Hate Crimes, and Protests Against Hate, Carried Out Across US After Trump’s Election

Feature image via Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock.com

First, let’s talk about a few good things:

A few progressive victories from the election: minimum wage increases, a few gun control measures, and more legalized marijuana.

Some of the women who won on election night: Catherine Cortez Masto, the first Latina senator in US history; Ilhan Omar, the first Somali-American legislator; and Stephanie Murphy, openly bisexual Kate Brown, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Kamala Harris, and Pramila Jayapal.

Many politicians are, alarmingly, arguing that we need to have an “open mind” or work with the president-elect; Harry Reid is not necessarily one of them, calling Trump a sexual predator who has “emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry.”

One of Trump’s declarations in his 100-day plan is to castigate sanctuary cities, cities that attempt to serve as safe havens for undocumented people, by refusing them federal funding. Seattle’s mayor says the city will remain a sanctuary city anyway.

The ACLU says that if Trump attempts to accomplish the unconstitutional plans he’s proposed, they’ll see him in court.

Protests have rolled out across the US from people who vow to reject Trump’s ideology and fight his plans.

Mayan elders from Guatemala traveled to Standing Rock to support No DAPL.

A judge has ordered bottled water to be delivered to Flint, MI to help the residents there.

A new study looks at the potential for abortion pills to be delivered by mail to people who can’t access clinics.

Now for the bad stuff:

NPR fact checks Trump’s proposed first 100 days.

The KKK plan a rally to celebrate.

As predicted, acts of hate and violence are being reported across the US.

Based on who he’s looking at for his transition team so far, the Trump administration looks very dangerous.

Reports indicate that former Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon may have a job in the White House, with Trump considering him for chief of staff.

Anti-gay National Organization for Marriage has outlined their four-point plan to help Trump overturn legal progess for LGBT people.

+We will work with President Trump to nominate conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, individuals who will adhere to the words and meaning of the constitution. Such justices will inevitably reverse the anti-constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court imposing same-sex “marriage” on the nation in the Obergefell decision, because that decision lacked any basis in the constitution.
+ We will work with President Trump to rescind the illegal, over-reaching executive orders and directives issued by President Obama, including his dangerous “gender identity” directives, attempting to redefine gender just as he sought to redefine marriage.
+ We will work with President Trump to reverse policies of the Obama administration that seek to coerce other countries into accepting same-sex ‘marriage’ as a condition of receiving US assistance and aid. It is fundamentally wrong for a president to become a lobbyist for the LGBT agenda, and we are confident that will end in the Trump administration.
+ We will work with President Trump and Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which Mr. Trump supports. FADA is critical legislation to protect people who believe in marriage from being targeted by the government for persecution.

Republicans are eager to try to strengthen torture policies under Trump.

North Carolina voters generally opposed HB2 and may have ousted Pat McCrory as governor, but the state is still so dominated by Republicans that it probably won’t seriously impact the law.

Republicans have vowed they’ll keep investigating Hillary Clinton for alleged crimes.

Far right politicians in Europe are delighted by a Trump presidency.

Donald Trump will be a nightmare in terms of climate change.

NOM Thinks Anti-Gay Views Are, Like, So Fetch Right Now

NOM has been relatively quiet since they Lost All the Things back in November, but just like Brian Brown promised, they’re remaining faithful to their mission. He slunk away to France with his tail between his legs to join the protest against Mariage pour Tous. There, he was given a second wind by the energetic march and left a hopeful promise for his fellow homo-hating Americans. “I would ask you to join me in thinking about more creative ways we can proclaim our pro-marriage views with passion and conviction.”

What powerful and inspiring words! Do you think he was going to start a charity? Write a book? Make some more videos? Be still my beating heart!

… oh

Looks like that “creativity” means NOM’ll try to jump on the meme bandwagon by making their March for Marriage both light-hearted and accessible! Nothing says “haha that’s so funny and zany” like a movement that seeks to remove the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens. M4M has been “adding humour” to their Facebook page by giving their followers a daily reminder of what they need on March 26th.

Sadly, much like many of their other attempts to stay with it, their efforts have completely missed the mark. Whereas the creators might think they’re being incredibly witty, the only people laughing are the redditors that find this in r/cringe. Given that Sean Bean portrayed a trans* English teacher in The Accused, I sincerely doubt Boromir would be joining them for a walk or a march to strip the rights of LGBT Americans. Although one could argue that they’re making themselves more relevant by speaking the younger generation’s language, they’re simply proving to us young whippersnappers how far removed from reality and society they truly are.

All around the world, people are realizing equal rights really aren’t so bad. Even though it seemed like Mariage pour Tous wouldn’t happen, they defeated their opponents by 100 votes. Back on this side of the Atlantic, multiple Republicans have heeded the call to modernize and have come out in support of same-sex marriage. As of Monday evening, 75 members of the Grand Ol’ Party signed on to make marriage equality a reality for all citizens, regardless of political affliations. Among the signatures you’ll find Bush advisors, Reagan advisors and politicians that ran on platforms supporting Prop 8, proving that not everyone is living in the past. Deborah Pryce, a former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives spoke about her new view. “Like a lot of the country, my views have evolved on this from the first day I set foot in Congress. I think it’s just the right thing, and I think it’s on solid legal footing, too.”

But of course, some anti-gay views have yet to evolve. Family Research Council policy studies fellow Peter Sprigg warned, “I don’t think that’s a constructive attitude to take because Republican officials cannot win without social conservatives. They are the core base of the Republican Party and the most active volunteers, and it would make no sense to turn their backs on them.” NOM has decided to take it a step further with their threat. In a press release on Monday, Brown took credit for causing three senators to step down and have offered themselves as financial hitmen for whichever Minnesotan politician dares to cross the party line.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today pledged to spend $500,000 against any Republican legislator who votes in favor of redefining marriage in Minnesota, and will support any Democrat who votes to preserve marriage. NOM’s Minnesota state political fund was the largest contributor to the proposed Minnesota Marriage Amendment (giving over $2.2 million) and has helped defeat virtually every Republican who has supported gay marriage, including three Republican state Senators in New York in 2012.

Republicans like Branden Petersen don’t realize that not only is voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a career-ending vote for a Republican. NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage. Legislators need look no further than what happened to GOP Senators in New York. Four of them were responsible for passing gay marriage. We helped take out three of those Senators by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage. They are now out of office. We will not hesitate to do the same thing in Minnesota.

Although they have an inflated view of themselves and their political power, their school-yard bullying antics and silly jokes shouldn’t make a difference this time. The HRC has already dismissed NOM as irrelevant for 2013 due to their lagging polling support and ill-thought investments. So even if they bring out the Benjamins and kill a few careers this year, it’ll surely be their last move. Let’s face it, if NOM’s trying to make themselves relevant for this generation, they’re doing it wrong!

The Truth About Queer RAs

The Ruth Institute, the National Organization for Marriage’s “let’s influence the youngsters” branch, has released a video attacking a group of people who supposedly pose a growing threat to college kids: queer resident advisers (RAs). Jennifer Roback Morse, the Ruth Institute’s founder and president, speaks in the video about a “good Catholic girl” who was bullied by her gay RA for hesitating to participate in a drag party. Morse points to gay RAs as part of a conspiracy by the “other side” to influence young people. “There is no TV message that is going to do the job of countering that type of influence,” she says in the video. “Somebody’s got to be there, talking to the young people, one at a time.” She urges parents to find out if their children have gay RAs, even if they are in Christian colleges, because their kids might not even realize the impact it is having on them.

I would have loved to have a queer RA in college. Unfortunately, I felt pretty alienated from the residential life at my campus: during the two years I lived in the NYU dorms, I wasn’t aware of any queer programming or explicit support for queers on the hall. I met my queer community through working and volunteering everywhere besides my school. I was randomly assigned two lesbian roommates in a row (the first was my first girlfriend and the second became my BFF) but in terms of a structured queer support system, my experience was lacking.  I’ve since been told that NYU res life is way more queer than I gave it credit for being, but if I didn’t know about it at the time, I doubt it’s having the pervasive influence that Morse is claiming.

After watching the Ruth Institute’s video, I decided to track down some queers with RA experience to find out their feelings; I knew there had to be stories of queer advisers who supported their residents, created positive change and made safe spaces for all of the kids on their hall. As it turns out, quite a few of you have been RAs!

According to Maddie, a former Student Fellow (that’s a fancy phrase for RA) from Vassar College, there’s actually not much of a difference between queer RAs and straight ones. While she was open about being queer and made sure her students knew about queer resources, Maddie worked to make her dorm “as safe a space as possible for everyone.” Being a queer Student Fellow did uniquely position her to provide much needed support to the queer student population, though: “When bathrooms in my dorm were defaced with homophobic and sexist graffiti,” she told me, “I helped organize dorm meetings to talk about it, and then a campus-wide teach-in/panel to talk about sexism on campus.”

“Queer RAs can be especially important as people who provide direct support,” Maddie continued, “because queer communities can be pretty intimidating for someone outside the scene. An RA can guide and be a confidante without becoming your best friend.”

Liz Washington, a former RA from a mid-sized public university in Georgia, told me that it hurt to watch the video from the Ruth Institute because “the majority of programming in the residence halls is heterosexist, or ignores that multiple sexualities exist.” She stated that being an out lesbian RA helped her become confident and assertive enough to be herself, since she had to serve as a mentor and an ally for other queers in the deep south. Her LGBTQ-related programming included activities like simply showing movies that featured a cast with diverse sexual identities followed by a discussion. Her main goal, though, was to make sure that “all students felt welcome and safe in their ‘home away from home.'”

Share your experiences in the comments about dorm life with or without queer RAs, so that we can drown out people like Morse who, as Maddie put it, are using stories told third-hand against the entire population of queer RAs. Whoever shouts the loudest, right?

NOM Grasps Desperately For Post-Election Relevance

Happy Friday everyone! It’s been three days since we were freaking out and celebrating through the election and by now you’re no doubt aware of all the amazing things that happened for our various communities. Perhaps most notably, gay marriage is now legal in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, and not banned in Minnesota!

There are no bad things that can be said about these results. We’re getting closer to the rainbow light at the end of the tunnel! The Abominable Anti-Gay Marriage Juggernaut is being vanquished! Progress is being made! Everybody knows that, right? Well maybe not everybody. Take NOM President Brian Brown for example:

Obviously we are very disappointed in losing four tough election battles by narrow margins. We knew long ago that we faced a difficult political landscape with the four marriage battles occurring in four of the deepest-blue states in America. As our opponents built a huge financial advantage, the odds became even steeper. We ran strong campaigns and nearly prevailed in a very difficult environment, significantly out-performing the GOP ticket in every state.

Despite the fact that NOM was able to contribute a record amount to the campaigns (over $5.5 million), we were still heavily outspent, by a margin of at least four-to-one. We were fighting the entirety of the political establishment in most of the states, including sitting governors in three of the states who campaigned heavily for gay marriage. Our opponents and some in the media will attempt to portray the election results as a changing point in how Americans view gay marriage, but that is not the case. Americans remain strongly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in these very liberal states.

Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it. Marriage is a true and just cause, and we will never abandon the field of battle just because we experienced a setback. There is much work to do, and we begin that process now.

Wait. Let’s pause for a moment and let his word sink in. Was he watching the same election I was? Brown made similarly ludicrous statements to other news agencies, my favourite being, “At the end of the day, we’re still at 32 victories. Just because two extreme blue states vote for gay marriage doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will create a constitutional right for it out of thin air.” I know Brown must be a bit out of touch with reality to lead NOM to begin with, but let’s approach his statements in post-election hangover mode and fact-check that shit.

First up, those 32 victories look a lot less significant now. NOM has made itself a household name as it threw money, attack ads and poorly made video and radio spots to any state that dared to think about same-sex couples as human beings. Massachusetts? Here’s a billboard comparing your legislator to Benedict Arnold for choosing to switch sides on marriage and denounce discrimination. California? Have $1.8 million in funding to repeal gay marriage! Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Maine and Rhode Island? Ever wonder what a gaythering storm looks like? New York? Let’s give you another video. Rhode Island? Let’s make a radio spot attacking the governor for wasting his time on same sex rights. Minnesota, Maine, Maryland and Washington? Have a video on the definition of bigotry and this handy dandy chart!

Did any of it work? Hardly. Massachusetts never passed. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional, so California’s almost back on our side. New York got all sorts of gay married. Rhode Island won civil unions as a consolation prize. Gay marriage rights were initially banned in Maine, but have triumphantly returned in a clean sweep with the other three ballot measures. NOM, you’re really making a difference.

I’m not sure where NOM believes all of these man-lady-marriage-supporting Americans live. (Probably the red states?) For all of these successful ballot measures, the majority of voters supported same-sex rights! Maybe Brown needs to look up how voting works, because while anti-gay supporters are out there, they’re no longer the majority. For the past few years, acceptance of same-sex couples has been on the up and up. This summer, a CNN/ORC International survey showed that same-sex marriage approval has steadily risen from 44% to 54% since 2008. We’re on your TV, we’re in your senate and we’re c0-existing with you and your fellow heterosexual citizens because hey, we’re people too.

Oh and this not being a watershed moment? Chances are he’s wrong there too: these four rulings aren’t happening in a vacuum. In a few weeks the Supreme Court will reanalyze DOMA and Prop 8 and those judges may use these votes as a barometer of America’s feelings towards same sex marriage. Legislators aren’t as worried to take a stand and neither is the president. Voters reappointed a man that decided he’d rather make his social values known than take the easy way out by staying silent. He took a stand for LGBT Americans, and no one is faulting him for it. That Mr. Brown is huge.

Get ready Mr. Brown. This is going to happen a lot. via Towleroad

One interesting thing that’s come from all of this is that NOM’s trying to distance themselves from the GOP. In interviews NOM has emphasized that anti-gay marriage laws lost by a narrower margin than Romney. In the beginning NOM wanted to partner up with the GOP and pretend they were the goose that could lay the golden egg for all of presidential hopefuls, so Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingritch and Tim Pawlenty all made pacts. One by one they were thrown into obscurity and since the GOP are out of the white house for at least another four years, NOM is looking around to see who’s left.

It seems like the only thing they can do is side with the religious zealots. In the beginning they pretended that they were just normal citizens doing their due diligence to protect traditional marriage, but now they have to admit that they’re religious nut jobs so they can seek out more of the same. Last year, Focus on the Family—another religious group—admitted they were losing the fight and were relatively silent during this election season, helping set a precedent that even bigoted, religious organizations can’t prevent change but can recognize the change around them. If Rhode Island, Illinois, Hawaii or Minnesota decide to push for gay marriage, we’ll find out if NOM runs television ads with bibles and crosses instead of manipulated children and disgruntled teachers.

The signs are clear that Brown and NOM are standing on the wrong side of progress, but instead of conceding defeat they’re shoving their fingers in their ears and pretending they can’t hear what’s actually being said. NOM should look to their founder Maggie Gallagher to see what the election battle truly was.

The Obama electorate defeated marriage. I’m guessing we lose at least three of tonight’s four races, and maybe four of the four. We were outspent eight-to-one — and no one was willing to speak for marriage, while the whole Democratic establishment and Hollywood campaigned for marriage. Last night really is a big loss, no way to spin it.

Take a cue from your predecessor and another from your former golden boy Mittsy and realize you’ve lost. Make sure to pick up your bible and your contracts on your way out. If you need some more time to edit your press release into a concession speech (or possibly add a storm motif or some confused children), we’ll give you and your video editors a few more hours.

Remembrance of PSAs Past: A Retrospective of the Top 9 Anti-Gay Ads

It’s attack ad season! With less than a month until the election, everyone’s airing pieces on the way they’ve been victimized. Gay rights activists have been making commercials to explain the issues at hand when it comes to voting, but they really aren’t revealing everything. Luckily there are homophobic super-PACs that have video cameras and a few thousand dollars worth of airtime to remind voters how terrifying and perverted we LGBT people are. We may seem like normal, everyday citizens but we’re actually giant bullies with a sinister Gay Agenda. We’re merely pretending we want to get our rights because in reality we won’t be satisfied until we’ve taken theirs away!

Our Official Logo Via Gay Family Values

You know what guys? They’re 100% right! I’ve learned so many lessons about my Gay Agenda thanks to them! I thought LGBT Americans just wanted to be treated like more than second class citizens, but it turns out that it’s so much more! Take a gander at the past few years of anti gay-marriage ads so you know which issues are really at hand this election season.

(Warning: Although this is meant as satire, you should still grab an air-sickness bag because the commercials will either make you laugh until milk comes out your nose or vomit out of rage.)

1. What’s Marriage? – Protect Marriage

“Yes on Prop 8” warned Californians about the inadequacy of gay parents in 2008. If gay people have children, we aren’t going to know how to educate them on reproduction because we don’t have all of the relevant bits! Society has never evolved past the words “mommy” and “daddy” so gay parents won’t know what to do! Clearly our only method of defense will be to insulate our children from the critical nay-sayers and take them away from their friends. Luckily Protect Marriage is there to stop us!

2. Gathering Storm – National Organization for Marriage

In 2009 NOM managed to get their hands on our Gay Agenda and leaked our giant storm plans. Each time we say we’re trying to get equal rights, we’re really trying to take away the freedoms of homophobic doctors and parents that don’t want to have to think about gay people. We’re taking the issue way beyond gay marriage and we’re not going to stop until we change the way everyone lives! And we would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids!

3. Dare to Stand – Illinois Family Institute

When it comes to bullying, LGBT students aren’t the victims, people of faith are! One day a year gay people use their unlimited power to remove the rights of homophobic religious people by forcing them to stay silent. The Day of Silence masquerades as an organization raising awareness of the problems facing queer students, but they’re really indoctrinating impressionable youth into thinking gay is okay!

4. I’m Confused – National Organization for Marriage

Gay people and their marriages are everywhere! At first we were just on everyone’s marriage license, but now we’re in the schools too! Teaching same-sex marriage to students (which means what, exactly?) is really a ploy to make parenthood uncomfortable for everyone! Gay parents and people won’t be satisfied until children are asking their parents and grandparents about the world at large! Who wants to talk to their children? Worst of all, gay people are going to make schools will teach students a new way of thinking! NOM and New Hampshire know that’s not what the education system is for!

5. New Morning – Campaign for American Values PAC

We gay people are using our superpowers to go back in time and steal America’s votes! We conspired with Obama to try to change all of the gay marriage-hating Obama supporters into gay marriage-loving Obama supporters! We all know that even if you support Obama you sure as fuck didn’t mean to endorse gay marriage. Who wants to be a flip flopper? This isn’t the change you voted for! CFAV knows that this is the one issue that Romney will never flip flop on!

6. Marriage is More – Maryland Marriage Alliance

Gay parents are ruining future generations by teaming up with Death and Divorce to prevent children from being raised by a mother and a father! We’re going to ruin all the children! Everyone deserves love and respect, as long as they keep their hands off of the definition of marriage! But we gay people are selfish and audacious enough to think we have the right to redefine marriage!

7. Good of Marriage – Minnesota for Marriage

I’m glad Minnesota knew what we were really up to. We’re pretending marriage is about the relationship between two people when it’s really just about God. Once we pass the referendum, we’re going to take away voters’ rights because as everyone knows, voters and gay marriage supporters are mutually exclusive parties.

8. Consequences of Redefining Marriage – Preserve Marriage Washington

Gay people are trying to indoctrinate tolerance and that just isn’t cool. Americans deserve the right to spout hate speech as freely as they want, but we gay people are going to unjustly hold them accountable for their actions. We’re going to use “the law” against them and pretend that Washingtonians are being “discriminatory” when they only support man-lady marriage. If we’re willing to go up against the beloved Chick-Fil-A, who knows which homophobic organization gay people will unfairly attack next!

9. Don Mendell – Protect Marriage Maine

Gay marriage supporters are just trying to take away people’s jobs. We’re planning on having everyone fired if they don’t push our gay agenda. We’re trying to dismiss upstanding counsellors and revoke their licenses just because they publicly stated they are against certain groups of people. Once we get our way, gay people will dismiss whomever they dislike, including Teachers of the Year.

I hope you learned your lesson about how sneaky and evil we LGBT truly are. So really now, if there’s one thing you think about this election season, it should be how your actions are affecting the children and the plight of the of the poor, straight homophobe. They deserve our rights too!

Gay Reporter Infiltrates NOM’s Youth Conference, Finds It Even More Awful Than Expected

Carlos Maza had spent “the better part of the past two years” blogging about the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) when he applied to attend their 4th annual youth conference,” It Takes A Family To Raise A Village” in San Diego, CA. His blog posts held NOM in a less than favorable light, but that didn’t stop the organization for welcoming him to their conference with a hearty “Congratulations” email. (They often have trouble getting people to show up at their events.) In any case, despite some trepidation, Maza decided to attend the conference under the guise of a straight, homo-hating young man, and reported on what happened over the course of four days for the Internet at large.

carlos maza

Many other publications have reported on to the rhetoric Maza heard over the course of his four days at the conference, and it is indeed troubling and hateful — Maza describes NOM as “selling a book that labels gay people as pedophiles worthy of death, distributing Bible quotes to college students similarly calling for gays to be killed, hosting entire speeches devoted to condemning gays and lesbians as deviant sinners.” Honestly though, it’s nothing I wouldn’t expect. This is an organization that uses race-baiting tactics in an attempt to further their campaign, and when called out on such tactics tries to justify it by explaining that no one else was supposed to see them. They use Photoshop to lie about how many people attend their rallies, won’t disclose their donor information and use sketchy scientific studies to create false narratives. I expect these people to suck.

