A NOMinal crime: gay activists reporting hollow news

January 13, 2011

by Billy Atwell
The Human Rights Campaign, a $40 million dollar-a-year organization dedicated to stripping America of a feasible definition of marriage, set its sights on the National Organization for Marriage through a video “exposing” their true ambitions.

A laughably spooky voice begins the video by asking, “Ever heard of NOM?” The voice, which sounds like it’s right out of murder investigation television show, then goes on to give NOM (the National Organization for Marriage) free ad space.

NOM President Brian Brown issued a press release saying, “Gee, they've discovered that NOM is a coalition of people of diverse religious views who believe gay marriage will hurt marriage as a social institution. They didn't need a whole website to 'expose' that; I could have told them…We're flattered. HRC is a $40 million organization whose heavy-handed attacks on NOM only prove that we are the key national organization fighting for marriage as one man and one woman. We've grown from a $500,000 to a $10 million organization in just three years because so many Americans recognize that we are a key player in the fight for marriage."

The cryptic voice tells the viewer that NOM’s “only purpose is to deny the rights of marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples and their families.” He goes on to say that NOM has deep ties to the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church hierarchy, Opus Dei, and right-wing evangelical . Sounds like something out of a Dan Brown novel doesn’t it?

John Jalsevac at LifeSiteNews.com said it best, “Oh yes, the HRC has dug deep, has done its research, has snooped about in seedy bars with nothing more than a notebook, a hidden tape recorder and an instinct for a scandal; they’ve pored over the dusty records in the archives, they’ve found and interrogated anonymous sources – and they have uncovered NOM’s deep dark secret: NOM exists *gasp* to fight same-sex marriage.”

The dark voice, hidden in a bunker awaiting the Mayan calendar apocalypse, continues: “You don’t have to look further than the people behind NOM to understand the real story behind this organization.”

Jalsevac humorously mentions that these “exposed” details about this mysterious and deceptive organization can be found deep down on the first and second line of the “About NOM” tab on their website. It reads, “The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level.”

My heavens! Could it actually be true?

Michael Cole-Schwartz, media coordinator for HRC, did not respond to my phone call about the video and its claims.

Here's the video:

-----

Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online, and blogs for The Point and the Manhattan Declaration. As a young lay Catholic and two-time cancer survivor he offers commentary on faith, culture, and politics. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory.

Religious Liberty Same Sex Relationships Traditional Marriage

Comments 27

Cynthia 13 Jan
I am a Catholic who believes this is all wrong, but if these individuals want to live this way, please, please call it something else!!!!! Marriage is a union between a man and a woman; just because you want to make changes to this lifestyle doesn't mean you can use the same words! (I thought you were all about being different and individuals!) I think the word "union" from way back when is very appropriate, be happy with that and let it lie-you will NOT be able to get those of us who want to follow God's words to change!! I will continue to pray for enlightenment to all those who want to live this misguided lifestyle of homosexuality.
Hugh Askew 13 Jan
Legal definition of "marriage":
A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

Dictionary definition of "marriage":
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

What part of "man", "woman", "husband", or "wife", is not understandable by any 2 year old?

Argument from the unhappy gays:
Well, i'm just going to throw a hissy fit untill i get my way!
Tom 13 Jan
Being MALE (or FEMALE) is a question of BIRTH

Being a MAN (or WOMAN) is a question of CHOICE!

Marriage=ONE man and ONE woman. This is THE basic building block of civilization! Toy with it and you toy with civilization AS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE! Destroy it and you destroy civilization AS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE!
LUcas 13 Jan
Read the Bible, marriage is between a man and woman. If you don't like it then move to another country.
Oscar 13 Jan
Okay, so the ad is melodramatic. But do you really believe you have any grounds to criticise it after not only your "Steve Jobs is the new Big Brother" video but also NOM's own "Gathering Storm" ad? I mean, really? Have you seen how many times that one has been parodied on youtube?
You are the last people I would expect to be making a mockery of this kind of campaign, since you actually put out the same kinds of videos yourselves.
Oscar 13 Jan
Tom, I'm intrigued. If being a man or a woman is a question of choice, and marriage should be between one man and one woman, then surely any gay man could choose to identify as a woman and then go on to marry a man, thus failing utterly in the massive gay quest to destroy civilisation as a collective whole?
I mean, you know, you did say it was a matter of choice.
Andrew MacKie-Mason 15 Jan
Aww, I was going to point out the amusing hypocrisy about criticizing this video and praising the Big Brother one, but Oscar beat me to it. Sad day.

