National Organization for Marriage

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 09, 2009 9:49 AM GMT
    These people are dangerous
    They come up right now and most likely are getting their funding from groups with very deep pockets
    They state that they have been around since 2007
    But where were they until now?
    Take a look at their website .... You need to know thy enemy
    I especially love their talking points page icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 2:00 PM GMT
    Here is a thread started yesterday about the same thing.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/484133/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 4:31 PM GMT
    Rhode Island Governor joins anti-gay group.

    http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid78224.asp

    The Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage has two new members: the governor of Rhode Island and his wife.

    As debate over granting same-sex marriage rights ramps up in Rhode Island -- making it potentially the fourth New England state to recognize marriage equality -- Gov. Donald Carcieri and his wife, Sue, announced on Wednesday that they are joining the antigay organization.

    "In Massachusetts it was the court. In Vermont it was the legislature. I believe it should be done with citizens. Let them decide," Carcieri said in a news conference.

    Rhode Island lawmakers were eyeing a bill in February that would grant marriages to gay and lesbian couples.

    The organization used the governor's announcement as the launching point for a new media campaign. The group angered many with a new ad campaign that launched this week, featuring fake doctors and church attendants discuss how new advances in gay rights will take away their "freedom" and make it impossible for them to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 4:53 PM GMT
    By the way, those are all actors.

    Shitty, shitty actors.

    Here's the audition reel:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 5:29 PM GMT
    Much better this:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 5:48 PM GMT
    What else would you expect from a US Republican Governor? They are bound to be anti-gay, and they are. And those here on RJ who support the Republican Party are enablers, who give support to these homophobes.

    "In Massachusetts it was the court. In Vermont it was the legislature. I believe it should be done with citizens. Let them decide," Carcieri [the Rhode Island Governor] said in a news conference.

    ummm... US Government 101: In a Democratic Republic, the Legislature DOES represent the citizens. And the Court reviews the law for compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, which the legislative law may at times transgress.

    Amazing a Governor doesn't know these basics of US political science. But then, he's a Republican, for whom no Constitution applies, only the obedience of Party before People.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 7:33 PM GMT
    OK, here´s a task: respond to the talking points. I´ve had a go at the first one. Any comments and improvements welcome. This is not about ego, it´s about helping people to respond to crappy arguments.

    I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
    Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
    "Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
    they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."
    This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”
    Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”



    This is a well crafted sentence: they’ve done a very good job in spinning the issue. I suspect that the weak place is the notion of “redefining marriage for all of us”: the original definition of marriage that they are presuming is one that is based on the overwhelming influence of Christianity (and to a lesser extent the other Abrahamic religions. Mohamed was polygamous) in Western society. The issue, then, that I would turn this to is whether one faith group – no matter how prevalent – have the right to determine the legal standing of others who do not share the faith in a country where the state and church are officially separated.

    Now exactly how you would develop the argument depends on what you are after: would you be content with exactly the same legal rights and financial privileges that are given in heterosexual partnerships, or does calling that “marriage” really matter to you? I personally would probably go the line of suggesting that the government abolish “marriage” as a state sponsored institution, and instead have a legal partnering which could be either between any consenting adult couple. Then leave “marriage” as something that individual churches can do as they like, between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation or whatever, or have a secular marriage etc etc. But then the definition of “marriage” (which confers no legal rights or status) is a church matter as it is a religious position and MUST not be allowed to dictate the legal situation. I would also draw a parallel between citizenship and baptism/dedication (for the Baptists you may talk to). The state does not have a role in whether children are baptized/dedicated and it gives them no rights. There are no financial privileges for children who were baptized/dedicated. It is a religious rite which the different churches administer as they chose, to whom they chose, at what age they chose. It would obviously be wrong for the churches to try and dictate to the rest of society whether they could or could not be baptized, as that would be a clear attempt to enforce one groups religious beliefs on others.

    REspond: Citizens of the USA who are religious have a right to live as they chose: they do not have a right to impose by law faith based definitions of marriage on those who do not share their faith.

    Then, of course, we need to say that it’s simply an attempt to ban gay marriage, as it is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 7:53 PM GMT
    II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.
    • Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.
    • We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.
    • Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.
    • Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
    • Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.


    • Modern Christianity defines marriage as being between a husband and a wife. This was not the case in the Old Testament (Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon being several prominent examples), and it is not the explicit teaching of the New Testament, which implicitly allows polygamy (1 Tim 3:2: polygamists may not be elders). Many societies have had acceptance of same sex partnerships. The Christian right does not want marriage to be anything other than a partnership between a man and a woman, but they do not have the right to impose their beliefs on other citizens.
    • Legalise same sex partnerships. Then it won´t be in your face any more.
    • A particular Christian understanding of marriage is bringing together a man and a woman so that children can have mothers and fathers. This is not the only sort of valid partnership which exists, and trying to limit it to the religious vision of the purpose of partnerships massively impinges on the freedom of other American citizens who do not share your faith position. America is not a theocracy.
    • No-one is suggesting that a child´s biological parents are unimportant or dispensable. For a child not to be raised by both biological parents is neither new nor damaging, despite the claims of some (I´m thinking of people brought up by grandparents, extended family etc). Specific stats on same sex partnerships would be useful.
    • Citizens of the USA who are religious have a right to live as they chose: they do not have a right to impose by law faith based definitions of marriage on those who do not share their faith.


    Note that I am continually making explicit the religious basis for their claims, as they do their best to smudge that issue, saying it´s "common sense". It´s not. It´s the result of a faith position.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 8:14 PM GMT
    jprichva saidThe only way to respond to these people is with an Uzi.