That said, just so we’re all clear exactly what they were preaching to impressionable young minds during their conference, let’s review exactly what was said. Maza does a great job highlighting the details of each day, and provides video clips from some of the more hate-filled speeches. It’s really worth it to head over to Media Matters and read his full report, but here are some of the key points:

According to Brigham Young University professor Jenet Erickson, same-sex relationships are “inherently unstable,” as well as “dysfunctional and erratic.” NOM spokesperson Thomas Peters endorsed ex-gay therapy and ridiculed the “gay hook-up” and “pet grooming” ads that appear on LGBT websites. Robert Gagnon, one of the founders of the Restored Hope Network, said a homosexual relationship is worse than a polygamous one and also stated that homosexuality is “self-degrading,” inflicts “measurable harm” on its participants, and that gay people are not “born that way.” Economist Douglas Allen used Mark Regnerus’s study to claim that children who grow up in same-sex parent households are multiple times more likely to face sexual abuse. Along with this group of esteemed speakers, Maza also had a fun roommate who wore a t-shirt that said “BARACK OBAMA, THE ABORTION PRESIDENT.”

The facts in this article are appalling, and it’s important that someone reported them, particularly because NOM likes to pretend it is “anti gay marriage,” not “anti gay.” Maza writes that the conference “end[ed] up being one of the most disturbing and overtly homophobic experiences of my life.” He talks about how until this moment, NOM and their backwards ideas always seemed distant and not particularly threatening:

From the comfort of my desk in DC, it’s always been easy to think of NOM’s anti-gay efforts as somehow being outside of my own life. I don’t wake up each morning worrying about NOM denying me the ability to build my own family or raise my own kids. I’m legally allowed to marry and adopt children with a same-sex partner if and when I choose to do so. NOM’s talking points were offensive and extreme, but I’d grown accustomed to treating them the same way I treated every argument as a debater in college – assess its merits, find its flaws, and debunk misinformation.

But watching the talking points being made in front of and about you is a different thing. Maza writes about hearing the joke “Two gay guys walk into a mosque… they were never heard from again!” and watching the attendees around him nod to themselves and whisper “Fascinating!” during Douglas Allen’s talk. He asked himself “I’d heard this kind of anti-gay rhetoric hundreds of times before… So why was I getting so upset?” Trying to reconcile his feelings of being personally targeted with his knowledge that they’re a deeply flawed organization whose power is dwindling, Maza concludes “In the public eye, NOM depicts itself as fair-minded and moderate pro-marriage group. In reality, it’s the kind of organization that seeks to train college students to justify anti-gay bigotry by relying on stereotypes, pseudoscience, and a sizable dose of right-wing religious extremism.”

As some other reporters have already noted, it will be really interesting to see if and how NOM responds to Maza’s report. It will also be interesting to see if, as marriage equality laws continue to barrel forward, NOM becomes pointless, or more obviously pointless than it is now. Because really, when news outlets (and Maza, for that matter) report on the hateful and inaccurate rhetoric being spouted at NOM’s events what they’re saying is that NOM is doing exactly what it’s always done. But things are changing much faster than NOM can keep up with and the landscape for gay marriage and gay rights in general looks very different than it did even a year ago. And young people — even those who are conservative, the very demographic NOM was trying to reach with this conference — largely favor marriage equality. Virtually every sign and trend points towards rapidly increasing acceptance of gay families and mainstream support for our rights, even among Republicans (sort of). Even NOM’s strategist Louis J. Marinelli saw the error in his hate-filled ways. Does NOM have any kind of plan about how to adapt its strategy to acknowledge the fact of the cultural shift around queer people and their families? This conference would imply that they don’t — which is a good thing.

Will it continue to host four day conferences for youth if no one shows up? Will it continue to fight against gay marriage if there are no lawsuits to campaign against? What happens when the country finally grants marriage rights to all humans, regardless of sexuality? Maggie Gallagher, the “firebrand” who launched NOM, has since stepped down — her perspective hasn’t changed, but she is no longer leading the fight. Is this what will happen to all the leaders in the anti-gay movement? Only time will tell. I’m curious to see what their next move is — Maza played an extremely brave and clever hand with his exposé and it seems as though it’s just one more strike against an organization (and a set of views) that’s heading for extinction. NOM’s response — or lack thereof — to Maza’s report may say more than anything they voiced out loud at their conference.

On the Dan Savage v. Brian Brown Debate: Can We Please Just Admit That We’re Different?

If you don’t typically watch one hour and six minute long YouTube videos, then you might not have seen the one where Mark Oppenheimer moderated a debate between Dan Savage and Brian Brown. Well, that happened.

Brian Brown is the President of the National Organization of Marriage, an anti-gay advocacy organization and Dan Savage is a syndicated columnist, gay rights activist, the guy behind It Gets Better and so on and so forth. I think you get the idea. The whole premise of this debate came out of a comment that Savage made during a speech to high school journalism students. He said, “there is some bullshit in the Bible.” I thought that was a pretty tempered and reasonable comment considering that the Bible does suggest we stone unchaste brides, but I guess that’s neither here nor there. Savage was given some time at the top of the debate to defend those comments, Brown was given some time to respond, and then shit got real.

Before we get into the meat of what went down, let me say this: like others who derive pleasure from engaging in volatile arguments, I had discussed and heard much of what was touched upon in this debate before – many times. However, the debate did clarify a shiny new piece of the puzzle for me that I never saw quite as clearly whilst in the heat of debate, as I did while watching Savage argue for the right to marry. That shiny new nugget is this: gays and straights are different. Weird, right? Let me explain.

Savage was sitting across the table from Brown with a stack of materials – statistics, quotes, personal notes and dissected thought processes. Meanwhile, Brown had nothing at his side – other than a small notepad that I don’t think he ever touched. Brown apparently didn’t need any notes, background information, research findings or any sort of material to use as a reference point for his argument. This is not because Brown is a superior orator or debater – it’s because, at the end of the day, his argument isn’t based on any such worldly materials, it’s rooted in his belief that:

“…cultures throughout human history have shared, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that this is a unique and special union… there is something unique about men and women, there is something unique about marriage between men and women.”

Brown’s repetition and continued return to this belief while Savage referenced notes and delivered arguments triggered the teeniest out-of-body experience – this feeling that no matter what you say you’re up against an immovable reality (in the context in which this debate has been framed) and that reality is the fact that we are different. A union between a man and a woman is unique. However, a union between a woman and a woman or a man and a man is also unique. These are different relationships, different experiences and different unions.

At about the twenty-minute mark, once we got passed the personal defenses and minimal niceties, Brown set up this argument. He framed the debate for the remaining forty-five minutes, when he said:

“On one side there is the idea that there is something unique and special about men and women coming together in marriage and no other union of whatever kind is the same thing as marriage. There is something special and unique about marriage…. And there is the second idea…[that says] there is nothing morally different between men and men, women and women united together, they’re all the same.”

brian brown

Unfortunately, Savage didn’t even question the framing of Brown’s debate. He never said that this should not be a debate about whether or not there is something (morally or otherwise) different between a straight union and a gay union. He never demanded that instead, this is a debate about the rights of two consenting adults to form a legal and equal union. Instead, Savage accepted this premise and the entire framing of the conversation and addressed the notion of difference as laid out by Brown. That was a real bummer.

I understand that saying that we’re different goes against the LGBT activist code of honor and the Human Rights Campaign’s talking points but I don’t think trying to convince people like Brown to see us as all the same is really working for us. Even if it does in the short-term – a bunch of million-dollar ad buys featuring cute, gay families might help win some state referendums – in the long-run, it’s a big mistake because it avoids, rather than addresses a reality. It puts us in the position of having to plead (as Savage did) to be part of the straight group, as opposed to saying we’re all different, we’re all unique, and when it comes to equal rights that shouldn’t matter.

It actually triggered flashbacks to this asshole Candace in my fourth grade class who used to stand on top of the playground and tell (only some kids) that they weren’t special enough to play on the wooden playground. Those kids had to play on the sad patch of muddy grass on the outskirts of the monkey bars. Brown (in words that could have easily been stolen from that buttface Candace) insisted repeatedly, that he and all straight people are special and unique and no matter what Savage says he will never be special in that same way. Savage tried his best – the entire LGBT movement is trying its best – to say “that’s not true” or even “that’s not fair.”

When Brown spoke these words from atop his wooden playground:

“What the truth is, and what our faith has taught and other faiths have taught and what, frankly, people of no faith can come to through natural law – is the simple idea that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. And you say, ‘well we don’t want to change your institution, we want to be a part of it.’

Savage should have told fourth-grade Candace and Brown to go fuck themselves and then he should have taken his friends, expanded that patch of grass and built a new playground out of stainless steel and diamonds.

Instead, Savage responded by trying to explain that the definition of marriage has changed in the last hundred or so years. The rules for acceptance have changed. It’s no longer a property contract centered on procreation but is instead about, “commitment and love…establishing that next of kin…finding that one person in the world to be there for you, who you will be there for.” We know this shtick – the definition of marriage has already evolved so now evolve more and let us in. I understand why he went there, and he went there well. The problem is that he is still playing by Brown’s rules and trying to negotiate in such a way, that Brown will accept him when he says:

“There is this argument on your side that we want to change the institution of marriage… we don’t want to change the institution of marriage… This isn’t an attack on anyone’s faith… it takes nothing from you or your definition of marriage for the institution of marriage as straight people currently define and practice it to be open to accommodate us as well. We are three-ish percent of the population. We are not going to de-center what it means to be a man and a woman form what it means to be married, by allowing same sex couples to marry. If anything, it affirms the original, sort of understanding, of marriage and it’s importance, particularly for family life. To bring us into that order.”

dan savage and his husband terry miller

Oy. It bothers me, first, because it is a faulty argument: if Brown’s definition of marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman then by letting gay people get married we would be changing the institution. Savage can’t say we don’t want to change the institution of marriage – of course we do. Right now, the institution of marriage is predominately defined as a union between a man and a woman and we want to change that. Secondly, this is a pathetic argument. It puts Savage, an unbelievably impressive, smart, bold writer and activist in the position of asking a shithead like Brown to please, pretty please, if we promise not to mess anything up and follow most of his rules about family and love to please let us into his club and “bring us into that order.”

Well, I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I have absolutely no interest in convincing Brown to let me join his club. To quote my hero, Sarah Silverman:

“I cannot imagine wanting to get married right now at this time in America. If you’re for equal rights, why would you get married right now? It’s like joining a country club that doesn’t allow blacks or Jews. There’s no difference. Why would I wanna join that club? It’s gross.”

