E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe blogosphere is abuzz with the story that broke last night, when the Human Rights Campaign released internal memos from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest and most visible anti-same sex-marriage group, calling for the use of a racial wedge strategy to fight campaigns for marriage equality.
“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies,” one of the NOM memos says.
“The documents, marked “confidential,” were unsealed yesterday afternoon in Maine by court order, as part of that state’s ongoing ethics investigation into NOM’s campaign finances.
The memo spells out specific steps to enact, including:
Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”
Here is an excerpt on NOM’s Hispanic strategy:
"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."
NOM also spells out its plans for the 2012 presidential election:
"From a political angle," the NOM document says, "this strategy will require electing a pro-marriage President in 2012." Strategies for defeating, ("sideswiping," as the document calls it) President Obama include "expose Obama as a social radical," and "raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level."
NOM is a 501(c)3 and cannot endorse presidential candidates, but the former chairwoman of NOM’s board, Maggie Gallagher, endorsed Santorum in January.
Public opinion has moved considerably in the three years since the memos were drafted. The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (conducted Feb. 29 through March 3) shows a plurality favors same-sex marriage -- 49 percent say so versus 40 percent who oppose. That's a reversal from 41-49 percent in October 2009.
Among African Americans, a majority (50 percent) said they were in favor (41 were opposed). That's a big change from October 2009, when just a third (32 percent) were in favor and a majority (53 percent) were opposed. Among Hispanics, in the most recent poll, 55 percent said they were in favor, 30 percent said they were against. That's also a change from October 2009, when the margin was tighter (45-40 favor to oppose).
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign -- which supports efforts to legalize same-sex marriage -- criticized NOM. “Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” Solmonese said in a statement.
NOM posted a statement on its website today, saying it is "proud of [its] strong record on minority partnerships."
It added: “Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”
NBC's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
And then when they get you to cooperate with their discrimination they will thank you and heap the discrimination back on you. They write about you as if you were idiots but if you side with these discriminators and deny human rights when it is your turn being crapped on by these people remember who you sided with.
Its amazing to me that someone who follows a man that taught love are so fearful and intolerant. They want freedom for their beliefs but want to limit those freedoms to those that agree with them.
The constitution is about freedom for all not just a few. And if you have a problem with people loving one another than you need to keep reading the Bible. Unless of course you only focus on the parts that fit your hatred.
Here are a few examples of what the Holy Bible has in it that are written around the same time as the part about homosexuality (notice the Bible thumpers don't focus on these other things):
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased
from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims
that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day and age,
what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of menstrual
uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -
Lev.1: 9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim
the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite
them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be
put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a
lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't
agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of
abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the
altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have
to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision
have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though
this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of
a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play
football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it
really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at
a private family affair, like we do with people who
sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I wonder if we could get Larry's response. He says he knows everything about the Bible and all its interpretations.
I'm sure Larry has seen that one. It has been kicking around since before there was an internet.
And he would probably proclaim that we were all going to Hell for getting a chuckle out of it. Didn't a version of it appear on The West Wing?
Yeah, that one never gets old, no matter how many times it's dragged out and coppied/pasted on the vine... Still cracks me up too. Really, is that he best you can do? Lots of things that were once very relevant in culture no longer are, like slavery (at least in our culture it's mostly irrelevant as a social issue, still very relevant in some parts of the world). What about Do unto to others as you would have them do to you? Or love your neighbor as yourself? Or many other portions of scripture that inform the very foundations of moral thought and justice, not to mention the Constitution of the US. You can try to revise all you want, but this country was founded on biblical principles by slave owning men generally of Christian conscience, courage, and wisdom and with little delusion of perfection that so many in our modern culture suffer from. A lot different from so many of our leaders are these days anyway with always the right position, but seldom moral fortitude or conviction to see those positions through trying times or adverse opinion. I do have to admire President Obama for publicly stating on so many occasions that he is a Christian by choice, not family tradition, indeed he chose Christianity over the Muslim faith of his own father. That does show character in the best sense.
Nom is as Vile as Nazi Germany...It a amazes me that these right wing Non Profit organizations, run and funded by numerous churches, have no problem Lying, Cheating and cooperatively breaking numerous campaign, and nonprofit corp laws if it fits their cause... I guess its okay to Lie and Cheat if you think it is a good cause... I do not now or ever want to be associated with their vile evil god...
These people just don't understand. The battle is already lost. The latest generation simply does not care. The few places where the new generation does are predominantly places where religious extremism is the norm. And people are seeing them for what they are more and more these days.
This organization is nothing more than the dying gasps of racism and bigotry dressed up with the veneer of religion just for the sake of giving it legitimacy.