    Well this is partly true, but doesn´t win the battle for hearts and minds.

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2009 8:19 PM GMT
    (you assume the NOM people have hearts and minds, which is very generous considering their ad. It has a certain diabolical cleverness to it, but there is no real thought or heart going on)
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    Apr 09, 2009 8:33 PM GMT
    I am very shocked that the Governor of Rhode Island and his wife have joined this ignorant, anti-gay marriage hate group. Rhode Island is a very progressive state so that was a very unpleasant surprise. Granted the governor is in the GOP that is still no legitimate reason to show his bigotry. Yes we all have to be on the lookout for all these ultra conservative groups who want to buy air time and advertise their archaic, idiotic views on marriage and how gay marriage undermines the so-called traditional core of marriage which is obviously a crock of shit. I am so sick and damned tired of these whining religious conservatives imposing their narrow-minded, fairy tale views upon everyone else. They cannot stand the fact that their political party lost big time last november so now they are making a lot of noise.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 09, 2009 10:51 PM GMT
    hobronto saidBy the way, those are all actors.

    Shitty, shitty actors.

    Here's the audition reel:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54


    Ha Ha icon_biggrin.gif

    I love it
    Let's not confuse these loons with the truth
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Apr 10, 2009 12:55 AM GMT
    Thank you, LostBoy, for the excellent counterpoints and lucid arguments!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2009 1:05 AM GMT
    AbFab1 saidThank you, LostBoy, for the excellent counterpoints and lucid arguments!


    no probs... Any padding for them (by way of statistics, studies etc) would be helpful, and they were a first go at the issue. I hope they help others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2009 5:56 PM GMT
    “The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”

    The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:
    (1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
    (2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
    (3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay

    The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.

    All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.

    The real facts of each case are:

    The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.

    The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.

    The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.

    http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/04/national-organization-for-marriage-creates-fake-ad-for-fake-problems/
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 14, 2009 1:44 AM GMT
    Jeezus ....

    I was just watching Rachel Maddow
    Did you know that YouTube took down Rachel's clip on there arguing against the ad which exposes them using actors masquerading as real people

    They cite that it's against their copywrite privileges???

    But the auditions themselves are STILL THERE icon_confused.gif

    WTF??? YouTube

    Here's the link see for yourselves

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=rachel+maddow+national+organization+for+marriage&aq=f&ytsession=qqz0kzKN7LKTQ6jOBZguapmOKeop9R13gHLuluYYbcSvyrQf7aNt_9rDDGH9Am9_zaKg5R8hoIt94QvkDSfUbxmuK7CI5d_nyVYZepee7QUEsJ4B1wzC2xHMzJIIa9YP_s-HY6TqU17Zb5o84tTdW1v5cGvjjWMjqfWwY5nM-QkrYnRTzBOuDUdWNYTxd1SHPUjB9O-SCc2LNynLB6p9LfciXCTqLqJyU1_MG3btlIedHSuU9jnkcWl_s7K4Jp4WJb9T0stKMPfgFiiqmxpUnA
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2009 1:58 AM GMT
    moveon.org scares me more!

    no but seriously that website is a little weak, I think some tweaks here and there would strengthen their arguements.

    maybe google took it down to avoid copyright infringement..
  • metta

    Posts: 39093

    Apr 14, 2009 2:00 AM GMT
    Know who your enemies are.

    They are experts at manipulating how people think and what they believe. They can lie to themselves and believe those lies. They will tell you that they are being attacked if you say anything bad about their behavior and/or beliefs but at the same time have no problem with assuming that people that are gay are evil, going to hell, and not worthy of the same rights as them.








  • metta

    Posts: 39093

    Apr 14, 2009 2:05 AM GMT
  • metta

    Posts: 39093

    Apr 14, 2009 2:06 AM GMT
    Marriage Talking Points (Some 'Talking Points' From Their Web site...)

    Home > Get Informed > Marriage Talking Points


    SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:
    Answering the Toughest Questions

    Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.

    I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
    Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

    "Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
    they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."
    This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”
    Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

    II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.
    • Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.
    • We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.
    • Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.
    • Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
    • Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

    III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
    1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
    “Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”
    A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

    2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?
    A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

    3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”
    A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

    4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”
    A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”
    A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

    “Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

    “Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

    “When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

    “One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

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

    6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”
    A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”
    A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

    7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?
    A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

    8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?
    A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

    9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?
    A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

    Marriage Talking Points
    The Threat to Marriage
    Why Marriage Matters

  • metta

    Posts: 39093

    Apr 14, 2009 2:09 AM GMT
  • metta

    Posts: 39093

    Apr 14, 2009 2:09 AM GMT
    I love this one....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2009 2:10 AM GMT
    What about NOM's new campaign they call 2M4M? Maybe they should've just joined up with the teabaggers? icon_lol.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39093

    Apr 14, 2009 2:29 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    Maverick75 saidWhat about NOM's new campaign they call 2M4M? Maybe they should've just joined up with the teabaggers? icon_lol.gif

    I know....it's hilarious that they are so fucking out of it.



    They are not out of it in regards to that. They are doing it on purpose. It has always angered people that don't like gay people that we have our own terms, especially the term gay. I have heard complain many times about gay meaning happy and how wrong it was for us to use that term. It is their way of trying to take back terms used in the gay community and use them for themselves. Childish and studip yes. But it is also done on purpose.
  • metta

    Posts: 39093

    Apr 14, 2009 4:00 PM GMT
    Rachel Maddow: