The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Join us this Sunday, October 25th, as we gather to protect marriage in the nation's capital!
With the DC City Council threatening to impose same-sex marriage throughout the District, DC residents are gathering together to demand that their voice be heard and their right to vote not be taken away.
What: Stand4Marriage Rally!
When: Sunday, October 25th 3:00 - 5:00 pm.
Where: Freedom Plaza (14th & Pennsylvania NW)
Who: Pastors, community leaders, concerned citizens, and YOU! Please bring a friend!
The Stand4MarriageDC team, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, has filed an initiative petition to preempt the DC City Council's plans to push through a same-sex marriage bill co-sponsored by 10 of the Council's 13 members. If successful, the initiative would put same-sex marriage before DC voters. The Board of Elections, however, is threatening to reject the marriage initiative, claiming it violates the DC Human Rights Act, and is thus ineligible to be voted on as an initiative measure.
Join us in telling the DC Council that they've ignored the people of the District long enough. When it comes to marriage, it's time to let the people have the final say.
It looks like the weather will be perfect . . . so tell your friends, announce it at church, and then come on down to take a Stand For Marriage in our nation's capital! Hope to see you there!
Faithfully, Brian S. Brown Executive Director National Organization for Marriage 20 Nassau Street, Suite 242 Princeton, NJ 08542 bbrown@nationformarriage.org
(UPDATE: Full transcript is below the fold, thanks to Blender Flyerfier.)
I was IMing with Mike Signorile last night, eager to hear how his interview with National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown went. Apparently Brown, once Mike told him to get off of his set of tired talking points Brian uses to wind down the clock with the MSM so he doesn't have to answer real questions, it was revealed that the NOM mouthpiece can't back up his positions very well. Here's some video.
In the video clip above, which includes selected parts of the interview, I challenge him to explain why he doesn't believe there should have been ballot measures on interracial marriage, ask him to address some of the controversy surrounding the group (and money funneled to another group that is run by him) and discuss the religious agenda of a group which he and Maggie Gallagher have contended is a secular organization.
Honest to god, Brian can't explain the inconsistency in his belief that putting interracial marriage up to a vote is wrong (when the the majority of people at the time of Loving V. Virginia would have banned it) and that mob rule on marriage equality is OK. The non-answer that he would have opposed that ballot measure is the height of stupidity; has Brown not thought it through, or is he just vapid?
Oh, and when Mike asked him about the $160K NOM doled out to the "consulting group' Common Sense America on its 990 form that he is the director of, he deflected and said, unbelievably, that it didn't go to him. What? So he's just toiling for NOM for free? LOLOLOL. FAIL. Bonus FAIL: I hope Mike has a clip where he asked Brian why he can't find real "true believer" people, not actors, to appear in NOM's anti-gay commercials. ROTFLOL.
You can listen to the whole interview at Mike's pad.
UPDATE: Justin has more info on Common Sense America. Its board: Ryan T Anderson (more here and here), Patrick Gallagher, Colleen H Payne, Rich Vigilante (is this the same guy? - "writes about sex for fun?").Justin McLachlan got his mitts on the National Organization for Marriage's 2007 form 990, one of the tax returns that have been repeatedly requested by activists and media outlets. The level of secrecy and playing coy by NOM's Brian Brown has been, to say the least, interesting. It has left people wondering what on earth needs to be hidden? I think everyone wants to know who's giving what and who is being paid.
The one interesting note is that a group called Common Sense America was paid $166K as a consultant. Its website, at the time this post went live, is under 3000 hits. Also, looking at its domain registration, the name was registered in 2002, but was last updated in March 2007 via Network Solutions. They took care to make the admin contact hidden (link is to full domain info).
Common Sense America, LLC
ATTN: COMMONSENSEAMERICA.ORG
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
The site is almost barren of any content, but claims it will feature "monthly commentary"; there is no one listed in the About Us, just an email address. Its self description -- "Common Sense America is a conservative/libertarian site. We do not actively support or oppose any particular political party or candidate. Our sole purpose is to address those issues we feel are important to the country's future." Oh, and in its Links section, the first site it features is Free Republic:
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. Visit Free Republic for intelligent and topical discussion of world events.
CSA doesn't have anything on its site about consulting services. So who is behind Common Sense America? You won't be surprised -- take a look at this entry on Politickernj.com, dated January 9, 2008:
Frank Lautenberg, who at age 84 will seek a fifth term as a United States Senator from New Jersey. If he wins, he'd become the oldest and longest-serving Senator in state history. But a sudden retirement could turn New Jersey politics upside-down. Common Sense America Executive Director Brian Brown and Garden State Equality Chairman Steven Goldstein go to battle over a likely vote next year on same sex marriage.
