NOM’s litmus test of the Republican Party chairmen

December 20, 2010 at 7:48 am 62 comments

By Adam Bink

I see NOM is trying to make a splash in the Chairman’s race.

Coming up, we have an important opportunity to help make sure that the Republican Party remains firmly committed to the cause of marriage. And we need your help.

On January 3rd, Americans for Tax Reform and the Susan B. Anthony List will be co-hosting the 2011 RNC Chairman’s Debate, giving the American people (and RNC voters) a chance to question the candidates on key issues ranging from national defense, to deficit spending, to protecting marriage and the family. The next RNC Chairman’s views on these issues will be a major factor in shaping party message, budget, and objectives as we begin heading into the 2012 election cycle.

Every question to be asked at the debate is currently being voted on at RNCDebate.org. The most popular questions will be asked at the January 3rd debate.

So please take a moment today to go to RNCDebate.org and vote for marriage. In just a moment, I’ll give detailed instructions for what we need to do.

Our own chairman Maggie Gallagher will be at the January 3 debate, and was invited by Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser to participate in a series of pre-debate interviews with various candidates for the RNC Chairmanship.

[…]

There is tremendous pressure from inside-the-Beltway, establishment Republicans to water down the party’s commitment to marriage, compromising with gay marriage advocates or trying to sweep the issue under the rug in hopes that it will go away. But it isn’t going anywhere – not with a Supreme Court ruling likely looming in the next two years – and we need a RNC Chairman who is willing to make the case for marriage, religious liberty and the proper role of the judiciary, investing resources to advance the cause of marriage both nationally and at the state and local level all across the country.

Out of all the candidates, I don’t know of a single one so far who’s pro-freedom to marry for same-sex couples, so I don’t think there will be much of a debate or drama over the issue. I also don’t know of much “inside-the-Beltway, establishment Republican” pressure on this. But it is noteworthy that NOM is doing their utmost best to make this issue a litmus test.

Here’s the question they’re asking folks to vote for:

“Surveys uniformly show that over 80% of Republicans support the traditional definition of marriage. GOP candidates who support gay marriage like Dede Scozzafava, Bill Binnie and Tom Campbell have been trounced in GOP primaries. In the 31 states where marriage has appeared on the ballot, including in deep blue states like California and Maine, the voters in every state have rejected gay marriage and voted in favor of traditional marriage. Yet most candidates have been encouraged by the RNC to avoid speaking up on the marriage issue. Will you continue this policy or will you encourage candidates to make their position on marriage clear to voters?”

There’s a lot wrong with those assumptions, starting with the notion that every candidate loses because of his/her position on marriage, or that every ballot test is lost because the voters firmly reject the principle of marriage equality (I’m not alone in believing a better-run Prop 8 campaign could have won). If you feel like registering, you can vote on which questions you think should be asked. Hopefully there’s a write-in option to ask questions that might actually make a strong impact on most Republicans.

Entry filed under: NOM Exposed, Right-wing.

The battle is joined in the war on anti-LGBT media Obama to sign repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Wednesday

62 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I find it interesting that they use Susan B. Anthony as an icon. There is speculation that she had a lesbian lover – Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

    Reply
    • 2. AndrewPDX  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:22 am

      Well, NOM already has the completely incorrectly-named Ruth Institute, so what would you expect?

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
      • 3. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:40 am

        typed many comments about SBA reference… then erased them all ::::No Comment::: big sigh, focus my attention and energy elsewhere… subs.

        Reply
    • 4. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:41 am

      The Susan B. Anthony List is a rabidly anti-choice group. They like to claim that Anthony was anti-abortion, when there is not really any evidence of that. They like to hang their hats on an anonymous letter signed “A.”

      Even if she was, it was an era where a husband could force a wife to have one, and some early feminists were anti-abortion for that reason.

      Reply
      • 5. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:06 am

        It’s hard to say about the anti-choice. Both Anthony and Stanton publicly stated that women who did not want children would be better off if those unwanted children had never been born – and both were pro-abstinence as a form of birth control. That flies in the face of NOM’s position.

        I think both would easily have be pro-choice today. It’s not a hard stretch to come to that conclusion.

        Reply
        • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:07 am

          Not a hard stretch for us – but the people who follow NOM don’t really do any research on their own and take was NOM says as golden rules.

          Reply
          • 7. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:39 am

            This goes for some of the Republican Senators as well…me and my hubby actually laughed out loud when one of the senators said “common sense should guide(prevail)..” ::::rolling eyes::::::::

          • 8. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:17 am

            LLB — I completely agree. It’s really hard to apply the writings of that era (whether those of an anonymous writer signing as “A.” or those of Anthony or Stanton) so directly to the circumstances of today. Abortion back then was, whether wanted or not, far more dangerous (as were most medical procedures, of course).

        • 9. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:17 am

          Yes, they would have been pro-choice today. The only abortions that the early feminists were opposed to were those in which the woman was forced to have one. And I am against those also. No one should be forced to have an abortion, and by the same reasoning, no one should be forced to carry a child when there is a valid danger to the child and/or the mother. And no one should be forced to go to a back alley coat hanger unit, either.

          Reply
          • 10. nightshayde  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:51 am

            I don’t think anyone should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even if there ISN’T a danger to the child or the mother. Forced abortion and forced childbirth are both pretty darn awful.

          • 11. anonygrl  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:58 am

            I agree.

    • 12. Carpool Cookie  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:08 am

      Re: Elizabeth Cady Stanton: she’s a lively character in a book I’m rereading, The Angel of Darkness (the sequel to Caleb Carr’s The Alienist.)

      Reply
      • 13. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:15 am

        That sounds very interesting. It’s going on my (ever-growing) list of books I’d like to read.

        Reply
  • 14. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 7:59 am

    To me, this is just more evidence of the fact that NOM is grasping at straws to keep their sheeple in line. Why do they continue to think that we who are in favor of marriage equality are against heterosexual marriage? Why are they not listening to the many heterosexual couples who have openly stated that they feel their marriages are made stronger by the inclusion of all adult couples in the institution of marriage? Are they that stupid? And yes, their is a difference between ignorant and stupid. When one is ignorant, it is because he or she has never been made aware of something. Being stupid is when you have been made aware of the truth and still ignore it.

    Reply
    • 15. anonygrl  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:27 am

      They know we are not against traditional marriage, Richard, but if they tell their followers that, then those followers will say “OK, so what exactly ARE we sending you all that money for, anyway? The economy is in the toilet, I can’t pay my bills, and no one but YOU (because you are taking all my money) is threatening my marriage.”

      Sadly, NOM is not stupid. They know how to manipulate their followers into ingnorance. They know the facts, and choose to twist them beyond recognition to further their own cause.

      Their followers are willfully ignorant. They choose not to even see the facts that are presented to them, because it is more comfortable NOT to have to think and make up your own mind.

      Reply
      • 16. AndrewPDX  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:07 am

        Well, to answer the question about what NOM uses the money for, apparently it is to claim to know more about the Appeals process than noted lawyers like Olsen & Boies… In today’s plea for more money, Brian Brown says:
        “After the Prop 8 oral arguments on December 6th, I told you how Judge Reinhardt had called out Ted Olson and David Boies on their tactical maneuvers designed to prevent Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling from ever being reviewed by a higher court – and how Olson and Boies are desperate to keep the Ninth Circuit limited to Judge Walker’s unbelievably biased findings of “fact.” That’s one of our important roles here at NOM – making sure you get the full story, and not just the edited version the New York Times wants you to read.

        But apparently Olson and Boies didn’t appreciate the truth.”

        The more this idiot talks, the more I’m convinced he’s a pathological liar who seriously needs some time in an insane asylum where hecan stop causing harm to people.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
    • 17. DaveP  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:12 am

      They don’t really think anyone is against heterosexual marriage. When they say things like “republicans ought to support the traditional definition of marriage” they do so because even they know that they have to carefully avoid phrases that state the blunt truth, which is that they really mean “republicans ought to deny equal civil marriage rights to same sex families”.