The debate between Savage and Brown, at its core, was really just a fight over whether or not gay people can be deemed appropriate or special enough in the eyes of people like Brown to be permitted in the institution of marriage. This is the wrong debate and the wrong fight because it’s based on the false premise that we have to prove our sameness in order to be granted equal rights. That’s a real problem for us. It disadvantages us legally, culturally, socially and emotionally. It also leads to the kind of debates like the one that Brown and Savage had – one that spends way too much time on questions like “is the Bible a justification for denying gay marriage?”

Instead of trying to argue that I can fit into your rules and regulations and be the same, why can’t we just live by our own rules and have our own unique value? Because, you’re right: my relationships are not the same as yours. My uniqueness is different. My value and contribution to society – as a human being and someone who isn’t straight – is also different. You live by your Bible and I’ll live by mine.

Once Oppenheimer started to push Brown and Savage away from the Bible talk and at about the fifty-minute mark posed the pretty genius question of:

“If you’re making an honest argument, one with integrity, then presumably, if it’s based on evidence, rather than just ideology, presumably, some evidence could come along that would make you change your mind…could any evidence come along that would make you say gay marriage is a good idea?”

This was the moment when Brown started foaming at the mouth (literally) because this deeply rooted belief of his uniqueness as a heterosexual, married man was being brought into question. “It would be like saying, ‘What would convince you that a square could be a circle?’”

I’m actually ok with this. The way Brown said it and the beliefs he holds that inform it gross me out – but on a basic level, I’m ok with the assertion of this difference. I am not the same as Brown. I do think some people are circles and some are squares and some are all kind of shapes I wouldn’t even know how to identify. Oppenheimer pushed to make sure he understood correctly that there is no evidence, ever in the world, that would convince Brown that gays should be allowed to get married. It got really interesting for a few minutes.

Unfortunately Savage continued down the same path of negotiating for acceptance based on sameness and not being a threat of change. Brown started getting a case of crazy eye at the idea of gays being able to marry and said: “This good, true and beautiful thing that is marriage, the union of a man and a woman – we will have our public culture and law saying that this is not true.” Instead of Savage trying to assuage his fears by responding as he did with, “How is it going to say that when over 90% of all marriages are still going to be opposite sex marriages even if gay people can get married?”

Savage should have simply said – you keep your idea of what is “good, true and beautiful” and you call it marriage and you get it sanctioned in your religious institutions. I’ll keep my own idea of what is “good, true and beautiful” and I’ll call it a legal union. We will both have the same rights under this legal union – all consenting adults will have the same rights under this legal union. Meanwhile, you go ahead and be a circle and Ill go ahead and be a square and we’ll make the appropriate, non-government officiated arrangements to label and identify ourselves as such.

We don’t need to pander and promise to Brown that we won’t take over and change his idea of what “good, true and beautiful” means because we’re just a teeny, tiny group of people. Instead, let Brown keep this belief in his specialness – he is very attached to it and nothing is going to change that. He can believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman and I can believe that marriage is between any consenting adults.

At the end of the one hour and six minutes, a big part of what I took away could actually be summed up (shockingly) by a rogue comment by Brown: “Just because you believe something is wrong does not mean you make it illegal.”

Precisely.

Brown and his cohorts (and plenty of other people) probably believe that lots of things I do and believe are wrong. Good for them. I think lots of things they do are sad and gross. When it comes to discrimination and equal rights, this is a moot point. If you want to argue about equal protection and the “rational basis test” as a justification for denying me this right – bring it on (as is currently happening in the Prop 8 case and elsewhere). But don’t try and justify discrimination on the grounds of your beliefs – be they Biblical interpretations or personal poems.

Watching, instead of taking part, in such a visceral debate drove home the fact that we cannot have an argument of beliefs. Most people are not going to budge on their definition of marriage and I think that’s ok. To that end, this debate illustrated the benefits of simply owning our differences and the potential solution of not caring about the word “marriage.” The only thing that really matters is that consenting adults are able to come together under a legal union with all of the legal benefits afforded any legal union.

Meanwhile, let Brown believe whatever he wants to believe when it comes how special and unique he is. I certainly have no interest in convincing anyone that my specialness is anything, even remotely, similar to Brown’s specialness. I’m much more comfortable explaining all the ways in which we’re different.

Special Note: Autostraddle’s “First Person” column exists for individual queer people to tell their own personal stories and share compelling experiences. These personal essays do not necessarily reflect the ideals of Autostraddle or its editors, nor do any First Person writers intend to speak on behalf of anyone other than themselves. First Person writers are simply speaking honestly from their own hearts.

REVEALED: NOM’s Deplorable, Racist Tactics For Beating Gay Marriage

by Carmen Rios and Rachel Kincaid

The National Organization for Marriage, your favorite resident liars and crazy people, eliminated any chance of legal same-sex marriage in Maine in 2009 by being one of the largest supporting fundraisers of Question One on the state’s ballot. The organization did a lot of talking, and continues to do a lot of talking, about how crazy it is to “impose” gay marriage on the lives of straight people.

When all was said and done, however, NOM wasn’t ready to keep talking. They refused to release their list of donors because of fear that “the gay agenda” would “incite violence” against the people “of all creeds and colors” who hate gay people and don’t want them to get married or be happy in any state in our great union. They were so terrified of this, in fact, that they appealed the constitutionality of Maine’s policy that groups organizing politically organize as PACs and disclose financial information. (NOM is reportedly actually afraid that “the gay agenda” might seem valid when people find out that they have very few funders, or maybe only two: the Catholic and Mormon churches.)

According to to Unicorn Booty:

The appeals court struck down NOM’s tired old defense, that “the homosexual lobby has launched a national campaign of harassment and intimidation against supporters of traditional marriage, so there’s a good reason to keep these names confidential.” One imagines a fair deal of eye-rolling was also involved in refusing this defense.

In December of 2011 reports surfaced that NOM is funded almost entirely by two secret donors. Many believe these two to be the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church. Releasing their list of donors in Maine would potentially confirm this PR nightmare for both religious institutions, which may explain why NOM continues to break state law by keeping their donors secret.

NOM eventually took the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in February the body rejected the case. The organization is now undergoing an investigation of their financial practices.

As part of the ongoing investigation, NOM’s super-secret strategy documents were released and put in the hands of some of the most ferocious gay advocates in the United States a little under 24 hours ago. And now, 40-page PDFs detailing the derailing of marriage equality in the United States and across the globe are available for anyone and everyone.

Perhaps the most shocking things NOM found appropriate to say out loud, print and publish, and actually admit to anyone ever were a plethora of strategies created to drive a wedge between traditional Democratic voters based on race and ethnicity. NOM’s plans from 2008 and 2009 involve creating or sustaining cultures of gay-hate based on issues of race, and racial prejudice in the gay commmunity:

“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…”

Another passage:

“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.”

This may sound familiar to you. Jeremy Hooper wrote an entire list of various pieces he’s written for “Good As You” about NOM’s division among racial lines and strategies to pit communities of color against queers – and it starts with 2008. NOM has race-baited before, like the time they invoked Martin Luther King, Jr. in an ad about gay marriage’s “consequences” to the rights and freedom of straight people, and they likely will again. But to consciously strategize the intensifying of race-based conflict within progressive communities is nothing less than disgusting and abhorrent.

this happened

Relationships between oppressed communities are bound to be occasionally bumpy; we live in a sad United States where people in all those states are actually only kind of united and a lot of them feel like they have to compete for progress because of limited resources. The rhetoric of success in America promotes the idea that in order to move ahead, it’s necessary to do so at someone else’s expense, and the dominant culture often exploits this idea to convince marginalized groups that their real problem is other marginalized groups, not the institutionalized oppression that affects them both.

It’s a complicated issue, because issues of intersecting privilege do divide marginalized communities — for instance, white gay people experience privileges that straight people of color do not, and trans people of color experience marginalization and physical danger on a different level than either of the former two groups. When one group refuses to recognize that it has privileges that another doesn’t, even if they’re still overall very marginalized, resentment can build. Black leaders and speaking heads, for example, have at times taken a lot of issue with the idea that fighting for gay rights is “the new civil rights movement” of our generation, arguing that the comparison to the civil rights movement of the 1960s is unearned. At the same time, the queer community was being told (erroneously) that black voters were to blame for Prop 8.

It’s not necessarily news that privileged groups and organizations that exist to protect privilege (like NOM) benefit from fomenting conflict between marginalized communities, so that attention is focused away from them. The only real shocking thing is how incredibly self-aware and conscious NOM appears to have been about the fact that by exploiting that tension, and exaggerating its reality and impact, they could try to pit the two communities against one another and destroy both in the process. And by dividing Democratic voters based on race and attitudes towards equality for queers, NOM was seeking to not only minimize LGBT rights on the national agenda, but beseech hatred and animosity among marginalized communities and thus weaken all of the battles for equality going on in the mix.

Although none of us expected exemplary behavior from the National Organization for Marriage at any point in our lives, it’s nothing less of a serious disappointment in humanity as a whole to find out that race is being viewed in this instance as nothing less than a herding mechanism, and that in the process NOM forgot that individuals, not entire racial groups, exercise the right to vote. Their strategy not only betrays the outrageous lengths they’re willing to go to in order to prevent gay families from achieving full equality, but also the lack of respect they appear to have for voters of color. The idea that Latino/a communities can be fine-tuned to view same-sex marriage negatively based on their desire to “assimilate” may even be worse than seeking to form racial wedges between liberals and gay marriage. And the idea that African Americans can be manipulated out of fighting injustice around them and are good for nothing more than causing a problem for LGBT-rights-focused politicians is equally repulsive. Using the importance of the civil rights movement to try to manipulate the black community is deeply inappropriate, and attempting to redefine the identity of the entire Latino/a community in terms of their feelings on marriage equality is incredibly reductive.

More than anything else, these documents reveal that NOM really doesn’t care about any marginalized communities, and is more than willing to consciously exploit them in order to stay in a position of privilege. (Despite the graphics/propaganda featuring people of color on their website, all of the personnel listed on NOM’s staff page are white.)  NOM and organizations like it fully acknowledge that they’re ready to do whatever it takes to maintain the current system of hegemony — as long as they don’t think anyone will know about it. NOM is only part of a long tradition of powers at the top of the pyramid manipulating and misleading those marginalized communities at the bottom — they just happened to put it in writing. And because of that, maybe they’ll actually face consequences for it.