More, from Blue Jersey in a post dated Oct. 31, 2007:
Common Sense America, an anti-gay organization based in Princeton, has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars targeting Linda Greenstein in the 14th and Jeff Van Drew in 1st legislative districts. The group is run by Brian Brown, who also chairs the National Organization for Marriage, Marriage PAC NJ, and until recently the Connecticut wing of James Dobson's extremist Focus on the Family organization. Just weeks ago he ran a billboard comparing a pro-equality Massachusetts legislator to Judas and Benedict Arnold.
Wow. So Brian's the $166K consultant?! ROTFLOL. Justin McLachlan:
That begs the question why NOM is giving lucrative contracts to organizations connected to its executive director, what the state of Common Sense America's finances are (especially without the NOM contract) and whether any self-dealing is going on. Bottom line, does Common Sense American pay Brown a salary?
...NOM says it paid Common Sense America $166,000 in the section where it has to list its top five contractors paid more than $50,000. But on a more detailed schedule, it said it paid $189,000 for a "consultant." That difference -- $23,000 -- could have gone to another contractor that NOM wouldn't have to list. I just wonder why they say "consultant" instead of "consultants" on the sheet if that total includes two different contractors. They do breakdown the amount they paid their graphic design firm on a separate line.
And I just did a cursory Google search to find this information. I wonder what else lurks in this form for people to find? Have at it.
Jeremy does the hard work so you don't have to. He's taken a surf through the spruced-up site for the coalition of hate and has noticed some similarities to "product" churned out by NOM. A couple of his observations:
(1) The National Organization For Marriage's fingerprints are all over this thing! Some of the copy is lifted directly from past NOM press releases, and most every bit of information (and stock phrases like "whether we like it or not") are pulled right out of the Maggie Gallagher playbook. So make no bones about it: There's all kinds of out-of-state influence here.
(2) Some of the claims are unbelievable, even for the reliably deceptive 'pro-marriage' movement. Like, for instance, the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has "historically fought hard for the dignity of homosexuals" because they have "worked to improve AIDS funding and provide hospice and health care for gays and lesbians in need." Apparently Stand For Marriage Maine has forgotten that the Roman Catholic Church and its head Pope dude refer to homosexuality with words like "intrinsic moral evil" and "objective disorder." If that's "dignity," then we would hate to see disrespect!
That's just two out of 10 interesting items. Go surf and read the rest.
For your entertainment, here's what's going to happen if marriage equality remains the law in Maine...smell the BS
Examples of the legal conflicts that will be created include:
* The refusal of a religious school to offer housing to married same sex couples could be sued or forced to stop offering housing to all married couples;
* A religious organization that refuses to hire or retain an employee in a same sex relationship could be sued;
* A religious individual who owns a business such as a photographer, florist or inn keeper who refuses to participate in a same sex wedding could be sued or fined;
* A religious-based social service organization could lose government funding for refusing to provide same-sex couples with spousal benefits; and
* Professionals like doctors, psychologists, counselors and others who conscientiously object to same-sex marriage can have their licenses revoked.
You can always contact them (info@standformarriagemaine.com) and let them know what you think of the site. :)
Isn't it funny how these pious allegedly moral and ethical people fighting to save the sanctity of marriage suddenly have a problem with reporting and revealing information that is required to be part of the public record. (OnTopMag):
Californians Against Hate founder Fred Karger has contacted campaign ethics officials in Maine and asked for an investigation.
Karger alleges the group Stand for Marriage Maine of illegally shielding the names of individual donors.
"... I believe the four founders of Stand For Marriage Maine are merely conduits for those wishing to hide their contributions," Karger says in an August 24 letter to Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices.
"These entities are laundering money to evade the disclosure of the actual contributors to Stand for Marriage Maine," he adds.
Stand for Marriage Maine is the single-issue group formed to repeal the Maine Legislature's spring legalization of gay marriage. Maine allows for a "people's veto" of laws. National and local anti-gay groups are behind Stand for Marriage Maine, including the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Knights of Columbus and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland.
Hmm, all those familiar pious orgs, huh? In the first filing disclosure, the total amount donated by individuals was -- get this -- $400. Out of over $343K reported. Notably, Maggie's NOMskulls are leading the pack in shady reporting.
