says:

Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the cost of pushing gay marriage to its advocates and persauding the movement’s allies that advocates are unacceptably overreaching on this issue. Consider pushing a marriage amendment in Washington D.C.; find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally.”

Perhaps this was all just a setup. The media already gives platforms to these people. They’re already allowed to say whatever they want and largely go unquestioned. News networks have these groups on TV to talk “nicely” about how gay people are a serious threat to the country and to the family structure and to people’s children; they are often named as Christian or Family spokespeople. So since they are already getting positive attention, it’s not a surprise that the media might be willing to discuss this. It’s not that no people who are black are ever in opposition to gay rights, but it’s the specific focus on that racial minority at the expense of nuance and discussions of the role whites, and white Republicans, play in voting no and remaining opposed to human rights for LGBT people. The media is content with provoking controversy and getting page views and TV viewers and not thinking about the wider repercussions this might have on communities that are already struggling and hurting.

We are still in a place in this country where someone can get shot for walking down the street carrying Skittles because they are black. We’re still in a place where people can go to a popular movie and complain that there are black actors playing black characters in that movie.

We’re still in a place where people can be abused, kicked out of their homes, dragged into fields and beaten to death because they’re gay or transgender. We’re in a place where they can be fired from their jobs for appearing too ‘gay’ or not conforming to their perceived gender enough for employers to feel comfortable.

Both communities are still dealing with police violence and injustice in the legal system on a daily basis.

We are not privileged, as NOM’s messaging would suggest:

“Democratic power bosses are increasingly inclined to privilege the concerns of gay rights groups over the values of African Americans. A strategic goal of this project is to amplify the voice and power of the black Americans within the Democratic Party.”

We are trying to build friendships because we are all in this together and we’re all fighting for the same human rights.

In this context, you have to wonder why NOM would want to exacerbate the issues that come with these institutional problems. None of us are particularly well-off or free from even government harassment and life is enough of a struggle. Bonding between communities who can understand each other in some ways, but maybe not in all ways, is really necessary for survival in this climate, when anti-black and anti-Latino racial ‘fears’ and homophobia and transphobia are constantly used in national and state campaigns and those campaigns turn the populace against our people, our families, our friends.

And not content with ruining relationships and solidarity between two oppressed communities who are often preyed upon and targeted by white heterosexuals with institutional power in government and police forces, NOM also wants to go after Latinos and turn us against each other as well:

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.

It’s the same here. This is no longer just about gay people and NOM trying to destroy us. NOM is showing reckless disregard for minority communities and callousness in pitting us against each other in a battle that will inevitably leave some people hurt and some people dead. They are gleefully celebrating our sad and unnecessary confrontations and completely ignoring that there is any semblance of a bigger picture to which they are contributing lasting unnecessary pain and suffering.

The effects of this have been, and will be, long-term. The damage has been done and we’re left picking up the pieces and trying to rebuild alliances and gain trust back that has been lost. I can’t possibly stress how big these documents are: in the context of the blatant racism and fear mongering campaigns and tactics that are engrained in our politics, their strategy is a direct attack on all minorities alike. This isn’t simply ‘divide and conquer’, because there’s too much at stake. Racism and homophobia are dangerous and devastating and actively trying to provoke the worst in people and roll back the progress we have all fought so hard to make is utterly sick.


  • 1. Alan_Eckert  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:24 am

    All the speculation to this point is proving to be true! I hope this is picked up by the larger media market, too. I'd like think that MSNBC would at least run it.

    BTW, I just got back from New York where my (gay) uncles had the best wedding I've ever been to.

  • 2. Alan_Eckert  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:30 am

    Turns out they have started reporting on it. Thomas Roberts apparently did a segment at 11:30 EDT, and Rachel Maddow has this posted on her blog:

  • 3. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:36 am

    This is great news, thanks! I am glad they're reporting on it.

  • 4. Gregory in SLC  |  March 27, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Also from Rachel Maddow blog:

    In related news, the Obama administration yesterday directed a "health insurance company to cover the same-sex spouse of a federal employee," a move experts believe is a historic first, and announced that same-sex families will be able to cross the U.S. border together, rather than the previous policy that forced married same-sex couples to go through customs separately.

  • 5. Kay in Montana  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:27 am

    Thank you, Scottie. This is exactly how wedge politics works. Now, the challenge for all of us is to not only figure out how to render it ineffective, but strategically strengthen the already-strong ties between black and Latino/a civil rights groups and many faith and political leaders and queer advocacy groups on a whole host of issues. It is also incumbent on us white queers to work tirelessly to dismantle structural racism – often a forgotten part of the picture.