      It’s all just the same tired old word-twisting and propaganda to try to give bigotry and discrimination a paper-thin veneer of “values”. And it is failing. Fewer and fewer people actually believe that stuff. Now it’s all just obvious code words that everyone on both sides of the issue can see right through.

      Reply
      • 18. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:35 am

        You are so right Dave, more and more people are becoming educated and leaving behind these anti-gay groups

        Only two years ago Prop 102 in Arizona (to define marriage as only between a man and a woman) won by 56.2% to 43.8%.

        I believe if that vote were taken today it would certainly have a different outcome – and plans are already in motion in Arizona to right the wrong of Prop 102.

        Reply
    • 21. JonT  |  December 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm

      Why do they continue to think that we who are in favor of marriage equality are against heterosexual marriage?

      I don’t believe that actually think that. It’s just easier to mobilize their sheeple’s fear if they can convince them that that is the case.

      It’s like saying that if you are pro-choice, then obviously you love baby killing. It’s just messaging and propaganda. Tools with which professional religion is *very* familiar with.

      Reply
  • 22. Sagesse  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:02 am

    I’m an interested observer on this one. As a Canadian, I don’t fully understand what the election process is for a party chairman… is it different between the Republicans and the Democrats, for instance?

    The RNC develops the party platform, but then individual primary races and individual candidates tailor their positions to entice their constituents and counter their opposition.

    What does NOM hope to accomplish by injecting themselves into this process? At the very least they have an excuse to get press in January. Is this debate the latest bus tour?

    I will be watching and learning?

    Reply
  • 23. Sagesse  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:02 am

    I’m an interested observer on this one. As a Canadian, I don’t fully understand what the election process is for a party chairman… is it different between the Republicans and the Democrats, for instance?

    The RNC develops the party platform, but then individual primary races and individual candidates tailor their positions to entice their constituents and counter their opposition.

    What does NOM hope to accomplish by injecting themselves into this process? At the very least they have an excuse to get press in January. Is this debate the latest bus tour?

    I will be watching and learning.

    Reply
    • 24. Sagesse  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:08 am

      Hmmm. There’s an echo in here. Sorry for the double post.

      Reply
  • 25. Ronnie  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:12 am

    “giving the American people a chance to question the candidates”…

    pfft…as if… > / …..Ronnie

    Reply
  • 26. James Sweet  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Barely got three sentences into the post, then couldn’t continue. Every time these little bastards use phrases like “the cause of marriage” or “marriage supporters”, it’s like a thousand nails on a chalkboard at once (also, images of drowning puppies).

    The Right’s ability for doublespeak never ceases to amaze. “Pro-life” means you think a woman should be forced to die rather than terminate a dangerous pregnancy. “Pro-marriage” means you think fewer people should be allowed to get married. “Religious freedom” means foisting explicitly Christian traditions onto people with governmental complicity.

    I once heard Bob Barr arguing that the free market would fix the problem of climate change. I’m surprised that meme hasn’t caught on: “We oppose regulating carbon emissions and other forms of pollution, because we are pro-environment!”

    Reply
  • 27. sHANE  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Are you listening, GOProud?

    Reply
    • 28. Alan E.  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:26 am

      They are too busy patting each others backs for taking credit after trying to prevent repeal.

      Reply
  • 29. Ed Cortes  |  December 20, 2010 at 8:47 am

    subbin

    Reply
  • 30. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 20, 2010 at 9:13 am

    What about the prospective chair’s view on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” OOPS! IT GOT REPEALED!

    Also, translation: “religious liberty” = “theocracy”

    And: “GOP candidates who support gay marriage like Dede Scozzafava, Bill Binnie and Tom Campbell have been trounced in GOP primaries.”

    I suppose we can give them the Bill Binnie/Kelly Ayotte situation, but Scozzafava’s defeat handed the seat to the Democrats, and Campbell’s defeat by Carly Fiorina still didn’t net a Republican victory in California. New NOM slogan: one out of three ain’t bad.

    Reply
    • 31. John  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:10 am

      I’m so sick of these idiots claiming to be Christian. Why can’t they make their own religion, that properly supports their bigotry?