"Over the last ten months the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been sticking its nose in every state where any same-sex marriage activity has been taking place," Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, told On Top Magazine in an email. "They have an unlimited bank account, and have been spending millions upon millions of dollars around the country with absolutely no accountability. They refuse to abide by election laws and IRS reporting laws to reveal the source of their funding."
One Blender's had enough. Mbarber has asked the IRS to investigate NOM (click the above image).
I guess it cannot be helped...given the National Organization for Marriage's move to D.C., and Maggie Gallagher's pathetic appearance on Lou Dobbs to discuss DOMA the other day (being slayed by both Dobbs and Tobias Wolff, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania), it was time to make a plea for the Almighty Dollar. It's NOM's Brian Brown with the pitch...
NOM's President, Maggie Gallagher, asks a pretty good question: "Why has President Obama's Justice Department abruptly attempted to sabotage the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court?"
Is there no justice for marriage?
Justice is supposed to be blind. And the Justice Department is supposed to do justice without regard to politics.
When Congress passed DOMA in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support, it laid out clear reasons why marriage deserves legal protection:
"At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing."
As Maggie says, "This is not some kind of weird side argument drummed up by folks who don't like gay people. It has been at the heart of America's marriage tradition since the dawn of the Republic."
Dozens of courts have ruled that procreation is a key purpose of marriage -- long before anyone was thinking about gay marriage. A New Jersey judge in 1921 waxed pretty lyrical:
"Lord Penzance has observed that the procreation of children is one of the ends of marriage. I do not hesitate to say that it is the most important object of matrimony, for without it the human race itself would perish from the earth."
***
Bonus: Right Wing Watch reports that NOM is skirting IRS regulations on disclosure of tax returns (surprise!).
In the current issue of the Washington Blade, Lou Chibbaro interviews Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay group behind Proposition 8. The interview contains this gem: "Brown promised to release to the Blade NOM’s 2007 IRS 990 finance reporting form and said the group also would release its 2008 990 form as soon as it completes its processing. He said the group submitted the 2008 report to the IRS last Friday."
What's the problem with that excuse?
NOM filed for a routine three-month extension to the standard May 15th filing deadline and reportedly filed its 990 on Friday, August 14th. In other words, NOM was required to disclose its 990 when asked by the Blade's Chibbaro.
Bearing false witness...who'd a thunk it? The first question that comes to mind is who is on NOM's 990 that they don't want people to see?
***
The full, cloying e-blast-for-cash is below the fold.
Tobias Wolff, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, does a great job of taking on the irrelevant bile coming out of the piehole of the National Organization of Marriage's Maggie Gallagher during a debate on CNN. What's amusing is that Lou Dobbs attempts to get her to declare how gay or lesbian couples marrying will assault heterosexual marriage -- and she doesn't answer the question. From the transcript:
DOBBS: Let's turn to first what the administration said in its brief in defending the act this week. It reads, "The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," that according to the Justice Department.
Maggie, you say you were shocked by this brief. Why so?
GALLAGHER: Well, there's two issues of trust. One is, yes, it's true the Obama -- the candidate had a position paper that he's against the Defense of Marriage Act. But he also went in a big publicized interview, and he promised the American people in an interview with Rick Warren that although he's for equal rights for gay people, he doesn't include marriage among them. And now his administration is filing a brief saying the one federal law that defends marriage as one man and one woman is discriminatory.
But there's a second level of trust here. I mean, both gay marriage advocates and gay marriage opponents are concerned because this is a brief in which the administration says it's against DOMA and then pretends that it's trying to defend it.
DOBBS: Right. OK.
...DOBBS: Tobias, your reaction? Do you agree with what Maggie said?
WOLFF: Well, I don't. And let's be clear about what this statute is about. There are six states right now and a bunch of folks in California as well -- six states that allow gay and lesbian couples to get married. This is about whether those couples are going to be discriminated against by the federal government. This has nothing to do with the federal government telling states what they have to do in their marriage policies.
DOBBS: Well, here's the Justice Department saying it's discriminatory.
WOLFF: Absolutely.
DOBBS: And at the same time defending it.
WOLFF: Well, I'll tell you the Justice Department is...
DOBBS: Work us through -- work through that one.
WOLFF: They are in a rotten situation here. And here is why. They want this statute repealed, as does the president and his administration. There is a longstanding tradition that the Justice Department...
DOBBS: Then why not do it?
WOLFF: Well, there's a difference between repealing a statute, which the president is working with Congress to do right now...
DOBBS: Yes.
WOLFF: And by the way, it's part of the Democratic party platform to get rid of this statute. It's time for Congress to step up to the plate and start working on it. There's a difference between that and what the Justice Department's obligation is when there's a constitutional challenge brought to a statute.
