Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Tag: NOM Exposed

VIDEO: Holding NOM accountable for their absurd Iowa Supreme Court ad

By Matt Baume

They’re at it again.

Anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage don’t have any facts to back up their crusade to ban marriage, so their ads all lean on innuendo, suggestions, and “weasel words.” Nowhere is that more apparent than their new ad, which calls for the ousting of Iowa Supreme Court justices based on one single ruling that NOM happens not to like.

If NOM wants to waste their money on these little games, that’s fine. Jeremy already did a spot-on job explaining why ads like these are, in fact, a big waste. But it’s also a good opportunity for us to step back, look at their silly claims, and expose them to the light of day.

Here’s the original:


To me, the most offensive thing about this new ad is the phrase “ignoring our traditional values.” Apparently now NOM feels that they are qualified to decide for us what our values are.

126 Comments September 20, 2010

VIDEO: Exposing NOM/”Iowa For Freedom” anti-equality team’s failure in court

(Cross-posted at Good As You. Also, read Jeremy’s post yesterday here on NOM sinking $235,000 into a TV ad buy targeting the Iowa Supreme Court)

By Jeremy Hooper

We keep hearing the well-funded NOM/Iowa For Freedom coalition talk about how the state Supreme Court supposedly decided the marriage case inappropriately, and the judges should therefore be removed from their jobs. But nobody on the anti-LGBT wants to actually show people what went down in that court room and let them make up their own minds about how and why the justices arrived at their opinion. So we will.

Here now, six clips — three from pro-equality attorney Dennis Johnson and three from Roger Kuhle, an attorney who attempted to defend marriage bias. Take a look back:

Johnson kept his cool, relying on the state’s current policies and his plaintiffs’ demonstrated merit:



Our verdict: Just like in the much more extensive Prop 8 federal trial, the anti-equality side lost because they simply have no reasonable foundation for their views. It’s the whole “you can’t polish a turd” thing. Their biggest argument is based on the idea that creating babies, something that is a 100% non-requirement of the civil marriage contract, is actually what the marriage institution is all about, and gay couples (who often parent themselves) will somehow ruin that for current and future generations. Honestly, they should save face by thanking their own parents for birthing them into this time, because the reality is that this kind of reasoning will someday not only be rejected in court — it will be unapologetically laughed out of the same!


**SEE ALSO: The 2009 decision that quite ably details

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has

been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding

plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on

sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the

fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.

This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection

analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative

classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil

marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the

remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner

allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil


VI. Conclusion.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.

Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa

Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of



All justices concur.

[scribd id=13921470 key=key-1at7rw9t1ei3znau2ih3 mode=list]

95 Comments September 17, 2010

VIDEO: NOM sinks $235,000 into TV/radio ad buy targeting Iowa Supreme Court

Check out the TV ad below and read Jeremy’s post. $235,000 is a lot money, given Iowa’s small media market. — Eden

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

NOM is all kinds of proud to partner with the Sandra Day O’Connor-misrepresenting group “Iowa For Mob Rule” “Iowa For Freedom.” Here’s Brian Brown’s latest e-blast, promoting the majority tyranny coalition’s latest TV spot:


Perhaps the biggest waste of 200+k in American political history! Because first and most obviously: The attempt to use this one UNANIMOUS decision against these three justices simply because the findings don’t jibe with certain LGBT-hostile religious beliefs is a major threat to the nature of the fair and independent judiciary.

But beyond just that: Even if the anti-equality crowd was to remove the three (or even all seven) judges, the chances of them finding a majority of replacements that will go the faith-based, anti-LGBT way is slim to none (and growing slimmer every day). Because in any given state Supreme Court appointment, the three potential justices who are delivered to the governor are selected by a nominating commission. Seven members of that commission are indeed appointed by the governor, but they must then be confirmed by the senate. The other seven members are attorneys elected by the state bar association. And of course the nominating commission culls their three possibilities from those who have demonstrated the merit needed for the job, not the partisan politicking that NOM and Iowa For Freedom would like to see.

So the point: There are so many parts of this process that are completely out of NOM and Iowa for Freedom’s control. Sure there are some partisan elements, due to the governor’s role. And ultimately the governor’s office, which could possibly turn GOP in the election, gets the final say in who gets the appointment. But Iowa’s process is not a partisan election where interest groups can easily sneak in seven ideologues via the deceptive campaigns that they call normalcy! Firing these three won’t mean that Maggie Gallagher gets the job by default. Rejecting their accurate assessments won’t change said accuracy.

