NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, is engaging in the final frontier of public discourse — violent rhetoric — immediately following their denouncement of violence itself. NOM, the first to claim — falsely — that the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s use of the term “hate group” was responsible for the FRC gunman’s shooting of a security guard in the arm, on Friday sent one of its excruciatingly frequent fundraising emails to supporters, using violent rhetoric to describe members of the LGBT community. NOM President president Brian Brown stated, “We’re not going to allow gay activists to get away with attempted murder,” and added, “we must also fight back against the violent and hateful tactics of intimidation being pursued every day by gay ‘marriage’ thugs and activists.”
And then today, in an embarrassingly juvenile exploration of the Dan Savage-Brian Brown dinner table marriage debate, NOM’s National Political Director, the infamous Frank Schubert, who masterminded Prop 8 and has made a fortune running an anti-gay hate machine, continued NOM’s violent rhetoric.
READ: NOM: We Won’t Let ‘Gay Marriage Thugs And Activists…Get Away With Murder’
Schubert, in what could be a title about a professional boxing match, penned, “Smackdown In Seattle,” writing, “Brian Brown absolutely put a smackdown on Dan Savage the other day in their grand debate about marriage in Seattle, Washington.”
To understand how badly Brian demolished Savage, consider this: Savage is complaining about the subject chosen for the debate (which his hand-picked moderator selected); he’s complaining about the location (his own dining room table, also his choice); The New York Times reporter who moderated decided to write a kitschy odd-ball article about the encounter (including how he was drunk), rather than a substantive review of the debate, and Savage has buried the video of the debate down near the bottom of his own website.
In other words, Brian so demolished Dan Savage that gay activists and the media now want to bury it.
…
Yet Brian not only accepted, he embraced the opportunity… and he went on to demolish Savage!
As a political consultant, I’ve seen my share of debates. I could tell immediately that Savage was not up to the challenge. He appeared nervous and stilted, and he had pages of notes in front of him. No doubt he’d been very heavily coached. He managed to avoid the use of the f*bomb entirely, but was not able to avoid the occasional reference to bull excrement. Brian on the other hand was comfortable, confident in his subject matter, laughed easily, and had no notes.
Note how conservative continue to demonize something as simple as scholarly preparation and science.
As the campaign manager for Prop 8, I was on the list of potential witnesses that Ted Olsen and David Boies were to call at the trial. Regrettably, they didn’t have the guts to put me on the stand where I could deliver a reasoned, passionate defense of the institution of marriage.
Zack Ford at Think Progress offered an extensive analysis of NOM President Brian Brown’s violent rhetoric in NOM’s fundraising email:
In a new fundraising email sent out Friday, Brian Brown repeatedly implied that LGBT people are violent and antagonistic, employing the same kind of “incendiary” rhetoric NOM and others have accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of for its “hate group” designations. Here are several examples of what NOM is “fighting back” against:
ACTION NEEDED: Chick-fil-A Under Attack!
…
You see, wealthy homosexual activists, such as the so-called Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, are not merely threatening, bullying, and attempting to destroy a great American business—they are declaring war onanyone who disagrees with their radical agenda.
And why? To bully and intimidate the media and enough politicians and activist judges to force homosexual marriage as the law of the land—thereby destroyingthe time-tested, God ordained, traditional institution of marriage.
…
While others have backed down to gay “marriage” thugs and bullies, NOM isn’t afraid of a fight. But we can’t sustain this battle unless our supporters step up their urgently needed contributions right now.
Remember: the only way to stop a bully is to fight back and fight harder. And if you make an immediate contribution, NOM will continue to expose and defeat the gay activist bullies who want to silence Christians and impose homosexual “marriage” on all of us.
PS — The homosexual lobby’s assault on Chick-fil-A is a full-frontal assault on all of us who believe in the historic definition of marriage as one man and one woman. And the only way to stop a bully is to fight back and fight harder.
Under attack. Threatening. Bullying. Assault. Attempting to destroy. Declaring war on. Bully and intimidate. Thugs and bullies. Battle. Full-frontal assault. This is how opponents of equality are characterizing the LGBT community.
Yes, NOM put forth the false concept that being labeled a hate group was responsible for the FRC shooting — ignoring the fact that there are over 1100 hate groups listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s site that have not been the targets of violence — and then creates an environment of violent rhetoric.
READ: NOM To The Faithful: Give Us Money Or ‘Gay Marriage Will Be Imposed Across America’
Many believe, as do I, that NOM is enjoying its last days as an anti-gay organization. Soon, when the Southern Poverty Law Center offers its annual update to its list of active anti-gay hate groups, NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, will be on it.
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 3 comments }
I tried to post my rebuttal on NOM's blog. But for some odd reason it's not showing up. I wonder why?
——————————-
I find it interesting that the author "can think of a lot of arguments to mount against the inherent immorality of polygamy", yet doesn't have a problem with Brian making a slippery slope argument about polygamy that literally has nothing to do with same-sex relationships. Historically, polygamy has always been between one man and multiple women. It was legal in the U.S. until 1899. So if Brian is truly concerned about the threat of polygamy (highly doubtful), then it might be best to ban opposite-sex marriage since it's already led to polygamy in the past.
If marriage were only about "society's way of connecting children to their parents" then one would assume that the state and government would have a very strict criteria that straight couples must qualify for in order to take part in that institution — suffice to say, the ONLY criteria is that you have to be straight. If the state only cares about marriage because of procreation, then why do they oversee marriages involving senior citizens or infertile couples or straight couples that don't want children? Even Brian admitted during the debate that straight married couples aren't obligated to have children. Which makes one wonder how anyone can use hypothetical children as an argument to disenfranchise gay couples, when they don't use that same exact argument to disenfranchise non-procreating straight couples? A childless straight couple, for all intents and purposes, is exactly the same as a childless gay couple. In fact, some gay couples (like Dan and Terry) ARE raising children. Which would actually make them MORE qualified to be married than a straight senior citizen couple — if the care of children is the main reason why the state regulates marriage.
When actual logic proves too difficult for Brian, he resorts to circular reasoning by saying that, "Gay marriage can never exist because marriage is intrinsically the union of one man and one woman." You might as well say, "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, because marriage is between one man and one woman." That's not a reasoned argument. He's simply stating his chosen ideology.
I agree with Mr. Schubert about supplying a copy of the debate to the Supreme Court. When they hear Brian say, "Just because you believe something is wrong, it doesn't mean you should make it illegal.", it truly will be game, set and match. Just not the way Frank expects it to be.
As the campaign manager for Prop 8, I was on the list of potential witnesses that Ted Olsen and David Boies were to call at the trial. Regrettably, they didn’t have the guts to put me on the stand where I could deliver a reasoned, passionate defense of the institution of marriage.
Curiously, those defending Prop 8 didn't put him on the stand, either. That seems strange. If he has such powerful arguments, surely the lawyers on his side would have wanted to get them on record.
I think someone just proved himself to be "all talk."
"Many believe, as do I, that NOM is enjoying its last days as an anti-gay organization. Soon, when the Southern Poverty Law Center offers its annual update to its list of active anti-gay hate groups, NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, will be on it."
Umm, just curious, what connection is there between SPLC's fantastically discredited hate group scam, and the end of NOM?
Other than, perhaps, an SPLC-inspired terrorist assault?
Is that what you have in mind here?
Comments on this entry are closed.