...DOBBS: This is where the economists describe President Obama. Barack Obama tends to become incoherent when discussing gay rights. During the campaign he said he supported equal rights for gays, but also that marriage should be between a man and a woman. How do you -- you know, I mean, what you say is fine. But wouldn't marriage be a fundamental right? And why would there be any equivocation?
WOLFF: Well, let me tell you, Lou. I agree with you about that. And I spent a lot of time working for the campaign and having respectful (ph)...
DOBBS: Well, I'm not taking a position. I'm just asking...
WOLFF: Well, I hear you. But what the Defense of Marriage Act is about is not telling states who's allowed to get married and who's not. What it's about is whether the federal government is going to discriminate against couples who are legally married in their states.
DOBBS: Well, it says here...
WOLFF: It's about...
DOBBS: ... the Justice Department says it's discriminatory.
WOLFF: Absolutely.
DOBBS: But they're going to defend it.
That's a bizarre position, Maggie, for them to be in and for the government to be in. Isn't it?
GALLAGHER: Well, even worse is they're pretending to defend it. But in response to pressure from political groups, they've changed their argument. The federal government is now saying the Obama administration is telling the courts in your behalf and mine that the government has no interest at all in bringing together biological parents to raise their children together.
It is repudiating the idea that marriage has anything to do with mothers and fathers raising children together, which is the one great argument that all the liberal courts who have upheld marriage: New York, Maryland, Washington. They've always done it on that reason.
Lou then challenges Gallagher to answer how same sex couples marrying will destroy heterosexual marriage.
Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.
Fro 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.
For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those groups representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.
It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event, fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons cannot provide support at the event.
Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.
Erica Hamilton
Corporate Communications Coordinator
The TDL Group Corp. (Tim Hortons)
Get a load of this insipid nonsense from NOM Rhode Island. For $10 bucks you have have BBQ and watermelon with special guest keynoter Maggie 'Moneybags' Gallagher of NOM national.
Marriage Day at the Aldrich Mansion
Stand with us for marriage on Sunday, August 16!
The Marriage Day Celebration will include live worship music, guest speakers, plenty of food, and activities for children. Tickets will be sold for a cook-out style meal but attendees can also bring a picnic. The highlight of the Sunday afternoon event will be an opportunity for married couples to renew their vows together at a beautiful waterfront setting.
This is a great opportunity to take a stand for marriage as God ordained it. Our goal is to esteem marriage to its proper place in society and make a statement that Christians in Rhode Island believe strongly in this cherished institution.
Event Schedule
3:00 - 5:30 pm - Children's Venue open
Live Music / Speakers 3:00 - 4:00 pm - Local bands
4:30 - 5:30 pm - Sojourn concert
5:35 - 5:45 pm - Guest Speaker:
Maggie Gallagher, President, National Organization for Marriage
5:45 - 6:15 pm - Sojourn concert
6:15 - 6:45 pm - Wedding Renewal Ceremony
Food
4:00 - 6:00 pm Purchased Cookout
6:45 - Close - Ice Cream Social
"Today I came across a flier from the National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island called "Celebrate Marriage and Family Day", to be held in Warwick RI on August 16th.
The purpose of this event is to promote legislation intended to impair protections for same-sex married couples such as mine and of many friends of ours who reside in Rhode Island.
Tim Horton's is clearly noted as a sponsor of this event on the flier. In blunt terms, this is offensive, and runs counter to the 'Community and Goodwill' label found on your online sponsorship guidelines which state that:
'Tim Hortons does not sponsor individuals, those representing religious groups, political affiliates, book endorsements or traveling sports teams.'
It is disturbing to see your organization assisting a quasi-religious political campaign intent on harming loving families. Please reconsider these arrangements as you currently appear bigoted and anti-family.
Among other inanities, such as the lie that children need a mother and a father to be healthy as a reason to preserve man-woman marriage, Gallagher also said that just because the polls show that younger people support same-sex marriage isn't reason to "change the definition of marriage." Why? Because they need to listen to the "wisdom of the older generation." You know, some of the folks in that same crowd who opposed desegregation of the schools and inter-racial marriage. That's a good model.
PILGRIM: Let me just bring up for our viewers some public opinion polls because I think they're quite interesting. We have a CNN poll that says gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to get married; 54 percent say no.
Let me contrast this with another Gallup poll that found that 59 percent of 18 to 29 year-olds favor making gay marriages legal. We have a big national debate about this.
This is not an individual sort of private sort of discussion at this point. This is a large, national, interesting debate. What do you think about these two kinds of polls? To me, it suggests that younger people are perhaps more accepting.
WOLF: Well, I think it speaks to a key issue. I'd actually like to take this as a point of departure to pose a question to Maggie, if I could.
PILGRIM: Go right ahead.
WOLF: By conservative estimates, there's about 10 million to 12 million gay people in the United States. No matter what we do in our laws, they're going to be there and they're going to be having families and they're going to be having relationships and they have kids and they have parents and they have brothers and sisters.
And Miss Gallagher has used some very strong language to say what she thinks gay and lesbian couples should not be able to do. I'd like her to tell us what she wants those couples to do. What should those couples do?
PILGRIM: We're almost out of time but I will let you respond. Go ahead.
GALLAGHER: I think that they're free to live as they choose. What they shouldn't do, either gay or straight, is redefine marriage. There is a reason a marriage means a husband and wife. These unions are really special and distinct.
Part of the reason is that children need a mother and father. Whatever you're going to do for gay people, I don't think you should mess with that.
By the way, that Gallup poll you mentioned, 57 -- growing opposition to gay marriage, the highest level since 2005; 57 percent of Americans do not support gay marriage. I don't think we should go to 18 year-olds and ask them to determine the future of marriage. I think the wisdom of the older generations is something we should be listening to right now.
PILGRIM: You know, I have to say that sometimes you get a good bit of wisdom from young people, too. I have to disagree on that one point.
The pathetic pimping e-blasts continue. NOM is trying to spin the New Hampshire House of Representatives rejection of the revised marriage amendment bill as some sort of victory. Oh, come on, some of those votes against the measure because of the perceived overkill of religious protections that Gov. Lynch requested as a condition to sign the bill into law. NOM's Brian Brown doesn't fail to put in that pitch for buxxx - after all, Maggie needs her 42% cut for the month...
BREAKING NEWS! New Hampshire House Rejects SSM Bill!
May 20, 2009
HUGE victory for marriage in New Hampshire!!!
A few minutes ago, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted by a 2-vote margin (188-186) to reject amendments to the same-sex marriage bill that had been required by Governor Lynch as a condition of his signing the bill.
Same-sex marriage advocates were SHOCKED! As one blogger wrote: "We were hardly even watching since we thought the vote was such a sure thing." State Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley has been pressuring legislators for weeks in an effort to push this bill through. I'm told the shocked look on his face after the House vote today was unforgettable!
There is already talk of the parliamentary wrangling to come as proponents seek to salvage the bill. More details will follow, but we need to keep the pressure on, urging Governor Lynch to keep his word and veto the bill today!
ACTION NEEDED! If you live in New Hampshire, please email Governor Lynch again today. Urge him to make good on his promise to veto the same-sex marriage bill. The House refused the religious liberty amendments. Now it's time for him to keep his word, veto the bill, and move on. Click here to send a message to Governor Lynch!
Then forward this message to anyone you know who lives in New Hampshire!
SUPPORT NOM'S STATE CAMPAIGNS TODAY! Working closely with CPR Action on the ground in New Hampshire, NOM has helped sponsor grassroots organizing efforts and hard-hitting TV ads that played a major role in today's victory. (Click here to watch our latest New Hampshire ad!) For the first time, supporters of same-sex marriage are feeling the heat from their constituents, and Governor Lynch knows that the people of New Hampshire oppose same-sex marriage -- because thousands and thousands have called or emailed to tell him.
Today's victory is further evidence of the success that we can achieve, even in the Northeast. But the fight is far from over, and we have other battles on our hands yet this year. Please consider your most generous donation to support NOM's work in New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere. Or better yet, become a regular supporter of marriage by pledging a monthly contribution.
Right now, every dollar makes a difference as our opponents are in full-court press trying to push same-sex marriage throughout the Northeast. With your help, we will hold the line and then watch the momentum begin to turn as the American people are awakened to the fact that same-sex marriage affects all of us. Please use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation today.
Faithfully, Brian S. Brown Executive Director National Organization for Marriage 20 Nassau Street, Suite 242 Princeton, NJ 08542 bbrown@nationformarriage.org
Marriage is said to be primarily about love and commitment.
The Argument: Same-sex marriage should be allowed because marriage is about love, and homosexuals love each other as much as heterosexuals. Marriage is how society affirms a decision lovers make to care for each other through good times and bad.