How Maggie Gallagher Became Maggie F*cking Gallagher of NOM

To begin, three anecdotes I’d like to tell you about from Mark Oppenheimer‘s excellent article on National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher entitled the “The Making of Gay Marriage’s Top Foe“:

1. After her third marriage fell apart and “traumatized” her family, Sherry Weaver moved in temporarily with Maggie Gallagher, a mother she’d met at their sons’ first day of kindergarten in Park Slope. Weaver ended up staying with Gallagher for seven months and she gives Gallagher’s “happy home” a sparkling review: Maggie paid the bills, did the cooking, “nurtured” Weaver’s family with “unbelivable kindness,” slept on the couch with “grace and generosity” and was “happy to blend their families for months on end.” Weaver told Oppenheimer that “this time with Maggie was a time of healing for us.”

2. While an undergraduate at Yale, Gallagher says she was impregnated by her boyfriend of a year. Oppenheimer spoke to the alleged boyfriend (who is now a doctor with a family of his own) for this article and when Oppenheimer asked him if he and Gallagher had been a “couple,” he answered “sort of.” In fact, in 1982 when Maggie told her alleged boyfriend that she’d gotten pregnant and wasn’t interested in abortion or adoption, this alleged boyfriend “vanished,” as she told Oppenheimer: “The last thing he said to me was, ‘I’ll be back in 30 minutes.’ And then he wasn’t.”

Maggie returned home to Portland during her pregnancy while completing some coursework towards graduation, and then — with her parents’ complete financial support — returned to Connecticut to live with the boyfriend and other undergrads. They quickly broke up and she moved out. He remained ambiently in his son’s life for a little while before allegedly telling her that “he didn’t really want to have anything to do with either of us.”

He remembers it differently: “To the best that I can recall, initially she did want both of us to be involved in parental responsibilities, but from the beginning it was always on her terms. It’s hard to describe. It seemed to me at the time that she had an idea of how she wanted things to go, and it was not particularly important whether I had an idea of how things would go or not.”

Despite all of these indicators that this maybe-boyfriend was perhaps a douchebag and definitely uninterested in parenting, Maggie told Oppenhemier: “I think, looking back, that if he had said, ‘You know, Maggie, I love you, I love you, let’s get married,’ I would’ve been thrilled. You know, he was my boyfriend.”

3.  So, after graduating from Yale, Maggie almost instantly snagged a job writing for The National Review, where she wrote anti-abortion, pro “traditional marriage” and anti-feminist shit. Oppenheimer:

As a Yale-educated journalist living in Brooklyn, Gallagher was an enviable type. Although being a young single mother made her unusual, nothing about her situation was an obvious prescription for bitterness. But in 1989, when Patrick was 7, Gallagher published a book that remains startling for its combination of sadness and anger; it’s hard to believe any author can sound so hopelessly disappointed before the age of 30. In a sense, “Enemies of Eros,” a jeremiad about the sorry state of sexual culture and gender relationships, must have been gestating since her son was born. Its author is sad that lifelong marriage is no longer an accepted norm; that many children do not grow up with fathers; that sex has been decoupled from marriage and parenthood. And she is angry at everyone she finds culpable for these changes, including “elite women, magazine editors, book publishers, screenwriters, advice columnists, and auteurs who are the moral guardians of the new generation, mentors to guide young women through the thickets of modernity into a sexual utopia that seems to be receding ever further into the horizon.”

In her book, Gallagher asserted: “We will never find a solution to the New Man shortage, unless we jettison gender neutrality. Men need a role in the family. What men need, loath though we are to utter the word, is a sex role.”

But Patrick, who lived the first 11 years of his life without a father figure, seems to have turned out okay — he graduated from NYU and works in musical theater (he identifies as straight but undoubtedly interacts with LGBTs on the daily). As you may recall, Maggie’s friend Sherry Weaver describes the home Maggie and Patrick shared as “a happy house filled with guests.”

4. In 1993, Maggie married Raman Srivastav, a friend she’d known since they were both involved in Yale’s “The Party of the Right.” They had a son together and at some point separated but did not divorce because Maggie doesn’t believe in divorce. She moved from New York to Washington DC in 2008 so her second son could attend The Heights School in Maryland, an exclusive Catholic boys school. Maggie can do things like move to a new state to enroll her son in a prep school known for educating the children of conservative politicians & pundits that charges over $20k a year in tuition because she profits generously from her work against same-sex marriage.

Thus: the current state of her relationship with her husband is unclear, but it seems The Kids, at least, are All Right.

a bio from one of patrick's theater jobs

Here’s the thing about Maggie Gallagher: she wasn’t actively anti-gay before becoming anti-gay marriage. She’s just been “pro-marriage” for a long time. Before same-sex marriage became an issue, Maggie wrote and cared mostly about “easy divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and the high costs of feminism.” She didn’t ever anticipate same-sex marriage becoming a thing until it did and then it became her everything. She told Oppenheimer:

“The questions began by talking about what people think about homosexuality. And I said that’s a perfectly legitimate question, but that’s not my concern. My concern is that marriage really matters because children need a mom and a dad, and after gay marriage, I can’t say that anymore. I won’t be allowed to say it. Marriage will not be about that anymore. We will not have an institution dedicated to putting together mothers and fathers and children.”

I implore you to read Oppenheimer’s entire article, which leaves very few stones unturned and therefore I have little to add (Although it doesn’t really go into her various financial swindles, like that time the Department of Health and Human Services paid her to use her syndicated column to promote George W.Bush’s $300 million initiative “encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families,” which is obviously against the rules of journalism.)

But as I asked in this article about how NOM is really sketchy and makes a shit-ton of money, “what’s Maggie Gallagher’s damage?” I ranted as follows:

NOM’s entire campaign against us is based in lies. Their leaders are probably all closeted homosexuals. They have deep ties to religious groups with deep pockets who prey on their uneducated flocks, sucking them dry of funds in an effort to support NOM’s campaign against same-sex marriage, which, as we all know, has absolutely no tangible impact on these people’s lives whatsoever.

I wondered what drove Gallagher to be so obsessed with “traditional marriage” and so uninterested in evidence that proves all her theoretical claims wrong? She definitely dosen’t ping as a lesbian, so that’s not it. The Salon piece started to answer that question for me, but it’s such a Byzantine situation to break down! I can feel my head running in circles when I think about it.

Maggie Gallagher was a single mother who chose to keep her baby and not put it up for adoption, despite her son’s father’s indifference to the pregnancy. Lucky to have affluent parents and a Yale education that connected her instantly to a prestigious and flexible job at the country’s leading conservative publication, she was able to raise her son and pursue a prolific career. She now makes shit-tons of money and despite being separated from the man she married in 1993, is now raising yet another human child who seems, like his brother before him (who was adopted by Maggie’s husband when they married), to be turning out okay.

When a reporter from Talk About Equality contacted Patrick Gallagher, he declined to comment at length about his Mom, but offered this:

According to Patrick, Maggie has been very supportive of his career and has not obstructed her son’s goals and dreams – like a mother should. One thing Patrick did say, which I don’t think he’d mind sharing is “Maybe one day I’ll write a hell of a musical about this.” Patrick’s a good guy who doesn’t deserve to be in the middle of this – but we feel that his and Maggie’s story is an important one that demonstrates the strength of a “non-traditional” family.

When Maggie’s friend Sherry Weaver got divorced and moved in with Maggie, they became an immediate example of how a fatherless home is better than no home and maybe even better than a father-full home, in their case. Weaver remembers it as “a crowded and happy house, filled with guests, many of them from the conservative movement.” They weren’t lesbians, but they were two women supporting children happily, with perhaps some help from the village.

Despite this experience, Gallagher believes that “like no-fault divorce, the welfare state and the normalization of single parenting, same-sex marriage challenges the idea that every child should be with its biological mother and father.” Despite the fact that her son’s father was a douchebag with barely any interest in Maggie at all, she still thinks she would’ve been “thrilled” if he’d asked to marry her and seemingly believes doing so would’ve been better than what actually happened.

She’s got no personal experience with the Biological Mother + Biological Father + Children = Happy situation in her own life as a mother (even when married, her husband had to adopt Patrick, so that’s not his “biological father”). Furthermore, it would appear that unlike many single moms, Maggie’s incredible privilege (which she recognizes, in a roundabout way) meant that having a kid out of wedlock had no detrimental impact on her career or financial situation. For her to trumpet her own experience with single motherhood, as difficult as single mothering always is, as a typical example of a woman experiencing the many struggles Single Mothers face is practically offensive.

Only 14.3% of unmarried non-cohabiting single mothers have a Bachelors Degree, let alone a Bachelor’s Degree from the U.S.’s third-most-competitive university, like Maggie does. Many single moms also lack cushy media jobs and affluent parents. For them, I imagine “the nights when your child cries himself to sleep in your arms, wondering why his father doesn’t love him” Maggie claims to have experienced rank pretty low on their list of Parenting Challenges.

Now, rather than seek to level that playing field to enable less fortunate single mothers to succeed, she just runs around screaming about gay people ruining marriage all day. She apparently thinks that being separated from her husband is better than being divorced, even though honestly separation is way more confusing for a kid than divorce is, ultimately, assuming the separation is never re-joined. (Neither Gallagher or her husband would comment on the current state of their marriage for Oppenheimer’s article.)

In other words, Gallagher isn’t just ignoring social science and other “evidence” that her “traditional marriage” obsession is warranted, she’s ignoring her own life.

I don’t know about you, but I’m eagerly anticipating the possibility of Patrick Gallagher’s musical, although I fear it could be quite sad. I can’t imagine it’s healthy for any child to grow up in a home led by a mother who dedicated her entire life to lamenting your conception, being angry at your missing father and admonishing your childhood — simply by virtue of being father-free — as inadequate. Maybe he could call it “A Gathering Storm.” Something like that.

NOM and Their Secret Donors Can’t Handle Money, the Truth

If you harken back to our last couple of reports on NOM, you might recall that they’re basically grasping at straws at this point. Their recently-revealed 2010 tax forms haven’t done much to help the organization’s credibility. Now discrepancies in their financial reports are making NOM look less like a bunch of hateful, bumbling idiots and a little more like a couple of very wealthy haters using bumbling idiots as a mouthpiece.

In interviews with various media outlets, Maggie Gallagher states that NOM raised and spent $13 million in 2010. According to their records, they’re actually operating on a $1.1 million dollar loss having only raised $9.6 million dollars. Their budget, as reported to the IRS, designates $3 million for advertising, $1.2 million on their 17 employee salaries, $600,000 on grants, and $4 million–the largest amount–on “other” unnamed expenses.

Screencapped to save you from adding to NOM's pageviews

While NOM prides itself on its grassroots efforts, their list of donors tells a different story. Over two thirds of their 2010 budget–more than $6 million–came from two anonymous individuals. Though NOM’s overall budget has grown over the past 2 years, small “grassroots” contributions have decreased. Single donations of less than $5,000 have fallen from $1,760,000 (or 22 percent of total) revenue in 2009 to $800,000 (8 percent) in 2010.