    You're right on time, that this isn't just the usual old D & C. These culture wars pit many of us against one another and by doing so, threaten to dismantle the entire framework of civil rights.

  • 6. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Thanks Kay! And I STRONGLY agree. We need to work to strengthen these alliances right now. I thought so before this, but this memo is so huge and so horrifying that it shows how deep all of this goes. This is not a time to shrug our shoulders. I hope we all get on this.

  • 7. Richard Lyon  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:56 am

    It's my view that the best strategy is to provide support to voices of black dissent.

  • 8. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:01 am

    This is a great post. I'm really glad you wrote it up over there.

    It's a constructive framing and very useful analysis. Everyone should read.

  • 9. Kay in Montana  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Agree with your point, though I haven't read your post (don't frequent Daily Kos). I also believe that black people/other communities of color should be in charge of how that dissent is framed and promulgated.

    And not for one second should those of us who are white stop exposing racism, however and whenever it appears.

  • 10. Glen  |  March 27, 2012 at 11:30 am

    You know Kay, it might HELP if you would stop calling gay people Queers!

    Many of us find that DEEPLY offensive. Look up Queer in the dictionary. Of the dozen or so definitions associated with that word, NONE of them are particularly positive.

    You may as well embrace the term 'filthy sinners'. Why not? Don't you want to turn a negative disparaging remark into something positive!!

    Any gay person that refers to other gay people as queer earns my immediate ire. Call yourself a queer, or filthy sinner if you prefer, ALL you want. Just don't point to other gay people and call them the same.

    At least when 'gay' was adopted many many decades ago, even though others may have used it disparagingly, it had largely positive connotations and still does in the dictionary. You CANNOT say that about the word 'queer'.

  • 11. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Queer refers to a spectrum of people in the community. It isn't meant as an offensive term.

  • 12. Richard Lyon  |  March 27, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Save us from the language police. People use words in different ways for different purposes. That why the dictionary has a long list of different definitions.

  • 13. Glen  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    After how long now of trying to embrace a extremely negative word hurled at gay people (back when we had little else going for us) has it been and yet the word is STILL considered offensive. It's not working folks, and that's because QUEER has no other positive meanings.

    Tell me Richard, which one for Queer do you think is most applicable? From

    1.) strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different.
    2.) of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady:
    3.) not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish
    4.) mentally unbalanced or deranged.
    5.) Slang: Disparaging and Offensive . a.) homosexual. b.) effeminate; unmanly.
    6.) Slang . bad, worthless, or counterfeit.
    7.) to spoil; ruin.
    8.) to put (a person) in a hopeless or disadvantageous situation as to success, favor, etc
    9.) to jeopardize.
    10) Slang: Disparaging and Offensive . a homosexual, especially a male homosexual.
    11) Slang . counterfeit money.
    12) queer the pitch, British Informal . to spoil the chances of success.

    I guess the ones they SPECIFICALLY demarcate as Offensive and Disparaging.

    Why do they do that when Kay and company so lovingly embrace being called a queer for something that is a completely normal and natural variant of human sexuality?

    Because it *IS* an offensive term and always will be. You can't have eleven negative, even horrible, definitions for the word 'queer', and then say "but the one that refers to homosexuals, THAT is a nice and good definition. It's no longer disparaging"

    That's like having a dozen terrible definitions or 'toxic waste', but gay people embracing it and saying "Ah! But when people call us toxic waste, that's good! We've embraced that term! We here in the toxic waste community aren't bothered by it any more".

  • 14. Glen  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Now let's take a look at what Dictionary has to say about 'gay'.

    1) homosexual
    2) of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
    3) having or showing a merry, lively mood
    4) bright or showy
    5) given to or abounding in social or other pleasures
    6) licentious; dissipated; wanton
    7) Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive . awkward, stupid, or bad: This game is really gay.
    8) noun: a homosexual person, especially a male.
    9) adverb: in a gay manner.

    gleeful, jovial, glad, joyous, happy, cheerful, sprightly, blithe, airy, light-hearted; vivacious, frolicsome, sportive, hilarious. Gay, jolly, joyful, merry describe a happy or light-hearted mood. Gay suggests a lightness of heart or liveliness of mood that is openly manifested: when hearts were young and gay. Jolly indicates a good-humored, natural, expansive gaiety of mood or disposition: a jolly crowd at a party. Joyful suggests gladness, happiness, rejoicing: joyful over the good news. Merry is often interchangeable with gay : a merry disposition; a merry party; it suggests, even more than the latter, convivial animated enjoyment, brilliant.

    Boy it sure was HARD for homosexuals to embrace the negative use of the word 'gay' in the early 20th century. I wonder why they are having SO much resistance still to adopting the world 'queer'?

  • 15. Glen  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    By-the-way, the number (7) use of the word 'gay' is a relatively recent phenomenon, happening within the last 30 years or so.

    When it was being used negatively against homosexuals in the early days, #7 wasn't what they had in mind. It WAS used disparagingly but back then they were thinking more along the lines of light, frilly, feminine .

  • 16. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    I'm not sure that being weird or out of the ordinary is a bad thing.

  • 17. Glen  |  March 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Not necessarily but it doesn't describe A LOT of gay people.

    People would be hard pressed to realize that I, for instance, am gay. I don't fit people's wrongful pre-concieved stereotypes. In fact, I've had a couple of friends who've questioned whether or not I was REALLY gay (because they didn't get that gay people are frequently like anyone else).

    And not just straight friends have this problem. I once volunteered with a gay rights organization and after being there a month, I found out that several of the people there thought I was straight!!

    So…. as far as I'm concerned, in relation to the average American male I'm not "weird" or "out of the ordinary", nor any of the other negative definitions for 'queer'. And I, like many, take offense when gay people or organizations use that word to describe me.

  • 18. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    But why? Taking offense means you think people who fit that description are offensive. Why?

  • 19. Glen  |  March 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Because I don't think those people are offensive..

    I think there is A LOT of diversity among people, regardless of one's sexual orientation.

    Nobody is any more 'queer' than anyone else. I take offense because

    a) the word is almost exclusively negative in every other possible use of the word and

    b) it says "You are different than normal average people (who may be diverse, but you… YOU are just weird, freakish, different than every other diverse person on the planet). People may be different but YOU are queer."

    And frankly it is STILL considered offensive by many, even after concerted efforts to make it mainstream and acceptable. I don't think you can take a word that is mainly thought of negatively and turn it into a 'good' word.

    It's not unlike the example I gave earlier. What if people in society were calling gay people 'toxic waste'. Would it be 'empowering' to embrace that term? Should we go around calling ourselves part of the 'toxic waste community'? As there are no GOOD definitions for the term, it doesn't work trying to embrace it.

  • 20. Guest  |  March 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Primus Sucks!

  • 21. Richard Lyon  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    I like this dictionary definition.

    "Originally meant to describe something as unusual or strange. Became a deroggatory word to describe homosexuals. More recently, it has been reclaimed by non-heterosexuals as a word used to describe themselves. Queer can now be used to describe homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people. In scholarly studies the word queer is also used to describe those who practice unconventional sex (e.g. bondage, etc.), therefore even heterosexuals can sometimes be defined as queer."

    I use the word in the context of the queer community as a term of inclusiveness. You of course are free to use it or not as you see fit. We live in a complex world.

  • 22. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 28, 2012 at 10:34 am

    I agree with you completely Glen. I refuse to allow myself to be called QUEER, and I will NOT do work with any organization that uses that term to discribe it's members or our community.

  • 23. Tim in Sonoma  |  March 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm


    As I was reading Kay's comments, I thought to myself (again) I'm so tired of people refering to me (us) as QUEER or QUEERS!!! I recently lost a friend on facebook because I asked her to please stop refering to me as a QUEER! She continued to call me a "self loathing queer" about thirty times then blocked me!
    I find it very upsetting that even people within our community continue to use this term and yes in my case again's us!
    I would like to go on record to say I find the term "QUEER" highly offensive when its used to describe a group of people who are just as human and "NORMAL" as everyone else! Thank you Glen for bringing it up!

  • 24. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 28, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    CHEERS!!! I couldn't agree more!!!

  • 25. Glen  |  March 28, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    My pleasure Tim.

    It's about time more gay people began speaking up against those gay people who insist on labeling other gay people as queer (which IS unequivocally a term of derision and more importantly of exclusion – an exclusion that apparently those who like to be called queer relish).