Anyways, Cynthia, you say: "I am a Catholic who believes this is all wrong, but if these individuals want to live this way, please, please call it something else!!!!! Marriage is a union between a man and a woman; just because you want to make changes to this lifestyle doesn't mean you can use the same words!"

You do realize that anyone can use those words, right? If a same-sex couple wants to say they're married, you have no right to stop them.

Hugh Askew, your argument is entirely circular, and I hope you realize that. You posit that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and then say "aha! same-sex couples cannot be married!" That argument is as convincing as...well, at the moment I can't think of anything comparably unconvincing.

Lucas says: "Read the Bible, marriage is between a man and woman. If you don't like it then move to another country."

Lucas, you do realize that the Bible has no legal weight in this country, right? I think the country you're thinking of is the Vatican.
Jude 16 Jan
In the 1950s and 1960s in small town USA, we weren't all that aware of gay-ness as an issue. Betty and Pat ran the airport together, and everyone respected them and treated them well. In 1979, my boyfriend was in a car crash which left him partly paralyzed. An employee at the rehab hospital rented rooms to those of us with relatives in rehab. My housemate wasn't as lucky as I--his girlfriend was in a wreck which left her brain damaged. My boyfriend could say, "I want my girlfriend here." She couldn't say that about him. When her parents visited, he was excluded. That's when I learned what it was like for anyone who isn't married. Later that summer, my boyfriend and I married, and when he went into the hospital, it made a huge difference in the way I was treated. Only those who are married have the right to a real say in their loved one's treatment. That's when I became an advocate for gay marriage. I was able to make it easier for my boyfriend and me; my housemate, however, had no say in his girlfriend's treatment, and since she was mentally disabled, he couldn't just marry her. That's when I realized how unfair and horrible it would be to be gay and unable to marry. That's why I believe that the right to marry is critically important for gays, and I can't figure out any reason why they should not be accorded that right.
Billy Atwell 16 Jan
Andrew, if you just read the Founding Fathers, they clearly were inspired by the Bible when they created the philosophical framework for the country as well as when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We are a religious country--specifically Christian.

Jude, I'm a two-time cancer survivor and spent plenty of time in the hospital. Nobody ever had a hard time getting to me. Just because you have one instance of this problem has no bearing on the morality of same-sex marriage--or the lack of it. You're probably going to say, "It's not just me...plenty of people have the same issue I did." Still, you're not make the philosophical or Natural Law claim necessary to hold to your position. Appealing to feelings and gut reactions makes for good politics but it makes for terrible law and foundational principles.
Oscar 16 Jan
Mr Atwell, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Nobody should have to prove that they should be allowed access to their dying partner's bedside through philosophy or Natural Law. Your own President has cited the story of a woman who died alone in the hospital due to her partner being female. To say to that, "Oh, you might have had a bad experience but you haven't backed up your opinion with philosophy or Natural Law" is to horrifically trivialise not only the love between any two people but also the experience of being forced to die alone or being forced to stay away whilst your partner dies alone in a cold and barren hospital room.
Look up the story of Clay Greene and Harold Scull, who were separated and treated incredibly badly following an accident which required Harold to be hospitalised, and try and tell me that's fair. Because that's what makes a good basis for law - justice.
And definitely not Natural Law which is incredibly flawed and if you can't see that, I'm really sorry for you.
Billy Atwell 18 Jan
Oscar, there are polygamists that would make the same claim you just did. Should I assume you support that as well?
Oscar 19 Jan
Mr Atwell, you're free to assume whatever you like.
Honestly I'm not sure about polygamy because I don't know how that would work with regards to the law and all the rights associated with marriage (taxation and the like), but certainly there are people in polyamorous relationships which is perfectly fine by me.
Billy Atwell 19 Jan
Oscar, you think that a person having several sexual partners will not have a negative impact on their children? You don't think children will have a distorted view of love, intimacy, family, etc living in an environment like that?

Secondary to the moral perversion of polyamorous relationships (especial for the children), don't you think this type of sexual indulgence is why sexual diseases spread at alarming rates, why cervical cancers are on the rise, and why depression associated with giving away one's self is such a cultural problem? While my principle concern is the moral implication on one's soul, the health risks associated with polyamorous relationships I would expect to be a universal concern.