Looking at their expenses, it becomes clear nearly all of NOM’s budget is coming from only 5 or 6 donors. Who are the anonymous donors and what is all that money being spent on? The real mystery is what all the secrecy is about. Are donors just afraid of being outed as homophobes or is there something more sinister going on?  Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry points out that “There certainly are people opposed to the freedom to marry [for gay and lesbian couples], but they are not the people that support NOM.” He believes that  “NOM is supported by a small group of secret donors; we’ve seen no evidence o the contrary. And they are a threat. Not so much NOM, but the anti-gay founders behind NOM. Money still is power.” Specifically, money is power in terms of government — lots of important legislative decisions are affected by lobbyists’ money, and as long as we don’t know who these donors are, we also don’t know what else they might be involved in, or who else they might be talking to.

Inconsistencies in NOM’s reporting has prompted investigations from Fred Karger (who you might remember as being amazing), who believes that the Mormon church created NOM as a cover for their work. The HRC has created an entire project, NOM Exposed, to track fundraising and spending. Their muckraking might help discover what’s really going on, but I can’t help but wonder what kind of things we could do if we didn’t have to spend our resources on organizations like NOM — maybe we would have more time to care for and enjoy our families if we didn’t have to spend so much time defending them.

NOM Is Basically Just Making Shit Up At This Point

The National Organization for Marriage sent an “emergency alert” earlier this week because “senate liberals have sunk to a new low” and “we can’t let them get away with it.” Most of their message is in bold or italics or both. Clearly, NOM is taking their announcement with the utmost solemnity.

Which is why part of it is pink and curly. And part of it is a lie.

This is NOM's emergency message graphic.

The message, which was sent to its anti-gay marriage donors and which appears on NOM’s blog (which actually is hilarious! The key is to read it like parody, which is actually pretty easy), warns that “Senate liberals,” specifically Diane Feinstein, Pat Leahy, and Harry Reid, are planning to attach the DOMA repeal bill to the 2012 Defense Authorization bill, because that bill “must be passed in order to fund our servicemen and women through the next year.”

This morning, NOM president Brian Brown also posted a letter saying that “thousands responded” to their “action alert.” He also writes that:

“Last week the Judiciary Committee approved the repeal on a party-line vote.

They now say they do not have the votes to pass it. Wow—that is quite an admission after claiming that the majority of people support it!”

Which is interesting, because, according to the Washington Blade, the Human Rights Campaign said that NOM made up claims of the amendment in the first place.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation to repeal DOMA, with a 10-8 vote (with all ten votes in favour of it were from Democrats, all eight against from Republicans, and no abstentions). Fred Sainz, HRC’s VP of communications, said that there are, so far, no plans to actually bring the legislation to the floor. According the Washington Blade, he said:

“Their members and their donors are, obviously, upset at their very poor performance. NOM needs to give them a red herring that equals hope or shows that they are working on something no matter how big of a lie it is. They’re trying to raise money with this is what they’re trying to do. They are trying to give the sense that something is going on when this is not something that is in the works.”

Also, according to Chris Geidner, a reporter for Metro Weekly, a Feinstein spokesperson said, “It is not true that Sen. Feinstein is ‘threatening to attach [#DOMA repeal] to the Defense Authorization Bill.” Additionally, according to the Blade, Feinstein said that the bill only has 30 co-sponsors, when it would ideally have 60.

Obviously, NOM lying is nothing new and exciting. Just earlier this month they were exercising their Photoshop skills by turning a 2008 Obama rally into an anti-gay campaign. NOM has also had a few significant losses recently, specifically being ordered by a judge to disclose the names of their Prop 8 donors, not to mention all of those darn openly gay people who keep getting elected to things even though they’re running against perfectly fine bigots and homophobes.

But this time, they lied about there being plans for the bill, which there weren’t, and when it turned out there weren’t, they accused the Judiciary Committee of making up support where there wasn’t any for the plans that themselves did not exist. NOM is, of course, very familiar with the (made-up) strategy of pretending you have support where none exists.

NOM Knows How to Use Photoshop, Uses Its Powers for Evil

Feature image via Advocate.com

If I showed you a picture of a big auditorium filled with grade school kids, the Wildwood Elementary School logo and a picture of Wildwood’s principal, you would go ahead and assume those kids were students at Wildwood, right? What about a picture of a bunch of blazer clad middle aged folks fading in to the Harvard logo, a picture of Harvard Yard and a photograph of the university president speaking? Those people are probably Harvard professors, yeah? What if you saw this on the New Hampshire’s National Organization for Marriage website:

WOW LOOK AT THIS HUUUUGE CROWD OF PEOPLE WHO DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT ANY GAYS TO MARRY EVER

Well, there’s a lot of people rallying, a poster of a little rectangle bodied person plus a triangle bodied person, and over in the corner is Brian S. Brown, the president of NOM. I would say that looks like a giant crowd of people in New Hampshire who really really hate marriage equality.

But I would be wrong!

WWW.UAPROGRESSIVEACTION.COM

Yup, these are actually 60,000 Obama supporters in Columbus, Ohio back in like 2008. So, if I’m not mistaken, this means that NOM couldn’t find a picture of a large enough anti-gay marriage rally anywhere, let alone in New Hampshire, and had to resort to a democratic campaign crowd. This is just too awesome. Good As You, on the other hand, figured out the connection. Beyond the fact that the people in that picture are probably pissed that NOM is using their likeness, it’s totally illegal! That picture is under copyright. I’m not exactly up on my Bible study, but I’m pretty sure lying and stealing are big No-Nos. I thought NOM was kind of into the Bible.

DELICIOUS HATE

Don’t worry, Rachel Maddow had something to say on the issue that was one hundred billion times more eloquent than anything that’s ever left my lips.

My general sense is that the best way to deal with being totally, obviously, hilariously exposed and humiliated would be to take down the image and cross your fingers that no one who actually supports a no-gay-marriage group would ever watch Rachel Maddow. That was not the route Brown took. Brown instead took to his blog to defend NOM in a letter to his friends/supporters where he used good old fashioned “scare quotes” to explain away an obvious attempt to mislead New Hampshirians. According to Brown, this is all because the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee’s just cleared a bill that would repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

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!

Okay, let’s talk about some things. I’ll put aside the fact that the photo of the Obama rally is definitely not a “common use photo in the public domain” (in fact, some of the other pictures come from anti-NOM flicker accounts) because obviously it’s standard procedure to try to cover lying with lying. But the scare quotes aren’t fooling anyone. NOM totally, definitely got exposed in a hilarious controversy. Like, um, would he prefer it be “debunked” in a “giant lie” or something? ‘Cause that’s what went down. Also, there’s no way that photograph even pretends to represent anti-gay marriage folks in New Hampshire. Who does Brown think he’s kidding? New Hampshire only has about 1.3 million people in the state to begin with. To even approximate a rally that size everyone in the entire state capital, Concord, would have to attend. One and a half times. Which is, uh, not what happened. In fact, when NOM ran what was supposed to be their big campaign, the “Summer of Marriage” tour a few months ago, they could barely find any attendees. 

The New Hampshire NOM site swapped out the image “to avoid the distraction” and the one they have up now is a much more realistic representation of their followers.

OH THAT'S MORE LIKE IT

There we go. Oh, and also? That repeal of gay marriage in New Hampshire they’re talking about? It’s true it’s passed the House Judiciary Committee, but that doesn’t mean it’s happening. A recent poll showed that only 27% of New Hampshire voters supported a repeal; a solid 50% strongly opposed a repeal. Maybe NOM can photoshop something about that?

Maggie Gallagher Quits Being In Charge of NOM

Maggie Gallagher has officially stepped down from her position as Board Chair of the National Organization for Marriage. As she explains in her statement, she has a lot of important projects to work on in the meantime:

“I will remain on the NOM board, and continue to work on specific projects for NOM, as well as taking on some additional outside projects I’ve long deferred, such as finishing my book Debating Same-Sex Marriage¸ which I’ve been working on for Oxford University Press with Prof. John Corvino,” Gallagher added.

Apparently Maggie really saw herself as NOM’s progenitor, and now that it’s off and running she can step back and watch her baby grow up. From the Advocate:

“My original intention in co-founding the National Organization for Marriage was to launch a politically sophisticated national activist organization to fight for the views of millions of Americans who believe that marriage is and should remain the union of husband and wife,” she said in a statement. “I think it’s fair to say that NOM has been launched, and is now far more successful than even I dreamed (and I dreamed big!).”

IMAGE VIA THE ADVOCATE

Maggie Gallagher has not necessarily accomplished a lot during her time as NOM’s chair, but she has irritated us approximately infinity times. She tried to stop gay marriage from happening in NY even after it was legalized. She was the star witness of this bizarre “hearing” on the evils of gay marriage perpetuated by Rep. Trent Franks. She and her organization have said a lot of really mean things.   She’s misrepresented a lot of false information about gay people as being the truth. Her organization’s most recent substantial achievement is getting all three of the major Republican candidates for president to sign a pledge regarding gay marriage and their distaste for it. Without her, will we see a change for the better?

Probably not. Her replacement will be a man named Dr. John Eastman, who is similar to Maggie Gallagher in that he thinks gay people are a menace to society and that their marriage somehow ensure that his children will never really know happiness or security. He is slightly dissimilar to Maggie Gallagher in that he has a strong law background, having been Dean of Chapman University Law School and “has participated in over 50 cases in our nation’s highest courts,” according to NOM’s press release. He lost a run for California’s Attorney General last year, although good news, he was supported by some Tea Party activists! Is he excited for this new career opportunity? Well, here’s what he said.

“Marriage has quite correctly been described as a bedrock of civilization. Protecting the institution of marriage is a critically important issue, and I’m honored to join such distinguished company on the Board of such a phenomenally effective organization as the National Organization for Marriage.”

Based on his track record, it seems safe to say that there is even more you will disagree with him on than just that NOM is a “phenomenally effective organization.” For instance, he believes that marriage is for procreation and families, and “the people who have the greatest natural instinct to care for children are the natural parents,” which doesn’t leave a lot of room for you and your family. Also, one has to wonder if, though NOM has become gradually less effectual and been taken less seriously in recent months, if the appointment of a male ‘intellectual’ figure with tea party connections will be successful in somehow leveraging the environment of political extremism around the 2012 election to once again make people care about them at least a little.

Either way, you can at least look forward to reading Maggie Gallagher’s book. Maybe she’ll ask us for a blurb.