    'Queer' is not simply different or in the normal range of diversity, it's more akin to bizarre, wrong, messed-up, not right, strange, weird. And frankly being gay is NONE of those things, it's not even particularly unusual. There are literally hundreds of millions of gay people around the world and in every single society, and they are perfectly normal in their homosexuality, so it is hard to call that 'unusual'.

    Fewer people in the world have blue eyes (only 2.2%) and we don't go around calling blue-eyed people Queers.

    Do you think blue eyed people would like it if others went around calling them queers, and can you imagine a blue-eyed person (even if they were the only one with blue eyes in some African nation) saying "Oh yeah, I'm the queer around here". No, they might think yeah it's unusual around here to have blue eyes, but I'm not some freak weirdo, blue eyes are perfectly natural.

    But hey if some gay person wants to go around calling themselves a queer, or f–got, or fruit cake, or limp-wristed-nelly then have at it. Call yourself whatever you want! Embrace that label to your hearts content. But don't you dare to presume to call other members of the LBGT community those things. Because I can assure you that there are PLENTY of us who consider being called a 'queer' outrageously offensive.

  • 26. Sagesse  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:31 am


  • 27. Bob  |  March 27, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Let's hope the mainstream media actually report give this story the sort of attention it deserves. On other hand, let's remember that the Republican "Southern Strategy" of the '60's and 70's was spelled out quite clearly and publicly and yet, for all its transparent exploitation of bigotry, prejudice and stereotypes, it proved to be quite successful.

  • 28. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:02 am

    It's definitely a good idea to remember the Southern Strategy and other past campaigns like this when we work on how to fight against this.

  • 29. Kay in Montana  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:17 am

    Excellent point.

    I think a lot of folks don't know what the Southern Strategy was/is. Maybe that could be revisited on the blog at some point.

    Here's one quick link.

  • 30. h8nsbad  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:14 am

    To any who doubt that gay rights equate to civil rights, here is the reminder:
    Source: Reuters, March 31, 1998.
    Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.

    "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.

  • 31. Carpool Cookie  |  March 27, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Coretta Scott King also stated:

    "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." (1998)

    While Mildred Loving (plaintiff in Loving v. Virginia) wrote: "I am proud that…my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about." (2007)

  • 32. tom  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Also in November or 2010 on 60 minutes, retiring supreme court justice Stevens said that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

  • 33. erasure25  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Lets also remember the Rainbow/PUSH coalition of the 70s and 80s.

  • 34. MJFargo  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:53 am

    The SF Chronicle reported this which is something of a coup. Despite the City's reputation, in truth the Catholic Church has wide sway over many institutions in San Francisco, and seeing this report is encouraging.

  • 35. Ann_S  |  March 27, 2012 at 10:57 am

    MJFargo, here is the link to that Chronicle story:

  • 36. Rich  |  March 27, 2012 at 11:07 am

    “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." From the NOM documents.

    Disgusting! Let the world know the sick sensibilities of NOM, Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher.

  • 37. Dave in Northridge  |  March 27, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    It's great we now have so many platforms to publicize this on. Your usual great work, Scottie.

  • 38. Kate  |  March 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Talk about denial! Check out the posts from the faithful over at NOMblog. This stuff is just fine by them.

  • 39. MightyAcorn  |  March 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I may take a hit for saying this, but one big thing equality forces can do right away to help undo the damage is humbly apologize for falling for and (in too many cases) propagating the myth of monolithic black opposition to equality. Lots of blogs and news outlets reinforced the blame for years without much evidence, and even a recent thread here on P8TT seems to indicate those stories had an impact on how LGBTs think about the black community. I doubt there'll be any real coalition possible until parties on both sides own their responsibility for perpetuating these harmful myths, whether it was meant to be intentionally divisive or not.

  • 40. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    LGBTs have definitely bought into it and propagated it in a whole bunch of cases. So if you're gonna take a hit, I will, too.

  • 41. Marta  |  March 27, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    I definitely agree that public apologies can go a long way.

    Something along the lines of the I'm Sorry campaign, where (often but not always formerly-homophobic) Christians go to gay pride parades wearing "I'm Sorry" shirts. Obviously not a 1:1 comparison (and there's the question of where to go, because is "post-racial" America a black pride parade is unfortunately not possible). But the point is, apologizing for the damage your demographic has done / is doing can go a long way.

    The pictures here are pretty fantastic:

  • 42. Seth from Maryland  |  March 27, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition announces PAC, new campaign manager Matt McTighe: "The Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition is made up of EqualityMaine, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, Maine Women's Lobby, Engage Maine and 16 other organizations."

    intersting maybie here Equality Maryland can start up a PAC

  • 43. Mark  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Let us NOT forget that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, AND Newt Gingrich have ALL signed pledges with this hate group. The company you keep.

  • 44. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    It's worse than that.

  • 45. Frisky1  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Just want to give props to Str8Grandmother too for keeping on top of this and actually scooping everyone else for an hour or two by uploading the docs in the Good As You comments section. lol.

  • 46. kevin  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    I have trouble seeing a "smoking gun" with this release of information, even though we have a few more details around what we all should have been able to see. I'm kind of "so what" I'm not surprised at all.

  • 47. Alan_Eckert  |  March 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Before, everything that was mentioned about the relationships with African American anti-gay leaders was pure speculation. Now these documents prove that the partners with NOM are just being used and are not being used to promote positive messaging at all. Plus, the documents show that NOM isn't just about marriage like they've tried to say many times before. NOM is clearly anti-gay now and this is the proof.

  • 48. Steve  |  March 27, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    It also shows that a couple of their allegedly spontaneous reactions and campaigns to current events have been planned long before. They've just been trolling for something to happen that they can exploit

  • 49. Rich  |  March 27, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    This will not be "so-what" to the good people of Maine. It was only after the last vote that narrowly defeated marriage equality that the citizens woke up in the next days and found themselves feeling sullied and used. We are independent codgers and we don't like to be tricked. Now that we see just how closely our Maine Diocese (Bishop Malone) and its spokesmen, Bob Emrich, a pastor of hate in Plymouth, Maine, and NOM were all cozy in bed together secretly planning ways to divide and scare us, Maine citizens will not be hood-winked again. The revelations have just begun; wait until the money factor is revealed……no wonder Bishop Malone and his Church are hurrying for the hills. This is not going to be pretty.

  • 50. kevin  |  March 27, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    I see value if releasing this information moves NOM from the SPLC suspect hate group watch list, to being a confirmed (we now have proof) hate group?

  • 51. Rich  |  March 27, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Yes kevin, I believe many in Maine would not be surprised to know that NOM is a suspect hate group once the details come out…and, they will come out.

  • 52. eames  |  March 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Wonder if there is any chance of their losing tax exempt status because of this? The tax implications would hopefully wipe 'em out.

  • 53. Alan_Eckert  |  March 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    The other important thing about this release today is that NOM is already calling themselves a bigot, but trying to bait LGBT groups into calling them that. The fact that they know ahead of time and plan for this as part of a strategy is a self-fulfilling prophecy and is often, dare I say it, an indication of bigotry.

    Take the definition for example:

    big·ot [big-uht] noun
    a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

    They have devoted themselves to not just anti-marriage equality, but anti-gay, and they will be damned if any evidence will sway them otherwise.

  • 54. Alan_Eckert  |  March 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    That then puts us in a position of a double-edged sword because they are planning to exploit it if anyone calls them a bigot. It's better if we just expose things like this and let them call themselves bigots, much like Jeremy Hooper's methodology.

  • 55. SeattleRobin  |  March 28, 2012 at 12:57 am

    I took the bit about baiting as being much more specific than that. It's not about accusing the white faces at NOM of being bigots, it's about trying to bait us into calling African-Americans who are publicly opposed to and working against marriage equality bigots. A group that is the victim of bigotry (which NOM likes to deny) accusing another group that is the victim of bigotry of being bigots would give NOM ammunition they'd like to exploit.

  • 56. Sheryl_Carver  |  March 28, 2012 at 8:28 am

    That makes so much sense, SeattleRobin. Whoever formulated NOM's strategy in this area was apparently channeling Karl Rove.

  • 57. Deeelaaach  |  March 28, 2012 at 2:39 am

    Could this information about NOM be used in the fight against the North Carolina amendment? Would its use be wise, and how could we use it wisely?

  • 58. Jon  |  March 28, 2012 at 8:56 am

    So let's see here. What marriage needs is, to get blacks and Latinos to hate gays. That's how you protect marriage.

  • 59. Deeelaaach  |  March 29, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Reuters has picked this up:

  • 60. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  March 30, 2012 at 11:01 am

    […] said this about NOM’s mention of developing “a media campaign” based on black opposition to marriage equality: I find […]

  • 61. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 18, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    […] National Organization for Marriage filed a brief in the case, making two general […]

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