Same-sex partners love each other as deeply and sincerely as heterosexual partners. Love defines marriage because marriages run on love, and allowing same-sex lovers to marry is more consistent with what marriage is for than restricting marriage to heterosexuals.
Furthermore, if marriage is about love, then being able to have children is not essential to marriage. The only reason that could ever justify denying marriage to homosexuals is their inability to procreate. But not being able to have children has never kept infertile heterosexuals from getting married.
The Response: This argument confuses a valued (but not a necessary) motive for mate selection with what qualifies marriage to be recognized as a social institution. Love should characterize how married partners treat each other, but love is not what structures marriage and is not what warrants public interest in affirming marriage. The public interest in marriage relates to how it moves toward bridging the male-female divide, toward favoring procreation, and toward parents setting aside individual satisfaction to cooperate in raising children.
Denying the procreational form of marriage is like denying cars are designed to drive. Cars can be cars without being driven, but denying cars are designed for driving changes a "car" into something else. In the same way marriages can exist without children, but severing procreation from the marital structure turns marriage into something else. The argument above confuses the "form" (i.e., those aspects of marriage that are necessary to make marriage, marriage) of marriage as a social institution with an "accident" (i.e., an aspect of marriage that can change without changing what marriage is) in how some couples perform. In this argument, the "form" of marriage is inherently procreational, and procreation can only naturally occur with a man and a woman. Infertility in this context does not change the nature of what marriage is, since (1) the couple are paired in a way that was designed to lead to children (i.e., a man and a woman), and (2) their infertility does not change what marriage is for other married couples.
In other words, this argument uses accidental similarity (infertility) to justify formal equality (that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are no different), and wrongly rejects a formal difference (procreational and non-procreational forms are not the same) as just an accident (i.e., it would make no formal difference).
Proponents of same-sex marriage are thus actually trying to change marriage into non-marriage by denying a fundamental and unchanging aspect of the nature of marriage. While they may still call this union "marriage," it is in fact something else entirely
Blender OregonRed is on a roll -- he did a little retooling of a Wildmon AFA e-blast earlier. Now you can see some handiwork on a NOM missive sent by Brian Brown. It's a hoot.
From: OregonRed Subject: Re: NOM National Marriage News: May 8, 2009 To: bbrown@nationformarriage.org Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009, 10:26 AM
Hi Mr. Brown,
Thank you for the info!
Sincerely,
NOM mail recipient
Keyboard protection on as you click below the fold for the letter sent to Brown.
Let's applaud the National Organization for Marriage for flushing precious dollars down the crapper on yet another ineffective ad. This time they are trying to put pressure on Governor John Lynch to veto the marriage equality bill heading to his desk. Here's NOM's Brian Brown from another e-blast touting "Our Trust":
Brian Brown: "The people of New Hampshire are not clamoring for same-sex marriage. This is a divisive and polarizing effort driven by the need to play to the Democrats' donor base, not the will of the people."
(Princeton, NJ) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is launching a new ad, "Gov. Lynch, Keep Your Promises," asking Gov. John Lynch, who has repeatedly told New Hampshire voters he opposes same-sex marriage, to keep his word and veto the same-sex marriage bill.
"The people of New Hampshire are not clamoring for same-sex marriage. This is a divisive and polarizing effort driven by the need to play to the Democrats' donor base, not the will of the people," stated Brian Brown, executive director for NOM. "How much of a role did out-of-state money, and national pressure play in getting New Hampshire politicians to ignore the voters? It's a legitimate question people are asking," said Brown.
What's laughable is that the ad blames "gay marriage activists outside of the state that have contributed thousands to legislators who passed a bill to legalize gay marriage."
WHAT?! Wait a minute. Nearly every day I post e-blast after e-blast from NOM begging shamelessly for cash from people all over the country so they can saturate the airwaves with lies about marriage equality. And now, since they cannot blame "activist judges" for their epic failure, the legislature, elected by "the people" are suddenly the sheeple of the Homosexual Agenda.
OK. The lesson here is that the only acceptable means of settling this matter is at the ballot box (which of course is not constitutional, but let's set that aside for the moment). What are these NOMskulls going to do when the polls are consistently above 50% supporting marriage equality?
Look what the cat dragged in for NOM -- Man On Dog! The main thing you notice as you read this pathetic screed is the unseemly, aggressive appeal to pickpocket the recipient of this e-blast.
Protect your keyboards...
An Important Message from Rick Santorum
May 7, 2009
Dear Friend of Marriage,
My friend, I've never come to you with a more urgent message: we must act TODAY to protect marriage.