      As for DADT, I spent the morning talking to a friend (!) who told me how horrible that DADT being repealed was, that it was a good “compromise” bill when Clinton signed it because it didn’t serve either party. I asked what he thought of the Navy’s compromise to allow black soldiers to serve on mostly-white ships, so long as they were content to be cooks, as I suspect neither side was happy with that, either. He didn’t really have an answer for that.

      I get sick of the right wing just producing talking points for their followers. I’d love to see the followers one day wake up and ask, “WHY?” It would be wonderful to see them actually *think* for themselves. Ironically, the evangelical tradition is based on the idea that you don’t need the Pope to think for you, that you can find out what God wants without him.

      Reply
      • 32. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:16 pm

        These are the same type of people who questioned John Kennedy’s qualifications when he ran for POTUS in 1960, afraid that he would be “Too Catholic”,/i> to properly lead this country, and then when John Kerry was running accused him of not being Catholic enough. They will grasp at any straws they can to spread confusion and ignorance in their attempts to turn this country into a theocracy with their rules in place to oppress anyone who does not fall into lockstep with them. And they will very quickly turn on each other and begin cannibalizing their own theocracy if they ever get their way.

        Reply
    • 33. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:20 am

      Tom Campbell has always been a somewhat marginal candidate. He has a few electoral successes, but the big time wins have always eluded him.

      Reply
      • 34. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:42 am

        Thanks for the insight, Ann; doesn’t surprise me at all that NOM would be puffing up their perceived successes.

        Reply
  • 35. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:06 am

    They are saying President Obama likely to sign the repeal of DADT on Wednesday morning…

    Can’t wait!

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-likely-to-sign-repeal-of-military-gay-ban-on-wednesday/1

    Reply
    • 36. John  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:13 am

      I’ll look forward to that. :) Also to the day when the repeal is actually implemented. Right now we have a promise of justice – I’m going to do my part to hold them to the fire to get the actual evidence of justice.

      Besides, I’m really looking forward to seeing the Navy recruit using the Village People’s “In the Navy” at a gay rally. :)

      Reply
      • 37. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 20, 2010 at 10:45 am

        Reply
    • 38. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:05 am

      Woot! I was just wondering when President Obama would sign…thank U for update!

      Reply
  • 39. Mackenzie  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:07 am

    This from a recent email sent out by Brian Brown, pathetically trying raise even more money

    -“As long as we have the resources to keep on fighting and make sure the truth is heard, we can be confident that truth and love will ultimately prevail.”

    Yes Brain, because everything about your org tries to block the truth, and prevent people from expressing their love…….idiot.

    Reply
    • 40. Ed  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:17 am

      Don’t forget, It’s also his (very lucrative) income…….

      Reply
      • 41. Ed  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:18 am

        Also, how many kids are allowed in a traditional marriage? Is there a limit?

        Reply
        • 42. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:27 am

          I think there’s a minimum, but no maximum.

          Reply
          • 43. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:06 pm

            lol Ann!

        • 44. Ed Cortes  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:18 pm

          There is no minimum – that’s why there is no fertility test for them…

          Reply
        • 45. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:25 pm

          Actually, there is a minimum–one every 9.5 months. Of course, they really feel that they have done their duty when the pregnancy results in multiple births!

          Reply
        • 46. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:31 pm

          No maximum – as long as none of them are homosexual.

          Reply
    • 47. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:07 pm

      “make sure the truth is heard”

      Ha! That’s what NOM is afraid of.

      Reply
  • 48. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:56 am

    A little OT…more about DADT vote over the weekend:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/19/AR2010121903719.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

    Reply
    • 49. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  December 20, 2010 at 11:58 am

      from article….1993:
      “Your lifestyle is not normal,” Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) told a pair of soon-to-be-discharged gay servicemen during a public hearing at Norfolk Naval Base in May 1993, according to news reports. The audience, made up of 1,000 sailors and Marines, applauded. “

      Reply
  • 50. Michelle Evans  |  December 20, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    One interesting thing about the email sent out for this Republican Party Chairman discussion, is that it says you can sign up and submit your own questions. I tried several days ago to do this, and of course, the confirmation email that would allow me to sign in never arrived (and yes, I checked my spam folder). So, somehow, my email address is registered with these people as someone who is not allowed to speak. So much for their supposed “freedoms.”