North Carolina Looks to Outlaw Already-Illegal Same-Sex Marriage

Amid excitement over the newly-minted same-sex marriages in New York, North Carolina’s legislature is considering an amendment to the state constitution that would outlaw same-sex marriage. Although Carrboro and Chapel Hill allow all couples to register as domestic partners, a state statute already bans same-sex marriage in the state. While the House’s proposed amendment only addresses marriage, the Senate’s version would extend to all forms of partnership.

North Carolina representatives have pushed for years to get an amendment passed. They believe that with a Republican majority in place, this could be the year. Even so, it didn’t make it to the floor during the General Assembly’s regular session. Paul Stam, the House majority leader, said it could come up for a vote during a special session in the fall and Thom Tillis, the House speaker, believes that if it does, the House will pass the bill.

If the bill passes, it could go to voters as early as 2012. This could be good news for NC couples and reasonable people everywhere. An Elon University poll shows that support for an anti-equality amendment had fallen nine percent in the past two years to 35 percent. But you know what they say about the more things change… Earlier this year, Minnesota passed a similar bill and is poised to join the other 29 states where gay marriage is double illegal.

Although the bill hasn’t been officially taken up in either the House or Senate, groups on both sides of the debate are getting ready to fight. Playing for team right we have LGBT rights group Faith in America, Universalist Unitarian leaders and university and community centers around the state. On the losing side of history are the usual suspects: NOM, conservative Christians and (unfortunately) university and community centers around the state.

via: the bilerico project

While introducing gay-ish legislation to voters hasn’t done much for us in the past (see: Prop 8), if Elon’s poll is any indication, people could be coming around. It’s true that a vote against the bill wouldn’t do anything to advance equality, but it could signal a change in the community. As the only southeastern state without an anti-gay amendment in place, North Carolina has a lot riding on the upcoming decision. Let’s hope its neighbors are taking notes; everyone deserves Southern hospitality.

Haters Fight NY Gay Marriage With Idiocy, 2 Million Dollars, Lawsuits, “Bloodshed,” Etc.

There’s still an atmosphere of celebration in NYC after a weekend of 659 marriage licenses for same-sex couples. But not everyone is taking part, because some people are still, as they are wont to do, bizarrely perceiving the legally recognized happiness of some families as some kind of vicious attack on their own! Who would do that, you ask?

Well, obviously Maggie Gallagher of The National Organization for Marriage. Despite the fact that her increasingly ineffectual organization – after one of their “Summer of Marriage” campaign organizers defected to form the National Organization for Marriage Equality and the Wall Street Journal recently called them “deceptive” and “sore losers”  – hasn’t accomplished anything in quite a while, Gallagher is now vowing to punish those New York politicians who helped marriage equality come to their state.

why you mad at these cute people tho?

In a slightly more legitimate but ultimately probably useless attack on New York married couples’ newfound legal stability, a group called New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms is filing a lawsuit that claims that the new law allowing same-sex couples to marry is “in violation of the Open Meetings Law and the Senate’s own rules.”

“Constitutional liberties were violated. Today we are asking the court to intervene in its rightful role as the check and balance on an out-of-control State Legislature,” said Reverend Jason J. McGuire, executive director of the group and a resident of upstate Livingston County, where New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v. New York State Senate was filed.

The Senate and state attorney general are declining to comment on the lawsuit, although a spokesman for the governor put it generously when he said the lawsuit had no merit, and also that “the plaintiffs lack a basic understanding of the laws of the State of New York.” If the lawsuit was successful, it would nullify all the same-sex marriages performed in New York, thus making it an even more devastating blow than Prop 8 in California.

But these attacks aren’t likely to work. Aside from the obvious obstacles they face – that NOM has virtually no real political clout and the lawsuit just filed has no legal merit – they may not be meaningful enough to conservative voters or politicians that anyone is willing to support them. America’s recognition of the legitimacy of gay families is higher than ever before, and even insiders in the Republican party have indicated they may just not find it worth it to continue persecuting queer couples. Even Texas governor Rick Perry and Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann, who’s one of the most anti-gay politicians you can find out there today, have indicated that they may be giving up the federal fight on gay marriage and deferring to the states.

At an event in Aspen, Perry said, “Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me.” He continued, “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

Of course anti-gay activists are trying to fight progress in New York, as they are all over the country – but the important thing is that it’s clear they’re not going to win. New York’s step forward on marriage equality is already spurring activism in nearby New Jersey. It’s not change in and of itself, but activists can take it as a sign that future change for same-sex marriage is going to come from us, not from bigots.

Anti-Gay Groups Misrepresent 98% Of The Data They Use Against Us

his hair seems 46% less gay than it did before therapy

At a DOMA Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week, Senator Al Franken called out Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery for misrepresenting research in his testimony.

Minnery had tried to use a 2010 study by the Department of Health and Human Services to support his own argument that children who are in families with opposite-sex parents do better than those who aren’t. Instead, Franken read the study and pointed out that the study found that children with married adoptive or biological parents, regardless of gender, did better.

Franken: It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes. Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids, would fall under the definition of nuclear family that you cite.

Minnery: I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear family, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife.

Franken: It doesn’t. The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another, and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.

It would be nice to think that Minnery’s mistake comes not from willful misrepresentation but from habit — when you’re used to seeing the world in a certain way, you come to expect it to always be that way, which could be why he automatically interpreted ‘nuclear family’ as ‘family with opposite sex parents.’

The anti-gay contingency, lacking any actual evidence to support their position (because their position is wrong), find a lot of ways to deliver lies to the public. This might come in the form of misleading PSAs about how gay marriage will indoctrinate children, or Yes on Prop 8’s key witness drawing all of his evidence about gay marriage’s negative effects on society from “documents on the internet.” Just today in The Daily Beast, lawyer Michael Medved concocts a giant steaming pile of nonsense about what exactly kids will be “forced to” learn about under California’s new bill requiring LGBT history being taught in schools.

When unable to use agenda-driven “research” or unable to completely make shit up (like, say, in a formal Senate Committee hearing), there’s yet another way to sneak untruths into the conversation: drawing false claims from respected research or generally mis-representing where your evidence is coming from. In this particular type of discourse, this exact issue seems to happen constantly. And it’s usually not as funny as Al Franken made it.

Here’s some examples of this action in action (some of which came from Pam’s House Blend’s great roundup on this topic):

+ Earlier this year, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg published an article in the Christian Post in which he claimed that research “demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.” Of the studies he cited, one didn’t explicitly address same-sex households in any form, and one was very vague about whether or not it included same-sex families.

+ Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was influential in removing homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, has claimed that his work on whether or not people can switch sexual orientations has been hijacked by the pro-ex-gay people.

+ George Rekers, a proponent of gay conversion therapy, based numerous books and studies on the example case of Kirk, a boy who entered therapy at the age of 5 and was monitored throughout childhood and adolescence. Rekers claims the therapy worked and turned Kirk into a well-adjusted hetero-acting grown-up — a claim which is false on many levels. For starters, Kirk never became straight, obviously — and all that self-loathing about his orientation and behavior instilled in him at such a young age drove Kirk to suicide in 2003.

+ The American Family Association used work by Michael King, a University College of London professor with prolific work in depression and suicide in LGBT people, to claim that anyone who “engaged in a homosexual lifestyle” had a risk of suicide 200% higher than that of people who hadn’t. This number was indeed from King’s research, but the research in question wasn’t about engaging in a homosexy lifestyle — it was about one of the possible effects of experiencing stigma and discrimination.

+ Three weeks ago, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher (who appeared in the American Family Association’s One News Now this morning to discuss how “voters all over the state” are upset about New York’s gay marriage bill) brought up the “negative religious impacts of marriage equality” at a press conference, claiming this impact had been certified by subjective “leading legal scholars” from Harvard and Stanford. Far from it, actually — the “scholars” she cites are, in fact, scholars who participate in anti-gay activism and have ties to anti-gay hate groups.

These instances all have a few things in common, but homophobic organizations picking and choosing and improperly editing down research to extract the parts of it that they believe can benefit them while ignoring the parts they don’t like is the biggest. The best lies are the ones that are sort of true, and it’s very easy to pick a study and declare that researchers said something, because how many people are going to call you out on it? Not nearly enough. This is why it’s important to read, and why it’s important to understand what you’re reading, and why — particularly in the case of the organizations in question — it’s incredibly important to fact-check sweeping statements and studies and research and maybe question why an anti-gay group is citing a prominent generally pro-gay (or at least neutral) researcher. Franken did his homework, but not nearly enough people are doing theirs.

NOM Debuts Deceptive Crazy TV Ad To Stop Gay Marriage in New York

Same-sex marriage is gaining speed in New York — though Cuomo had reportedly encouraged LGBT groups to wait until he was certain they had enough votes to pass, New York Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell (D-Manhattan) (yup, that’s Rosies’ gay brother), introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage this week. O’Donnell:

“It is with great pride that I am introducing the Marriage Equality Act. Since the Assembly last passed the bill in 2009, there has been an overwhelming groundswell of support for marriage equality across our state.”

Obviously the National Organization for Marriage is in a hot panic about this threat to national security, our nation’s water supply and the war on drugs, and has therefore sunk $500,000 into a New York Ad Campaign (we don’t usually link to NOM because they are evil, but this seems like a big deal). Take a gander:

Furthermore, the National Organization for Marriage is openly offering to pay Republicans for their anti-equality votes! “Nation’s Leading Pro-Marriage Group says it will Spend $1 million to Primary any Republican who Votes to Redefine Marriage and Defend Democrats who Vote to Protect Marriage.” Is that allowed? I thought we were all supposed to pretend that lobbying was about sitting someone down and convincing them to see your side, not openly paying them to vote a certain way.

From NOM’s press release:

“It’s become quite clear in recent days in New York that Governor Cuomo and same-sex marriage advocates are targeting a select number of Democrat state Senators, as well as some Republicans in their desperate attempt to coerce legislators to support their agenda,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM.  “We want to be sure those courageous Democrats and Republicans who cast their vote of conscience in favor of traditional marriage will have a strong supporter if the radical gay activists come after them in their next election.”

[NOM  president Brian] Brown stated, “Tim Gill and other pro-gay marriage millionaires are funneling money into New York to sell a false bill of goods.  They failed in the last election to flip the legislature, and now they’re trying to convince legislators that they somehow have something to fear if they do the right thing and vote to protect marriage. NOM has defeated every pro-gay marriage Republican we’ve ever targeted, and we’re quite confident we will do so in New York, should that become necessary.”

It’s a change from a group which traditionally spends the bulk of its lobbying money AGAINST candidates they dislike, rather than towards candidates they do like. In 2010, they spent $172,189 campaigning against California Democratic Candidate Barbara Boxer, who went ahead and won anyhow.