What NOM/Iowa For Freedom (and their more silent partners at AFA) really wants is an overhaul of the constitution. And not just a marriage amendment, which courts will ultimately roll back. At the end of the day, what these folks want is a newly written document that grants heterosexual, faith-based superiority. Fortunately, the constitution’s retention is not up for a public vote this November. At least not directly.


*Oh, and just a reminder (because it can’t be stated enough): “Liberal activist” Marsha Ternus was already appointed by the man who could be Iowa’s next governor: Terry Branstad, Republican former governor and current GOP nominee to retake the governor’s office. (*check bottom of this post to read what Brandstand said about Ternus back in ’93)

92 Comments September 16, 2010

“American Taliban”: Markos Moulitsas joins Courage Campaign Conversation conference call on Thursday night

By Eden James

I don’t usually post Courage Campaign emails in full, but I’m running out the door and wanted you all to see this, in case you’re interested in joining us on the call, with Rick Jacobs moderating.

The subject of this new book by Markos Moulitsas dovetails directly with the mission of this web site — to cover the Prop 8 trial as it develops and hold the right-wing accountable across the spectrum of the LGBT rights movement.

If you can join us on Thursday night, we’d love to have you:

With the religious right continuing to use marriage equality as a wedge issue as the November election looms, we thought it would be a good time for a “Courage Campaign Conversation” with Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, one of America’s largest online political communities.

Markos has a written a new book called “American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right” and we’ve invited him to talk about it with you on a nationwide conference call this Thursday, Sept. 16, at 5:30 p.m. PST / 8:30 p.m. EST. Please read his message below and then RSVP for the call ASAP:

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign

Dear Friend–

Right-wingers say a lot of ridiculous things. But few were more ridiculous than the repeated claims that progressives were in league with Islamic terrorists.

Why would progressives make common cause with terrorists? After all, the values and tactics that make Jihadists so despicable are the same values and tactics embraced by our own homegrown fundamentalists — the American Taliban.

That’s why I wrote the book American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right.” In the book, I show how the modern conservative movement has taken on the  same attitudes and tactics of the Taliban, from their fetishization of violence and guns to their elevation of brute masculinity, love of theocracy, hatred of women and gays, fear of scientific progress and education, and disdain for popular culture.

Think about it. Both movements are dedicated to the unbridled pursuit of power at all costs, have little tolerance for the trappings of democracy, and quickly resort to violence when challenged… hardly the principles for which America stands.

I want to talk with you about “American Taliban” and American politics on Thursday, Sept. 16, at 5:30 p.m. PST / 8:30 p.m. EST.  Space is limited for this special “Courage Campaign Conversation,” so please click here to RSVP now. If you contribute $50 or more to the Courage Campaign, I’ll sign my book and send it to you (but you don’t need to buy a book to RSVP for the call):

When I typed my first words on Daily Kos in 2002, Democrats were cowering to the bullying of the Bush Administration, instead of standing strong against the opposition. We’ve made some progress since then. But we’ve still got a lot of work to do.

That’s why I wrote “American Taliban” — to establish what we’re up against and what it will take to fight it this November and in the coming years. I’ve got to say, I think this is my best book yet.

I’m looking foward to talking with you on Thursday — but space is limited on the call, so please hurry before lines run out. Just click here to RSVP for this “Courage Campaign Conversation” this Thursday (and consider making an optional $50 contribution to receive a signed copy of my book):

This should be a very open discussion. If you know any friends who would like to join us, please forward this message to them.

Thank you for all you do to make this a better country.

Markos Moulitsas
Founder, Daily Kos 

31 Comments September 15, 2010

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot?

By Rob Tisinai

Maggie Gallagher loves to complain about being called a bigot. It’s a favorite talking point. She writes whole columns about it. In fact, I’d bet she hopes people call her a bigot, just so she can roll around some more in the broken glass of victimhood.