    Of course, we’ve always known that their freedoms are the only ones allowed. Anyone else’s freedoms are to be shunned because we’re not good enough to be included.

    Reply
  • 51. Rhie  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Watching

    Reply
  • 52. Matthew  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    The willful stupidity of the right is staggering sometimes.

    One of my co-workers was telling me how horrible it was that heterosexuals would be discriminated against with DADT gone. Then he gave an example of how a straight guy won’t be allowed to call his gay fellow soldiers fags. I was kinda shocked to find out he thinks that is perfectly fine.

    Reply
    • 53. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 1:43 pm

      Ugh. Does he also moan about not being able to call co-workers ethnic slurs on the job?

      Reply
      • 54. matthew  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:31 pm

        That was actually what I countered with…I asked him what happens now if someone calls a black soldier the ‘N’ word.

        He scoffed at me and said that was totally different.

        At that point I was sufficiently peeved that I turned around and walked away. But I have more questions for him. Mainly I want to know if he thinks hes being discriminated against where we work, since they include orientation in their harassment policy.

        Reply
    • 55. Maggie4NoH8  |  December 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm

      It truly, truly is…

      Sometimes I wanna laugh, sometimes I wanna cry…

      Someone pointed out the difference between ignorant and stupid in the comments, and it reminded me of one of my pet peeves.

      I don’t take issue with someone that, after considering both sides of an issue at length, reaches a conclusion or a stance at odds with my own. I can respect that because they have put some honest, intellectual effort and reached a different outcome.

      What I can’t endure, are those that make no effort to educate themselves, *think* on their own and come to “what’s right or wrong” for themselves. Those that drink the punch just because the person in front of them did, and the person behind them will.

      IT DRIVES ME INSANE!

      PS – sorry for screaming! I have just caught up on reading the NOM Blog over the weekend. Which brings up 2 points – they are awfully silent on DADT, and those $*#&!@’s won’t let me post on their blog (yet, they are all a twitter about Steve Jobs/Big Brother)!

      Reply
  • 56. Seraphiel  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    We need something else to call them besides “The Susan B. Anthony List” because every time anyone does that, it only serves to legitimize a claim they have no right to make.

    Can’t they be the “Jerry Falwell Memorial Forced Pregnancy List” instead?

    Reply
    • 57. Ann S.  |  December 20, 2010 at 2:32 pm

      Well, it’s a little bit too much like what they do for my taste, but there’s always phraseology such as “the so-called (or ‘self-styled’ if you prefer) Susan B. Anthony List”.

      Reply
  • 58. JonT  |  December 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Coming up, we have an important opportunity to help make sure that the Republican Party remains firmly committed to the cause of marriage religion and theocratic rule.

    There, fixed that for them.

    Reply
  • 59. Kathleen  |  December 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    just scribin.

    Reply
  • 60. Maggie4NoH8  |  December 20, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Just wondering out loud…

    Wouldn’t it be beneficial for the new RNC chairman to hop on the NOM bus? I mean, we will never convince the true sheeple, but there are some Republicans that might benefit from the light shining on this subject from within, right?

    I have found, on a spectrum (1-10 for example), left/right, conservative/liberal, each individual isn’t a “2” on everything… They may be a 2 on fiscal issues, but a 4 on social…

    If the light on SSM shines internally within the Republican Party Leadership, those who are “rational thinkers” (albeit misguided in their party affiliation *smile*) might actually benefit from seeing a debate from within (whereas they might miss out on the debate if left to their own devices to seek it out)…

    Anybody else think this would be a good thing for marriage equality?

    Reply
  • […] details on NOM’s involvement with potential chairpeople of the Republican Party, see my post here. […]

    Reply
  • 62. Prop 8 Trial Tracker  |  January 3, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    […] wrote a few weeks ago about NOM pushing to get RNC Chairperson candidates on the record against the freedom to marry for […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,303 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...