NOM Plots Revenge/Big GOP Money Backs Equality

The so-called National Organization for Marriage has pledged $2 million to defeat the Republican New York state senators who voted for marriage equality.  Here's a quote:

"Last night we were sold out by the Republican Party in New York. Shortly before 10:30 last night, the New York Senate voted 33 to 29 in favor of same-sex marriage. Four Republicans – Jim Alesi, Roy McDonald, Steve Saland, and Mark Grisanti provided the margin of passage.
But this fight is far from over. In response to last night's vote, I have doubled our pledge to New York, committing at least $2 million dollars to make sure that New York Republicans understand that voting for gay marriage has consequences."

If I were Senators Alesi, McDonald, Saland, or Grisanti, I wouldn't loose much sleep over Mr. Brown's tough guy stance.  NOM wasn't just innefective in the New York marriage battle, it wasn't even a factor.  What do they spend all their money on?  It's certainly not effective advocacy.  Remember when Brian bragged that he would make sure marriage equality was repealed in New Hampshire when the Republicans won super-majorities there?  If they made an effort, it was DOA.  NOM failed to defeat marriage equality in DC.  NOM failed to prevent civil unions in Illinois and Delaware.  NOM failed to repeal the Washington state domestic partnership bill even though it was on the ballot and they fought it as a marriage battle.  Are their self-styled "victories" anything more than claiming credit for the efforts of others?  Brian is begging for money on his NOM site right now.  Who would continue to throw good money after bad?   

The New York marriage victory marked the first time a GOP-controlled legislative body voted for marriage equality, or any other gay rights issue, for that matter.  The Senate leadership didn't have to send it down for a vote, but they did and enough Republicans voted in favor to put the bill over the top.  Further, today's New York Times reported that, major Republican donors bankrolled this effort and vowed to protect the Republicans who voted for equality.  If I were a Republican elected official, I would much rather have deep-pocket Wall Street tycoons on my side than Bryan Brown and Maggie Gallagher.  NOM is toast.     

"Fundamental Shift"

Democrat Kathy Hochul has beaten Republican Jane Corwin in the special Congressional election in heavily Republican NY-26.  The seat was vacated by Republican Rep. Chris Lee, the "Craigslist Congressman" who resigned quickly after his shirtless ad surfaced.   A couple of months ago, Hochul was far behind in polling, as would be expected for a Democrat in this district, but that was before the Paul Ryan budget proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher system.  Corwin endorsed it and Hochul was strongly opposed.  Now, we see the result.  Jonathan Chait at The New Republic says that, while the race is almost certainly an outlier, the political landscape has "fundamentally shifted in the last six months."  He continues:

"Americans are just as likely as before to think things are going badly, but rather than direct all their anger at Democrats, they now have Republicans driving the agenda with a high-profile budget with wildly unpopular priorities. We haven’t returned to a 2006 or 2008 landscape, where the public held Republicans responsible for everything, but the pendulum has swung back."

Read more here.

And one other thing, Kathy Hochul supports marriage equality.  Corwin does not and Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage supported her.  I don't think marriage was a big issue in this campaign, but you can bet if Corwin had won, NOM would be taking credit for her victory and exploiting it as an example of how America doesn't want to redefine marriage, or whatever tortured phrase they're using now. 

Bad Night for Marriage, But There is Hope

Three Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted for marriage equality were up for a confirmation vote yesterday.  All three lost after a fierce campaign of lies and distortions from NOM. The new Iowa governor is going to be Republican Terry Branstad who defeated incumbent Democrat Chet Culver.  That's a lot of bad news for equality in Iowa.  All is not lost, however. The Supreme Court marriage decision was unanimous. There are seven Supreme Court justices in the state, that leaves four who have voted for equality.  Plus, the out-going Democratic governor can appoint three replacements before the newly-elected Republican takes over.  Certainly, though, NOM's ugly campaign to uproot the judicial system in Iowa will take a toll and justices may be nervous about decisions that follow the law but not popular opinion.