An out-of-control supreme court has forced same-sex marriage on Iowa and an out-of-touch legislature has done the same in Vermont. States like New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Maine are in the fight of their lives to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Understand this: these fights are about much more than these states alone. There is a concerted effort to use passage of same-sex marriage in these states to force it on every other state in the union. How? Through the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act!
With one stroke of the pen, President Obama could sign into law a bill that allows judges in one state to impose gay marriage on 47 other states.
Yes, powerful leaders in the White House and Congress are taking aim at the one federal law that protects marriage and other values we hold sacred.
But fortunately, the National Organization for Marriage has already prepared a DOMA Defense Fund to mobilize the American people and tell Congress: "Enough, Don't Mess with Marriage!"
I was in the Senate chamber on that historic day back in 1996 when an overwhelming majority of Senators and Congressmen came together to pass the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is the ONLY federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife.
DOMA makes sure that four judges based in Boston or San Francisco cannot impose gay marriage on the rest of us. It also makes sure that taxpayers like you and me cannot be forced by judges or gay marriage activists to subsidize same-sex unions as if they were just the same as traditional marriages.
Oh, he's just getting warmed up -- read the rest of this EPIC FAIL letter after the jump.<!--Session data-->
Is this better or worse or more hilarious than you expected? Of course they can't avoid peddling for donations. Did anyone catch the Larry King Live with Perez Hilton and Maggie Gallagher mentioned in this e-blast?
Maine Voters Will Have Last Word on Same-Sex Marriage!
May 6, 2009
Dear Friend of Marriage,
I'm reading report after report describing Maine (where, as expected, the House of Representatives passed the same-sex marriage bill today) as coming "a step closer to being the fifth [state] in the nation to allow same-sex marriage." And while that storyline plays nicely into the "same-sex marriage is inevitable" message that gay marriage advocates are pushing, the reality couldn't be further from the truth!
I've yet to read one news report that even mentions the "people's veto," the referendum provision of the Maine Constitution that gives the people of Maine -- not legislators or the governor -- the final word on marriage.
And that's why today the National Organization for Marriage announced that it will join the Maine Marriage Coalition, pushing for a people's veto of the same-sex marriage bill if Governor Baldacci signs it into law.
The Coalition is headed by Robert Emrich of the Maine Marriage Alliance and Marc Mutty of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. NOM will stand with our colleagues in Maine to give voters the ability to overturn the marriage bill passed by the House today, and will devote staff, volunteers and resources to the battle in Maine.
Qualifying a referendum for the ballot requires roughly 55,000 signatures of Maine voters, and NOM will work hard to ensure that the people of Maine have the opportunity to stand up for marriage just as the voters in 30 out of 30 other states have done when given the chance.
NOM was a pivotal player in the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign in California, where we were instrumental in helping secure the signature needed to place the measure on the ballot. While campaign details are yet to be worked out, we looking forward to working with our colleagues on the ground in Maine to stopping this misguided legislation.
Early financial support will be critical to the effort as the window for collecting signatures will short. Your support today will allow us to start the referendum process immediately when the law is signed, ensuring that the measure does not take effect before the people of Maine have had their say.
MEDIA APPEARANCE: Make plans to watch or record "Maggie vs. Perez" on Larry King Live on CNN at 9pm ET tonight! NOM President Maggie Gallagher will be on with Perez Hilton, calling Hilton to task for the character assassination and personal attacks he has leveled against Carrie Prejean. It will no doubt be a lively discussion as Maggie sets the record straight!
Faithfully, Brian S. Brown Executive Director National Organization for Marriage 20 Nassau Street, Suite 242 Princeton, NJ 08542 bbrown@nationformarriage.org
The fire is now under Maggie's posterior as her organization refuses to release its financial disclosure statement after a request from Californians Against Hate. From its release:
Where's the Money Maggie???
Requests for National Organization Marriage Financial Reports Go Unanswered
Californians Against Hate had representatives go by the Princeton, New Jersey offices of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) twice to get copies of their IRS 990 reports, to no avail. NOM is required by federal law to have these available for public view. Then our representative, Ben Katzenberg, sent two certified letters to the NOM office on March 18, 2009 requesting its two 990 forms. Federal law requires NOM to furnish copies of these IRS filings within 30 days after the requested has been received. And 40 days later, still no 990s.
We believe that NOM has two committees; the National Organization for Marriage 501(c)4 and National Organization for Marriage Educational Fund 501(c)3. Both certified letters were signed for (see US Postal receipt below) at their Princeton, New Jersey office on March 25, 2009.