I'm not asking you about the tax implications of polygamy, by-the-way. I'm asking about the moral implications of it. It's found in the Old Testament, but as Jesus said with regard to divorce, it was because of our hardness of heart that it persisted until the community was ready to morally advance ourselves beyond it into marital relationships that give us a sign of the unity we will have in heaven. Do you find polygamy morally impermissible?
Oscar 19 Jan
Mr Atwell,
No, I don't find polygamy morally impermissible. I mentioned the legal implications as they are surely a necessary part of any discussion of a matter concerning marriage, as marriage is a legal institution. Personally I doubt I would be prepared to enter into a polyamorous arrangement myself, but I hold nothing against those who do - much the same view as I hold towards heterosexual relationships.
As for the children - I think that growing up with parents who appear to hold each other in contempt and display no physical affection distorts a child's view of love and family. I think children would be damaged by growing up in homes with little love, around alcohol or drug abuse, or without any parental love or affection. I do not think children are especially damaged by growing up in a loving home, however many consenting adults might happen to live in it. Children young enough not to understand don't understand sex either, and those old enough will simply have grown up open-minded enough to get it.
As for the health risks - I would consider these to be more a consequence of increased promiscuity and ignorance surrounding sexually transmitted infections and contraception that polyamorous relationships. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.
Marina Jalvo 25 Jan
I'm extremely shocked with this kind of article. I'm from another country where is legalized gay marriage and adoptions and I can't understand what is the threat posed by the same-sex marriage to society. Is it because of they call marriage a same-sex union? Is it a matter of morality? Is it the conservation of humanity?
I want to understand the main argument that makes the same-sex marriage is a big deal/problem.

In my opinion is a question of choice. If someone chooses live his/her life with a same-sex person, being faithful to him/her, having mutual respect and keeping the love in the couple, why is not acceptable? Who would it hurt?
P.S. I apologize in advance if you do not understand me very well. I'm not from USA or UK and the English is not my native language.
Oscar 25 Jan
Marina, I'd just like to jump in here and say that your English is excellent, and that comment was a breath of fresh air after I've been spending all my time getting further and further into arguments which are becoming, whilst fun, less and less relevant.
Good luck getting an answer which makes as much sense though.
Andrew MacKie-Mason 25 Jan
Billy Atwell says: "Andrew, if you just read the Founding Fathers, they clearly were inspired by the Bible when they created the philosophical framework for the country as well as when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We are a religious country--specifically Christian."

The Founding Fathers had many sources of inspiration. They were also far from perfect. But when it came down to it, they chose not to make us a Christian nation. In fact, they specifically rejected the notion that we would be a religious nation, or that the government could play any role in enforcing religious rules.

As to the continual attempt to equate the marriage of same-sex couples with the marriage of larger groups of people, I always find it horribly amusing. The conservative definition of marriage has two parts: that it be between two people, and that those people be of different genders. Rejecting one part of that definition need not involve rejecting both parts of it, and so long as there are ways to distinguish polygamous marriages from same-sex marriages, supporters of the latter need not have made a decision about the former. It's a false slippery slope.

Finally, Mr. Atwell, is it fair to say that you think it's a reasonable use of the law to compel people to perform activities that you believe are in the interests of their spiritual health?
Dan 25 Jan

Marina said: "I want to understand the main argument that makes the same-sex marriage is a big deal/problem."

Here you go:

http://lifeissues.net/writers/gir/ma/ma_02marriage1.html
Billy Atwell 26 Jan
The Founding Fathers rejected the notion that we would be a religious nation? Really? What about "In God We Trust" on our money and our Congressional Chambers? What about stories from Scripture found throughout our political buildings? What about the fact that the government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion?

They chose not to establish one--but that doesn't mean we aren't founded on religious principles, the least of which is a belief in a higher power. Without that higher power we have no basis for morality or reason.

Given your belief that freedom means any behavior that doesn't directly effect others...I guess you're ok with religious people holding peaceful protests on Canadian campuses. Right? Nope. Or what about stopping tax dollars from being used to fund abortions?
Oscar 26 Jan
Mr Atwell, when do you propose to stop bringing into arguments other completely irrelevant points and presuming your opponents to have certain views about them?
Examples from this blog include assuming that I support polygamy (whilst not answering to any of the actual points I made in my argument - too reasonable for you to argue against?); assuming that Andrew supports the arrest of said protesting students; assuming that I am pro-genocide or something just for mentioning that rising birth rates might not always be a good thing. This is not a valid form of debate and merely serves to confirm the idea that you don't actually have a reasonable basis for your arguments.
Billy Atwell 26 Jan
Oscar, be careful of personal attacks. You're starting to border that line ('too reasonable for you to argue against', etc).

You said: "Honestly I'm not sure about polygamy because I don't know how that would work with regards to the law and all the rights associated with marriage (taxation and the like), but certainly there are people in polyamorous relationships which is perfectly fine by me."