The problem with this pose is that she founded the National Organization for Marriage . And on that group’s website is a page called “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions.” I see much claptrap on that page, but one mild statement shines out as the most offensive of all. She suggests this answer to a frequent question (or so she claims):

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Logically, this answer is easy enough to pick apart. Certainly we’d laugh at the idea that there is a specific kind of love common to every husband/wife couple. There’s not even a love requirement for marriage in the first place, much less a legal obligation to feel some vague, undefined “special love.” In fact, Maggie and her ideological kin would argue that lack of love is no reason for heading to divorce court.

But NOM’s offense to logic isn’t what pisses me off. It’s the implication that gay and lesbian couples aren’t capable of feeling the same sort of love that straight couples can. Even more outrageously, that we can’t feel the same love for our children that straight couples can.

No. No, no, and no.

Gays and lesbians are not lacking in our ability to love. It’s literally dehumanizing to claim such a thing — to argue that we’re missing some essential component of what makes people human.

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot? I can’t claim the right to judge the whole of her character. But in this case, to be sure, the answer she gives is the answer of a bigot. So Maggie, if you want, cry victim and roll around in that broken glass. You’re the one who put it there.

105 Comments September 15, 2010

Hi Louis! “One Man, One Woman” stance on DADT exposes NOM’s duplicity and hypocrisy

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

You know how we’ve told you a million times about that “One Man, One Woman” offshoot organization? The one run by National Organization For Marriage tour personality Louis Marinelli? The same OMOW group whose Facebook page NOM now claims as their own official site on both their own Twitter feed and their spinoff site?

Yea, well check this out: In a surprising move, someone writing for OMOW (presumably Louis) has come out in favor of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal:

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.30.09 Am

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.42.27 Am

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.30.21 Am

Also, presumably-Louis has even joined this site, Towleroad, and Americablog in asking the DOJ to not appeal the recent court decision:

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 11.42.59 Am

Uhm, okay. So now just to remind you: This Twitter account (which was once called NOMUpdates) is the same Twitter account that, over the past year, has tweeted all kinds of targeted hits not just against marriage equality, but also against gays in general. There was the time that Louis, or whoever was writing for the account, declared all gays to be single. There was the time that the Twitter-er said that Peter LaBarbera and his fringe “Americans For Truth” group merely “tell the truth about homosexuality.” There were times when he or she flat-out called us an abomination, citing Leviticus. There was this one: “Deviance” describes actions or behaviours that violate cultural norms – homosexuality is far from a cultural norm. Therefore, it is deviant.” And this: “Homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and harmful to society.” And this: “#iaintafraidtosay that there shouldn’t be any recognition of homosexual relationships because that is saying that homosexuality is OK.” There was this next one, accompanied by a smile: “What they do is blantantly [sic] immoral. 🙂” There were times when Mr. Marinelli or his ally compared our unions to that which might exist between a sterile brother and sister. And other times when our very character was assaulted, like this one: “#nevertrust activists of the homosexual agenda – they are deceitful people who care only about themselves and not what’s best for society.And so on and so on.

Plus, as we’ve seen time and time again, the OMOW Facebook page (which, again, NOM claims as their own in multiple places) hosts some of the most incendiary, blanketed comments on the ‘net. Comments that often go well beyond marriage and right into gays’ mental health.

So to have this site now coming out in favor of repeal? It’s kind of — something. Sure, it might be a naked attempt to say, “See we don’t really hate gays — we support their right to fight and possibly die on the battlefield.” But regardless of motivation, it’s certainly not a position that will sit well with the vast majority of organized anti-equality activists, as most of the socially conservative personalities and groups see the LGBT community’s every gain as an interconnected step down a slippery slope. So if OMOW is sincere, then we celebrate the dual takeaway: (1) The further evidence that even some “pro-family” peeps are coming around on basic rights, and (2) the further dissension that this support for basic rights will cause among those whose anti-gay “culture war” is an all-out “us v. them” battle rather than a series of tiered skirmishes with varying shades of nuance.


**True to form, OMOW is making yet another attempt to distance from NOM:

Screen Shot 2010-09-11 At 12.00.23 Pm

But here’s the deal: It is 100% impossible for an organization to embed a Facebook page…

(NOM’s TwoMillion For Marriage site, with “OMOW” Facebook embedded within)


…and for that same organization to list that same Facebook page on their branded Twitter account…

(NOM’s official Twitter sidebar, with “OMOW” listed as official Facebook)


…and still claim separation. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY.

98 Comments September 11, 2010

Previous page