We have filed a formal complaint with the IRS for their failure to comply with the federal public disclosure laws. The IRS imposes fines of $20 per day up to $10,000 per committee until the financial disclosures are made public.
Here is a copy of the U S Post Office certified mail receipt signed by NOM:
Six weeks ago Californians Against Hate filed a formal complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) charging that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) established NOM as a front group to qualify California 's Prop 8 for the ballot, and to fight marriage equality around the country. The FPPC has an ongoing investigation (Case # 080735) against the Mormon Church. They are looking into this charge and the Mormon Church's lack of reporting its massive non-monetary contributions on behalf of Yes on Prop 8.
Miss California will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving; a regular pageant-paid-for-silicone-enhanced version of Joe the Plumber. The scuttlebutt is that she is being courted to substitute for Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View. (PopCrunch):
Flies on the wall at ABC claim View producers are eagerly pursuing Miss California Carrie Prejean - who made international headlines with her anti-gay marriage statement during the 2009 Miss USA pageant earlier this month - to fill-in for the equally conservative Hasselbeck when she goes on maternity leave later this year.
...The National Enquirer's Mike Walker writes: "It could turn into a permanent gig for the controversial beauty queen....Barbara's seriously fed up with Elisabeth's coo-coo-conserva-babble - and her looney-toon responses..."
Huh? Barbara Walters must have missed that press conference last week where Miss California only confirmed that putting together two sentences is challenging.
Oh by the way, did you see that NOM is backing away from her already after that bomb of an appearance at the National Press Club? (Christian Newswire):
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement today clarifying the role of Carrie Prejean at a press conference held Thursday in Washington, DC:
"A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.
"As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.
Apparently she's just a hired gun now, rather than their golden girl -- and NOM doesn't want to have to comment on what even they know will be more gaffe-laden remarks like: "Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers."
The folks at the National Organization for Marriage are quickly earning a reputation as an incompetent, delusional organization ill-prepared to handle defending "traditional marriage."
I mean come on -- all these people have managed to do is make their cause look absurd at this point. NOM produced a widely derided and parodied "Gathering Storm" ad, let loose its diva of discrimination Maggie Gallagher on the air to do an ace job of serial lying and playing a bigoted bully as a talking head, and with today's ad and ridiculous press conference with Miss Pageant-Paid-for Fake Jugs for Jesus California, NOM is further marginalizing itself.
But it gets worse. NOM claims it doesn't hate the gays, but on its board it has a real live wire. People For the American Way President Michael Keegan:
"If the National Organization for Marriage wants to make the comments of a gossip columnist and a beauty queen the subject of a national debate, then it should answer for the bizarre and troubling remarks of its most prominent board member - best-selling science fiction writer Orson Scott Card.
"The NOM has argued that it is not a homophobic organization, but Card's remarks suggest otherwise. Card, who represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the board and received an effusive welcome last week from NOM president Maggie Gallagher, supports criminalizing sex between same-sex adults:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books...to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens.
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
"It is one thing for a science fiction writer to have such views, but it's something much different for a national organization like the NOM to endorse those views by giving Card such a prominent position on its board. We call on the NOM to categorically reject Card's radical statements."
I was IMing with Mike Signorile last night, eager to hear how his interview with National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown went. Apparently Brown, once Mike told him to get off of his set of tired talking points Brian uses to wind down the clock with the MSM so he doesn't have to answer real questions, it was revealed that the NOM mouthpiece can't back up his positions very well. Here's some video.
Common Sense America, an anti-gay organization based in Princeton, has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars targeting Linda Greenstein in the 14th and Jeff Van Drew in 1st legislative districts. The group is run by Brian Brown, who also chairs the National Organization for Marriage, Marriage PAC NJ, and until recently the Connecticut wing of James Dobson's extremist Focus on the Family organization. Just weeks ago he ran a billboard comparing a pro-equality Massachusetts legislator to Judas and Benedict Arnold.
Stand for Marriage Maine is the single-issue group formed to repeal the Maine Legislature's spring legalization of gay marriage. Maine allows for a "people's veto" of laws. National and local anti-gay groups are behind Stand for Marriage Maine, including the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Knights of Columbus and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. 
I guess it cannot be helped...given the National Organization for Marriage's move to D.C., and Maggie Gallagher's 
UPDATE: Tim Hortons Pulls Sponsorship from Anti-LGBT Event! I received this email from corporate:
Miss California will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving; a regular pageant-paid-for-silicone-enhanced version of Joe the Plumber. The scuttlebutt is that she is being courted to substitute for Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View. (