How do we feel about this new ad? Does it carry the same cinematic weight as their initial masterpiece, The Gathering Storm? (the parodies were funny though)

The Magical Mayday for Marriage Tour Is Coming to Take Gay Equality Away

Opponents of gay marriage in New York are getting awfully freaked out about the possibility of same-sex marriage in New York and Governor Cuomo’s pro-equality message.

New Yorker’s Family Research Foundation, a conservative, anti-gay marriage organization, launched their “Mayday for Marriage” RV Tour on May 1. How clever! The tour will include an RV they describe as “wrapped in marriage messaging” going from city to city throughout the month to meet with legislators – and average, everyday straight people, too! Doesn’t this sound like the best

conservatives: they're closer than you think!

Stops on the tour include official offices, marriage rallies, and press conferences. On May 22, New Yorkers are invited to celebrate “Mayday for Marriage Day,” which is not on May Day, and will happen in church. The NYFRF is asking over 5,000 churches on its mailing lists to talk about the importance of the institution of marriage and its protections that day, and to then encourage their churchgoers to be good, giving Christians – and donate to the tour. And finally, the tour will culminate in a rally in Albany outside of the State Capitol.

I can tell NYFRF is freaked out because they said so in their blog post announcing the tour:

“Governor Spitzer desired to advance homosexual marriage, but his tension with the State Legislature made this highly unlikely. Governor Paterson was perceived as a weak governor. Though he was passionate about his desire to sign “gay marriage” legislation, he was more a lover than a fighter and ultimately failed. Governor Cuomo’s approval ratings are very high. The popularity of the new governor, coupled with the fact that he has some political capital to spend, means that the battle for marriage will be fiercely fought in the coming weeks.”

The NYFRF is asking supporters to come on out and support the cause, as well as bring out their checkbooks to fund it. And when that doesn’t work out, they are also asking for lots of prayers to the Big Guy Himself to push their cause further.

But it isn’t just Cuomo that the NYFRF should be freaked out about – it’s their entire state. 58 percent of New Yorkers support changing the lawbooks to include gay partnerships. You’d think this would shut down all of these RVs and all of the prayer circles, but no: when it comes to the state Senate, the majority isn’t so big – so the fight goes on.

The first rally, on Saturday, happened in downtown Elmira and featured five Reverends from various institutions across the state. Reverend Jason McGuire spoke to attendees about the importance of having a mother and father for every child, and then likened gay marriage and, therefore, gay families, to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. I wish I could make this stuff up.

Elmira City Mayor John Tonello has publicly declared his disagreements with NYFRF’s tour. “I’m hopeful it passes the state Legislature this year,” he said, “and gay marriage is approved.” Oh my gosh, us, too!

Here’s some footage of the inaugural rally:

The only obvious way to shut down a Mayday for Marriage tour is to take action at the site of one. So if you like in New York, put on your lace-up boots and head on out to a rally with a real message about love and acceptance. You can get tour dates and updates on their website or on Facebook. The HRC is encouraging you to contact your state senator to voice your support of same-sex marriage, using this petition.

Score One For Gay Marriage, Zero For Maggie Gallagher And Anti-Gay Republicans

On Friday, while the rest of the world was leaving work early and waiting with bated breath for it to be 5:00 so they could open the bottle of whiskey, Rep. Trent Franks was having a “Defending Marriage” hearing. What was the hearing about specifically? It was pretty unclear, seemingly intentionally, and it seems like many people who attended may not have known that it was in direct reference to Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA in court until they got there.

While we’ve been conditioned to fear things labeled “Defending Marriage,” and with good reason, this one seems to have turned out… surprisingly well? Or at least not worse for us, which is almost the same thing at this point. Granted, that may be because this was a process with no real legislative or judicial conclusion – it doesn’t seem like this ‘hearing’ could ever have had any actual consequences, but was instead meant as a government-sponsored anti-gay PSA and/or a scare tactic, not unlike the “Muslim hearings” last month. Still, though, that makes it almost more satisfying that the homophobes involved came out looking like just that, and not like defenders of anything.

REP. TRENT FRANKS HAS FEELINGS ABOUT GAY PEOPLE

First of all, while the 10-member panel was supposed to include “some of Congress’ most virulent opponents of gay rights,” somehow all 5 of the Republican panel members failed to appear. Because they forgot they left the oven on? Because they paid attention to, you know, the Prop 8 trial and realized how disastrous it would be to try to actually debate with their ideas? Because the entire country is in a financial and legislative crisis and they realized that this issue DIDN’T AFFECT THEIR CONSTITUENTS AT ALL and they had more important things to do? We may never know.

In any case, this left only Rep. Franks to do the “defending” – Rep. Franks who believes, apparently, that the President’s decision on this issue could be an impeachable offense. The rest of the panelists were gay marriage supporters, like Rep. Mike Quigley and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who had helpful and well-reasoned gems like these to contribute to the discussion:

HI THIS IS SPELLED WRONG??

+ “Let’s be clear: DOMA isn’t just an unconstitutional law, it’s dumb public policy,”
+ “Every one of the stated rationales for DOMA has been refuted by our better judgment or our shared experiences.”
+ “There’s nothing radical about being allowed to marry the person you hold closest in your heart. And there’s nothing radical about expecting that union to receive the full protection of the law.”
+ “Far from demeaning, trivializing, or destroying the institution of marriage, lesbian and gay couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage.”
+ ” The fact that DOMA carves out an entire class of married citizens based on sexual orientation also violates constitutional equal protection guarantees.”

It was a little like a mini Prop 8 recap in that regard. Also in that as far as anti-gay testimony, the opposition made up for in willful persistence of belief in misinformation what it lacked in numbers. Maggie Gallagher was the star witness for Rep. Frank, and she said a lot of stuff like this.

“If, in fact, marriage, as a public and legal institution,” Gallagher testified, “is oriented towards protecting children by increasing the likelihood they have a mother and father, then same-sex couples do not fit, and conversely, if same-sex couples fit the definition of marriage then marriage really is no longer about responsible procreation in the sense.”

(Protip: marriage as a public and legal institution is not oriented towards protecting children.)

(Also, Lez Get Real has noted that Gallagher was not wearing her wedding band during the proceedings on Friday, and it’s also true that her first child was born out of wedlock. While both of these things are perfectly wonderful as life choices and not something to be castigated for in any way, they do sort of problematize her assertion that marriage is primarily about and for children, and that it’s necessary as a social institution for children and families.)

Want to see it go down for yourself? Here it is in washed-out stitched-together glory:

There isn’t much to celebrate in a real sense, because since this entire ‘hearing’ was more about Rep. Frank’s feelings than anything else, having it go ‘in our favor’ doesn’t actually do anything for us. There is, however, justification for putting one more notch in our bedpost of “every time we’re allowed to have a reasonable discussion about this using logic and real-world concepts and word definitions, we win.” Because, uh, we do. Try not to think about the fact that in the world we live in, that doesn’t actually mean much, and also the amount of money it probably cost our broke-ass government to hold this joke of a session. There! Don’t you feel better now?  Me neither.

NOM Strategist Realizes Homogays Are “Real People,” Now Supports Marriage Equality

National Organization for Marriage (NOM)‘s strategist Louis J. Marinelli enjoyed yelling at the gays on his facebook and twitter. But then he realized he was wrong, and wrote about it on his blog:

Having spent the last five years putting all of my political will, interest and energy into fighting against the spread of same-sex marriage as if it were a contagious disease, I must admit that it is hard for me to put the following text into words let alone utter them with my own voice.

Whether it is an issue of disbelief, shame or embarrassment, the one thing that is for sure is that I have come to this point after several months of an internal conflict with myself. That conflict gradually tore away at me until recently when I was able to for the first time simply admit to myself that I do in fact support civil marriage equality.

While I have come to terms with this reality internally, speaking about it, even with the closest members of my family, has proven to be something difficult for me to do.

In short, if there is an issue of disbelief surrounding my newfound support for civil marriage equality, it is disbelief from those who surround me. If there is an issue of shame, it is a result of acknowledging the number of people I have targeted, hurt and oppressed. And if there is an issue of embarrassment, its roots lie in the face-to-face encounters I have had and expect to have with those with whom I once toiled over this very contentious issue.

I understand that those whom I approach now are well within their right to disbelieve and question me and my motives. I accept that is the result of what I have done over the past few years and would therefore like to take this time to, as openly as I can, discuss the events that brought about my change of heart.

Marinelli then explains his experience on the 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour, a NOM-sponsored situation that happened last July/August. They sponsored and participated in a bunch of traditional marriage rallies around the country with routes chosen by NOM and Marinelli specifically.

In Atlanta, he found himself facing hundreds of counter-protesters and found them “inspiring” compared to his group. At that moment, “the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.”

The Atlanta rally was a Slam Dunk for the marriage equality folks, because there were about 300 of them…

…and about 30 of them:

Marinelli started keeping a blog that fall after the marriage tour, where he talked shit about gay people:

“Some of the articles were fair, even if you disagree with them, but many of them I would now categorize as propaganda filled with strong and unnecessary rhetoric. This is especially true of the YouTube videos I made.”

In the end of October 2010, Marinelli was actually touched when a blogger responded to one of his blog posts with “an article addressed personally to me regarding marriage equality. In short, his article had the miraculous effect of instantly putting things into perspective for me.”

It was becoming clear… “GAYS AND LESBIANS WERE JUST REAL PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO LIVE REAL LIVES AND BE TREATED EQUALLY AS OPPOSED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, WANTING TO DESTROY AMERICAN CULTURE!!!” [all caps my own]

(You can read his statement retracting the statements he made about gays and lesbians here.)

After shutting down his anti-gay blog, Marinelli went back to moderating the Protect Marriage Facebook group and started noticing that everyone else on his Facebook group was a total asshole:

I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people; propping up a cause I created five years ago, a cause which I had begun to question. This would be timeline point number three. I wanted to extend an olive branch in some way and started to reinstate those who had been banned by previous administrators of my page. I welcomed them to participate on the page and did what I could do erase the worst comments and even ban those who posted them.

He started talking to actual homogays on another Facebook group and that was the last straw. He officially realized that gays & lesbians are real people!

My name is Louis J. Marinelli, a conservative-Republican and I now support full civil marriage equality. The constitution calls for nothing less.

You know how when you hear about someone coming out or you see it happen, like you know,  probably Ellen for a lot of people — it seems easier because you’ve just seen an example? That’s all we need. An example. Something to make us confirm “this happens. this is a thing that happens.” People get scared to do things other people aren’t doing. Even seeing a friend come out and have it go terribly serves the same purpose — it’s an example. It can be done. You will live to tell its tale.

So I hope that him doing this — I hope this shows anyone else in NOM who might be noticing the cracks in their case that it can be done. In seeing The Light, Louis Marinelli has confirmed its existence, which means it’s possible. Seeing the light. It exists, it can be seen. So maybe, just maybe, other NOMsters will too.