Look for a push to put an anti-marriage Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in Iowa in 2012, just in time for the Presidential election.   

In New Hampshire, NOM is bragging that they've elected a veto proof majority of Republicans in the state legislature.  This may be true, but they'll need it to get an anti-marriage bill past re-elected Democratic Governor Lynch.  A New England Republican is not necessarily an anti-gay Republican, so ripping marriage rights away from New Hampshire citizens is not a done deal.

Box Turtle Bulletin has an interesting wrap-up of NOM's efforts across the nation last night and it's not as cheery as Brian Brown's flamboyant tweets.  Here's an excerpt:

"But no indicator seems to have been more consistent this election than the extent to which a candidate was supported by the National Organization for Marriage. If you were a Senatorial or Gubernatorial candidate whom NOM supported, it seemed to be the kiss of death."

Read it all here.

More good news out of Rhode Island.  There's an excellent chance we could achieve equality there with the election of pro-equality Lincoln Chafee as governor.  The former moderate Republican senator left the GOP and ran as an independent.  Plus, Rhode Island elected openly gay Providence Mayor David Cicilline to Congress.  The state's Congressional delegation is all Democratic.

Maggie Gallagher: Do I Have Blood on My Hands?

That's the question asked by the NOM high priestess in a disgusting and self-serving editorial published in the execrable New York Post.  In it, she cites some questionable statistics about gay teen suicide and sexual abuse (naturally, she trots that one out) in an attempt to distance herself from the recent reports of gay teen suicides.  She draws the simplistic conclusion that because gay teens in Massachusetts are still more likely to commit suicide than straight kids (assuming that's true), then NOM's strident opposition to marriage equality is blameless. 

Of course, the so-called National Organization for Marriage sees these tragic deaths as a PR disaster in need of spin.  A bit of respectful silence would have been appropriate, but respect and silence are certainly not characteristic of Maggie.  The very fact that she felt the need to ask the question in the headline speaks volumes.  The answer is, of course, yes.

Cynthia Nixon on Redefining Marriage

Speaking at yesterday's New Yorker Festival session on "Love and Obstacles: The Case for Gay Marriage," Cynthia Nixon gave a clear and cogent counter-argument to the "gays want to redefine marriage" chestnut:



That's Brian Brown of NOM sitting uncomfortably next to her.

H/T Towleroad.

Maggie Gallagher Defies Gravity

Maggie and her National Organization for Marriage have been on a summer Hate-a-Palloza tour, playing to literally tens of people at their stops.  Pro-gay counter-protesters have greatly outnumbered the haters consistently.  The real reason for the NOM tour has been to compile carefully edited clips of evil, mean, nasty homos harassing the innocent, loving "pro-family" folks.  Here's one of the latest, styled as if it's breaking news:



Notice how they keep going back to the angry black woman?  Funny how that works.  What an ugly mix of homophobia and racism.  NOM will use these clips to raise money and to strengthen their legal efforts to keep secret the names of anti-gay petition signers and contributors.

I wonder if they'll make a video about this guy?   Or this guy? 

I find it fascinating that NOM is working so hard to keep the names of their supporters secret.  It wasn't very long ago that gay organizations and publications struggled to keep names secret because of shame and fear.  Now it's the anti-gay groups who shrink in shame and fear of public condemnation.

GOProud at CPAC

CNN reported on gay Republican group GOProud, which is co-sponsoring the CPAC conference, currently meeting in DC.  Watch if you have a strong stomach for ignorance and hate:



Note the friendly handshake with representatives of the hate group NOM.  Note also the so-called young, gay-friendly conservative woman who said there's an attitude among those under 40 that people have a right to do what they want in their private lives "and take the consequences, too."  Consequences?  What are the consequences of being gay, open-minded conservative lady?  Just what does that mean?   You don't care if we sodomize each other in private as long as we die young and burn in hell?