Tuesday, November 08, 2011

BREAKING - NOM wastes over $30,000 in embarrassing Iowa loss

The National Organization for Marriage just suffered an embarrassing loss in an Iowa special election which would have allowed the organization to challenge marriage equality in the state had its candidate won.

According to the Iowa Independent, NOM spent over $30,000 pushing Republican candidate Cindy Golding in a special election for a state senatorial seat.

But it wasn't enough because Golding came up short against Liz Mathis - 44% to 56% of the vote.

NOM sought to make the election a referendum about marriage equality, a strategy which may have backfired on the group.

It's too early to tell why Golding lost - even though Mathis was leading in the polls - but when it's all said and done, this election was probably decided by a mysterious robocall which all but sank Golding's chances:

No one knows who the group is behind the robocall but at press time, NOM is already whining about the call being a dirty trick which served to undermine Golding.

Had Golding won, state Republicans would have had enough votes to send a referendum on marriage equality to the voters.  In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court made a ruling which legalized gay marriage in the state.

This is an ongoing story and there will be more details in later posts.

Bookmark and Share

Family Research Council pushes another flawed study against gay couples

One of the biggest lies pushed by the Family Research Council and other like-minded groups is that gays and lesbians are too promiscuous to worry about settling down and getting married.

FRC in particular pushes this lie through inaccurate studies, such as the one the group cited today via an email:

"Rights and benefits" are exactly what homosexual activists are aggressively pursuing in the courts. In addition, empirical evidence shows that homosexuals are less likely to commit to a partner, remain sexually faithful, or remain committed for a lifetime than heterosexuals.

It used to be that when FRC talked about "empirical evidence"  and provided links to this evidence, alarms would sound off in my head.

Now, however, the alarms have been replaced with a type of mental salivation which comes with knowing that I am going to be able to produce another blog post which demonstrates yet again how FRC lies about the gay community.

Today is no different. You see the "empirical evidence" which FRC links to a proof of so-called gay promiscuity is a study it published a while back, Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples.

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples is so bad, so flawed that one wonders just what was FRC thinking in citing it. For one, the study is irrelevant because at the time it was published, gay and lesbian couples could not marry in the United States.

And that's just one of the myriad of errors.

The others include:

- A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.

A passage from Homosexualities clearly says:

“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

- A citation of the book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison despite the fact that the book was written 1984 and was not meant to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.

'O'Donnell calls out Family Research Council for hypocrisy' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, who once used an article I wrote in the Huffington Post to rip apart right-wing phony historian David Barton, is at it again as he absolutely destroys the Family Research Council for its hypocrisy in giving Rep. Joe Walsh a "pro-family" award even though he allegedly owes over $100,000 in child support:

And in other news:

NOM Bullies Corporations Into Hiring And Protecting Anti-Gay Demonizers
- I personally think NOM is full of it here but this story isn't dead yet.

Update - Discrimination Inc. takes stock of corporate practices; sells cheaply - Jeremy Hooper breaks it down rather nicely.

Minnesota Poll: Marriage amendment divide is deep - And we haven't even started having fun about the issue YET.

Golding/Mathis race gets even more homo-hostile - Cause it's all about the gay sex.

Judge: Prop. 8 donors have no right to anonymity - A written opinion to accompany last month's ruling and it ain't pretty for the pro-Prop 8 side.

Bookmark and Share

Has NOM's leaders gone AWOL in the public arena?

Is it just me or have the spokespersons and leaders of the National Organization for Marriage decided to go into hiding?

NOM's president Brian Brown has gone AWOL when it comes to public speaking. Not that he was a good one in the first place. As seen on one of his last appearances - on Fox News believe it or not - talking points uttered in a robotic tone doesn't exactly endear you to the audience.

But it's not only Brown who has embraced silence. We have yet to hear the organization's new chairman, John Eastman, on any type of news program.

It's a far cry from when Maggie Gallagher was chairwoman. The gay community couldn't get past a day without seeing her or hearing her comments on various programs, reciting the same lies about "being falsely labeled as a bigot" and how "marriage is the joining of two halves."

But now that Gallagher is no longer chairwoman,  NOM seems to have taken a shadowy pose.

Granted, the organization is still a force, but its allowing its money to do the job by pumping obscene amounts into statewide campaigns.

But generally NOM seems to have abandoned the idea of even trying to maintain a public image.

And I think it's because the folks behind NOM figure that the organization has enough money and influence not to maintain the game played by other organizations such as the Family Research Council or the American Family Association.

Or it could be that the organization realized that very few are buying what it was selling. It's hard to maintain an image of a morality group when you constantly having to fight laws regarding the disclosure of your donors.

Also, let's face facts regarding Maggie Gallagher. She - and Brown for that matter - were not good spokespeople. While Brown seemed to be badly repeating dictated talking points, Gallagher was a slow but constant disaster.

She had an awful television presence in that she was combative and evasive. She did well in front of audiences who agreed with her opinions regarding marriage, but on televised debates when faced with someone from the Human Rights Campaign or any other lgbtq group, Gallagher came across as phony. She tended to talk over folks, shout a bit, and if all else failed, pretended to be personally offended when someone actually called her out on her lies.

NOM's success is all about the money. The gay community knows this and so does NOM's people.

But what the gay community already knows  - and what NOM's people will soon find out - is that money can only get you so far when you aren't playing truthfully.

Bookmark and Share