Tuesday, November 01, 2011

NOM - 'It doesn't matter if we stole the photos'

So the National Organization for Marriage is FINALLY commenting on the controversy regarding its theft of photos from Obama rallies. NOM's president, Brian Brown had this to say on its blog:

Rachel Maddow and her friends on the left are all atwitter about a photo collage created for the www.NHforMarriage.com website that NOM is sponsoring with allies in New Hampshire who are working with us to repeal same-sex marriage there.

. . . It's no accident that Maddow and her allies in the gay activist community chose Tuesday to issue their breathless "expose" about NOM's photo "controversy"—on Tuesday the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly to repeal same-sex marriage! Neither Maddow nor her friends at the Human Rights Campaign can defend imposing same-sex marriage on New Hampshire with no vote of the people. So they issue "reports" and press releases criticizing NOM over a photo collage! They object to us using a photo of a crowd scene, which symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort. They're upset that the photo was not taken at a NOM rally. Seriously?! NOM using a common use photo in the public domain is considered a great scandal, yet they can redefine marriage—the most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire voters—and nobody is supposed to object? It's as if the institution of marriage gets mugged, and they complain about speeding in the neighborhood when someone rushes it to the hospital!

Naturally Brown ends this post with a request for money to "save marriage."

Brown, if you haven't caught on by now, is lying through his teeth and I almost wish that the old adage about "getting struck by lightning would apply here."

NOM did not use a common use photo. It used a photo specifically taken at a rally for Obama:






You can even see Obama in both photos.

Never have I seen such incredible arrogance. NOM gets caught stealing photos to boost up its number of supporters and its response to being called out is to play the victim.

That's like a thief crying foul because a homeowner hit him too hard in the middle of a break-in.

But that's the caliber of NOM.  It's the level of underhanded hypocrisy which the gay community has come to expect from the organization.

Related posts:

NOM continues to embarrass itself in photo scandal

NOM photo scandal heating up

'NOM condemned from all sides for photo stealing' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Just when you thought NOM couldn't stoop any lower . . .



Bookmark and Share

6 comments:

ChrisM said...

"...the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly to repeal same-sex marriage!"

Uh, no, not really. The republicans had a 13-4 majority on the committee, and the vote was 11-6 in favor of approving the bill. Mr. Brown is losing more and more support all the time, no wonder he has to resort to such blatant spin tactics.

Anonymous said...

1) Why did it take Brown over a week to come up with this response? If he's so indignant over the controversy, you'd think he'd be on it immediately.

2) If they wanted a photo "which symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of [their] effort" why not just use an actual photo of the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of [their] effort...???

3) Is it really that surprising that they use new lies to defend old ones?

kieran said...

He's an idiot, unfortunately. I've a more detailed response, breaking down everything he said if you click my name, I do hope you appreciate it, Alvin, as I always enjoy reading your posts here and hope that you will enjoy mine.

mike/ said...

obviously doesn't know his 8th & 9th commandments;

did he pass catechism? i think that was in the 1st grade class...

Gregory Peterson said...

I didn't think that Reuters did public domain, free use photos. Has someone covering the controversy contacted them?

http://blogs.reuters.com/jimyoung

Anonymous said...

What a nice little redirection. They seem to think it's ok for them to essentially lie because they are "protecting" marriage. Woe is them