So your only objection to polygamy is potential legal issues, and not on moral basis. Correct? If the law and rights associated with marriage could be ironed out, would you have a moral obligation to it? You are fine with polyamorous relationships, which are relationships with numerous sexual partners, so it's logical to assume you would be ok with those people marrying--assuming the legal aspect could be worked out.

I never said you were "pro-genocide", but instead showed you the logical conclusion of your statements. Do you have an alternative conclusion to saying that a rising birth rate isn't necessarily good?

Rather than support the freedom of Christian students to hold a peaceful protest, he went picking through legal code on Google. Does that sound like he supports the principle I was upholding?

Let's bring the conversation back to NOM being attacked for things clearly stated on their website. We're getting way off topic and covering several blog topics on one post. I'll allow one more response to reply to my statements (in good measure), but then get focused.
Oscar 26 Jan
"We're getting way off topic" - that's exactly what I was saying - you keep bringing up completely irrelevant points. I then call you out on the fact that you keep bringing up totally irrelevant points and, rather than answer to this itself, you continue to argue about said totally irrelevant points, totally irrelevantly.
I've already told you what I think about polygamy; you simply need to scroll up the page to find the answer to that one.
No, I don't have an 'alternate solution' - all I said was that maybe rising birth rates are not always good, therefore maybe some people choosing not to procreate might not always be a bad thing. That was the entire point; take it or leave it, but stop adding to it.
T 26 Jan
You all just need to calm down. Gay people are PEOPLE. If your interpretation of the bible tells you to discriminate, hate, and judge a group of PEOPLE, go right ahead!
I would guess jesus wouldn't do such a thing. But hey, WWJD?
Billy Atwell 27 Jan
T, nobody is saying that homosexuals are not people. Find my one instance in which we say that.

The Bible tells us to love the sinner and hate the sin. We love homosexuals as having equal dignity and worth--but we cannot give license to sinful behavior.

No more Straw-man arguments or Red Herring fallacies, please.
Andrew MacKie-Mason 27 Jan
Billy Atwell: "In God We Trust" was not added to our currency by our founders. Check your history.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

" The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War."

I'm not sure exactly when the phrase was added to Congressional chambers, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't during the founding era. If you give me more specific examples, of that and the "scriptural stories", I might be able to find out when they were installed.

" What about the fact that the government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion?"

Free exercise and anti-establishment are even more proof that we are not intended to be a religious nation. We are intended to be a nation of religious or irreligious people, as we choose, not a government based on the Bible, which is the original claim I was objecting to.

" Without that higher power we have no basis for morality or reason."

Not true, and it's somewhat worrisome that you think all morality and reason (that's a new one) are built on such a tenuous basis.
Andrew MacKie-Mason 27 Jan
"I guess you're ok with religious people holding peaceful protests on Canadian campuses. Right? Nope."

Of course I'm fine with religious people holding peaceful protests on Canadian campuses. Please provide some evidence that I'm not, rather than just libeling me. Ah, here we go. Your supposed evidence: "Rather than support the freedom of Christian students to hold a peaceful protest, he went picking through legal code on Google. Does that sound like he supports the principle I was upholding?"

So, what you're saying is that in order to prove my freedom of speech "cred" I just have to blindly accept whatever baseless legal arguments are made? The claim I was responding to was legal, not normative. Of course they should have been allowed to protest. But that doesn't mean you can just assume they're legally allowed to, or that it was illegal to remove them.

"Or what about stopping tax dollars from being used to fund abortions?"

If tax money could only be spent on matters which everyone approved of, we wouldn't have a government: everything would have to be done by unanimous consent. There's no reason that abortion should receive special treatment.

"Given your belief that freedom means any behavior that doesn't directly effect others"

Did I say something to that effect? Or are you just making it up?
Gary S. 11 Mar
Here's the bottom line: God says sodomy and lesbianism are abominations, that go against nature. There is nothing normal, natural, or acceptable about same sex relationships in God's eyes and that's good enough for me.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

I fail to see where choosing to live a perverse lifestyle has somehow become a Constitutional right. What has this to do with equality or freedom of speech? Nothing! It's only by twisting the words and confounding the intent of the writers that this has been allowed. A same sex relationship is not an "alternative lifestyle", it's an abomination. God says marriage consists of one man and one woman, not two men or two women.

Matthew 19:4-5 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

God's Word will not change, no matter how much we evolve or try to justify our actions. What was sinful in the beginning is still sinful today. Christians are commanded to love their neighbors, including sodomites and lesbians, and it's because of that love that we must tell them the truth concerning their sin. Jesus says the truth will set you free. When you know the truth about the gospel of Christ, how Jesus paid the price for our sins, you will be free indeed.