Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM Reveals Their 2016 Plans


By Matt Baume

Oral argument is done, and now we can make a few predictions about how the Supreme Court might rule in June. Texas lawmakers have a plan to stop marriage equality, and they don’t seem to care that their plan isn’t actually legal. And the National Organization for Marriage is insisting that they’ll still exist a year from now.

Last week we had oral argument in the four marriage cases before the Supreme Court, and it went pretty much as expected. Four justices seem ready to rule in favor of marriage equality, four seem opposed, and Kennedy seems to be somewhere in between. That means the court’s ultimate decision is probably going to rest with Kennedy, and he’s a hard one to predict.

But one of the most promising moments came when John Bursch, the lawyer representing the states that want to keep their marriage bans, tried to claim that the dignity of married couples doesn’t matter. That was probably a mistake, since affording dignity on an equal basis has always been a big deal for Kennedy — especially in cases involving LGBTs. It possible that with that one argument, Bursch lost the case. He’ll find out at the end of June just how badly he screwed up.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers in Texas have concocted a bizarre scheme just in case the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage. If the court orders Texas to issue licenses to LGBT couples, a proposed bill by Representative Cecil Bell would bar the state from spending any money to implement the decision. That would be a clever maneuver, if it weren’t for the fact that it’s outright unconstitutional. No matter how many bills Texas passes, it doesn’t get to short-circuit the Supreme Court. Bell knows that, and he knows that if the bill passes, it’ll be overturned. But he’s going for it anyway.

And finally this week, the National Organization for Marriage has hinted at its future plans. They include lobbying for bills that would allow businesses to opt out of nondiscrimination laws; pushing for a federal constitutional marriage ban; and pressuring presidential candidates to oppose marriage equality.

Of these plans, the threat to undermine nondiscrimination laws, as recently happened in Indiana, is the most credible. Those “turn-away-the-gays” bills have been popping up for years and we’re likely to see more after the Supreme Court rules. Passing a constitutional amendment, on the other hand, is flat-out impossible at this point, like so many of NOM’s goals. And they might be able to pressure presidential candidates in 2016. But that’s assuming that NOM will exist at that point. Considering that their funding’s dried up, their supporters are evaporating, and they’re millions of dollars in debt, NOM may not even be worth worrying about a year from now.


  • 1. davepCA  |  May 4, 2015 at 9:17 am

    I'm a bit surprised that NOM decided to even make a plan for next year. I almost admire the moxie of those plucky kids.

  • 2. scream4ever  |  May 4, 2015 at 9:56 am

    Matt forgot to mention NOM's other plan; to branch out internationally. It wouldn't surprise me if they rename themselves as The International Organization for Marriage by year's end.

    As far as worry about NOM, I haven't considered them to be a legitimate threat for about two years now (they haven't had a legitimate victory in three years, since North Carolina's marriage amendment passed, which has since been overturned in federal court).

  • 3. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  May 4, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Hmmm… iNOM does have a catchy ring to it.

    The CHA-CHING sound when Apple sues them for trademark infringement, that is.

  • 4. DJSNOLA  |  May 5, 2015 at 7:08 am

    Bingo this is where the gay hate brigade will go next and the sad part is they are much more successful internationally especially in Africa.

  • 5. A_Jayne  |  May 5, 2015 at 7:34 am

    We may see them as a "gay hate brigade," but the bigger picture is they are a "christianist dominionist brigade." The truth is not that "they will go" anywhere next; the truth is "they have been" in many international communities for decades, trying to get the whole world under their brand of christianist control.

    Their recent successes in Russia and many African countries got on our radar because of their anti-gay agenda, but their platform is much bigger than that.

  • 6. tigris26  |  May 4, 2015 at 10:04 am

    Off-topic: Nice article on Justice Kennedy and his gay rights decisions and how they point to how he will rule in June. 🙂

  • 7. SoCal_Dave  |  May 4, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Off topic, but lots of fun. Kate McKinnon as Notorious RBG on SNL

  • 8. 1grod  |  May 4, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Sense of Decency – When that trait was being handed out Scalia and Alito were absent:

  • 9. 1grod  |  May 4, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    Beyond Equality is a timely piece because this site also ought to be thinking of a transition to a primary focus beyond marriage in USA. [by September]

  • 10. guitaristbl  |  May 4, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Apart from NOM who basically remains without a direct subject to keep their lazy existence somewhat excused, this forum also faces a problem after marriage litigition is done really lol !

    I mean we will have court action to protect anti discrimination laws, conversion therapy bans and fight "license to discriminate" laws but yet again much of the focus will be out of courts really..

  • 11. StraightDave  |  May 4, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Regardless of the specifics, "equality on trial" as a theme never seems to go out of style in the good old USA, alas.

  • 12. VIRick  |  May 4, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    "…. we will have court action to protect anti-discrimination laws, conversion therapy bans, and fight "license to discriminate" laws …."

    Oooooh, plus there's lots of other countries where marriage equality needs to be pushed, whether legislatively, judicially, or both. At some levels, although Latin America in general is ahead of the USA on this subject, there are major pockets of resistance in provincial southern Mexico, most of Central America, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay, and all of the British and ex-British Caribbean.

    Then, there are lots of countries still remaining in central and eastern Europe, plus all of East Asia, and Australia,– for starters.

    Personally, with all of this combined, I think we will continue to be quite busy.

  • 13. DJSNOLA  |  May 5, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Well after this summer, I will certainly be spending more focus on this. Its also I think a key issue in debates for President. I want to know what the next president will do when it comes to these issues. No more aid for countries that make homosexuality illegal. That should be step 1.

  • 14. VIRick  |  May 4, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    Puerto Rico Governor Signs Executive Order to Legalize Medical Marijuana

    The order goes into immediate effect. The Governor of Puerto Rico signed an executive order Sunday, 3 May 2015, to permit the use of medical marijuana in the U.S. territory.

    Puerto Rico’s health secretary has three months to release a report on how the executive order will be implemented in the territory and what its impact will be.

    By the same executive authority, now that Puerto Rico's Attorney-General and staff are no longer legally defending its ban on marriage between same-sex couples, the Governor of Puerto Rico, if he so chose, could also immediately legalize marriage for same-sex couples.

  • 15. VIRick  |  May 4, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    Another Mexican State Has 5 Successful Injunctions for Marriage Equality

    In Querétaro, on 23 April 2015, an injunction which had been filed in August 2014 involving 55 couples was successful, after articles 137 and 273 of the Querétaro Civil Code were declared unconstitutional.

    So, now, we have these states with at least 5 injunctions: Chihuahua (25), Yucatán (10), Colima (5), Nayarit (5), Querétaro (5), plus the on-going dispute as to how many injunctions have already been issued in Baja California. All are presently under court orders to revise their civil code to legalize marriage between same-sex couples. There should no longer be any need for further injunctions being issued in those states, while many additional states will soon hit that number. Here's my up-dated listing, showing both granted/pending, with additional numbers in parentheses indicating the number of couples involved in the mass injunctions (amparos colectivos):

    2/3 Aguascalientes
    3/3 Baja California
    2/0 Baja California Sur (45 couples granted)
    1/8 Campeche
    1/0 Chiapas (51 couples granted)
    25/24 Chihuahua
    5/0 Colima
    1/1 Durango (18 couples pending)
    2/3 Guanajuato (235 couples in the 3 pending amparos)
    0/0 Guerrero (1 marriage, no injunction)
    0/1 Hidalgo (3 couples pending)
    3/1 Jalisco (14 couples granted/10 couples pending)
    1/0 State of México (4 couples granted)
    2/7 Michoacán
    3/1 Morelos
    5/0 Nayarit
    2/9 Nuevo León (25 couples granted/43 couples pending)
    4/0 Oaxaca (42 couples granted)
    0/1 Puebla (18 couples pending)
    5/1 Querétaro (59 couples granted)
    2/1 San Luis Potosí
    4/5 Sinaloa (4 couples granted/39 couples pending)
    2/1 Sonora (6 couples pending)
    1/1 Tabasco
    3/1 Tamaulipas (125 couples granted/80 couples pending)
    0/0 Tlaxcala
    2/8 Veracruz
    10/0 Yucatán
    0/0 Zacatecas

    Total: 91 granted/80 pending

    In addition to the above, the following states are under court orders from Mexico's Supreme Court to revise their civil codes to legalize marriage for same-sex couples (with or without the 5 injunctions): Oaxaca, Baja California, Campeche, Sinaloa, State of Mexico, Colima, and Chiapas, plus Nuevo León, as ordered by that state's Constitutional Court. Cases are pending before Mexico's Supreme Court from Chihuahua, Jalisco, Yucatán, Durango, and Puebla, all of which will be struck down in due course, with orders to revise their civil codes accordingly.

  • 16. 1grod  |  May 5, 2015 at 6:05 am

    AL's legislature enjoys negative attention – again

  • 17. DJSNOLA  |  May 5, 2015 at 7:13 am

    The worst part is that these legislatures are in general out of sync with their constituents. How did we end up with state legislatures further to the right than most of their states even?

  • 18. A_Jayne  |  May 5, 2015 at 7:27 am

    A few things.

    For one, they can be as "RW" as they want to be because they know that no (R) supporter will ever vote for a (D).

    As long as they support big business goals and pander to those they know will get out and vote, they get the big money for elections.

    (R) voters (even some gay people, unfortunately) have no problem with sacrificing gay (and others') rights as long as "their party" stays in power.

  • 19. DJSNOLA  |  May 5, 2015 at 10:08 am

    Unfortunately agree with everything you said. For some reason the Republicans seem to tolerate more radicalism in their party than does the Democrats.

  • 20. montezuma58  |  May 5, 2015 at 10:20 am

    The problem is that states like Alabama are now practically one party states. In most districts the democrat label has become toxic. There have been several powerful, well encrusted barnacles that lost their seats to complete nut jobs just because they didn't switch parties quick enough.

    So now the primary votes are essentially the general elections. There's no concern about opposition in the general election to temper the choices in the primaries (the number of unopposed races in the last general election was depressing). Since the primaries draw more of the hard core party hacks we end up with the bottom of the barrel.

  • 21. DJSNOLA  |  May 6, 2015 at 7:08 am

    Agreed this is a problem especially for Republicans because it seems to allow more radical element to hold office even if many of their views don't represent everyone . It's why we can't get employee non discrimination passed but a plurality of Americans are for it.Sent from my iPhone

  • 22. SoCal_Dave  |  May 5, 2015 at 8:51 am

    Love this comment…
    "My faith does not tell me how to tell others how to live. It tells me how to live."

  • 23. jpmassar  |  May 5, 2015 at 9:38 am

    A total of 58 percent of Americans said that they favor a high court decision to eliminate bans against same sex marriage, with 44 percent of those saying they strongly favor such a result.

  • 24. DJSNOLA  |  May 5, 2015 at 10:07 am

    Thats great news.. the bigger number is the ones strongly opposed is plummeting. This isnt Roe v Wade 2.0

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