Black and Latino communities will vote democrat in Nov. just due to the fact that the teabag GOP has become so hostile to them on so many issues. The social wedge issues simply aren't going to work this time. The only edge that the GOP has is suppressing (oppressing) voters, unless the Supreme Court court puts an end to it, and we know who's side they are on. The GOP loves to talk about the flag, freedom, and whatever other word plays well, but their actions are more aligned with Iran then America. Woe is all of us if the GOP were to win in November.
lol....now thats a joke ...they vote just because he is blk doesnt matter that hes as dumb as a rock .....
NOM can suck my dick.
And some members undoubtedly secretly wish to do so.
and nom can kiss my ***
Gay rights and Gay Marriage is and has always been about EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW as provided for in the U.S. Constitution. It is on this basis that the issue will be decided.
Its funny just how biased Newsvine really is, everytime I see a collapsed comment its for someone speaking conservative truth.
Jeez liberals get over yourselves.
It isn't about gay marriage and never has been anymore that the NRAs agenda is about second amendment rights. It is about getting working class people to vote against thier best interests.They hunt for the monster hiding in the closet and tell you it is real. They tolerate the profanity of a talentless freak like Ted Nugent and Kid Rock while telling everyone else they have to conform to thier moral code or the monster will get them. Single issue voters ARE the Republican party and without wedge issues they are toast and they know it.
sounds like what the obuma administration has been doing for 3years .............
nobody cares ...........
I find it interesting the discussion regarding marriage and its current status in this country. It amuses me the references made, the institution of marriage; a marriage contract, you shall love and cherish your “significant other” for life? There are mental institutions and demonic contracts too Who cares; the same applies buy a house and find someone you don't like, marry them get a divorce.
It is obvious that the San Francisco-Marin County crowd have rung in. Above comments are, in many cases, wrong. The principle argument in favor of homosexual marriage is that people should be able to marry whom they want to marry. This argument is perfect for those who argue in favor of polygamous marriage. Consenting adults marrying whom they want to marry.
The South used to be the home of yellow dog Democrats. Now their home is the left...er...the west coast.
what's the big deal? The left uses race as a wedge all the time. It doesn't get questioned by anyone on MSNBC.
example of a specific "left" organization using race in the same way? not a vague statement with nothing behind it.
C'mon Vermont, asking a FOX watcher for facts is like asking a GOP candidate to not flip-flop.
The issue may not be a civil right. The issue is denying people civil rights based on their biological sexual orientation. That is as unconstitutional as denying people civil rights based on their biological skin color or their biological gender. All men are born equal, but not all are born the same. Tyranny needs to be identified and ended in order to fulfill the most basic precept of our nation's foundation, freedom to pursue happiness under equal opportunity and equal rights. The United States is based on our Constitution, not sectarian dogma and sex.
As always, can ANYONE tell us how allowing OTHERS to marry hurts them or the institution of marriage?
I posted this yesterday..just checked..and had ZERO responses from the anti-gay marriage crowd. How "odd" that they can't even defend their position. lol.
I'll try again today, maybe there is a less wimpy gay marriage hater who can take a stab at a logical response to my very simple and very basic question.
buehler? buehler? anyone?
So, whenever the "left" brings to light the bigotry that is still pervasive in our country...."it's using it as a wedge"?
That's a strange way to look at it.
Interesting...I wonder if Democrats have figured out the big wedgie issue for republican groups?
Religion...as in my religion is better than your religion...it has always amazed me that evangelicals and cahtolics seem to dominate the airwaves when they have such opposing views on jesus, the virgin mary and the whole bible thing...throw in some mormons and protestants and someones religion is all wrong...I'm just saying
Let the Gays marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us.
Sorry folks, marriage is no longer an "institution", it hasn't been in a very long time.
Pity the fool who believes that commitment to another person is all about sex. Apparently conservatives get married just to legalize prostitution and legitimize intercourse. Marriage is about committed couples, not copulation, according to scripture. The Father knows best.
NOM is plain wrong. In the Supreme Court ruling declaring Virginia's ban of interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, "Loving v. Virginia", the court stated: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."
In 20-30 years we will look back at now and NOM and all the rest of the bigots will be on the wrong side of history much in the way these same bigots in history disliked blacks/whites getting married together and made the same arguments. The point is... let people be who they want to be and stay the hell out of it. If you add a new group of people that can get legally married that only enriches the institution. Remember - this is about CIVIL marriage (government approved and all the government benefits that come with that) and not marriage in the church. Thank GOD most people are realizing this.
Fear, hate, lies and racism. That is the current republican platform. Another right wing group that has been exposed as having less value to society than what I flush every morning.
Wouldn't a fight for "Traditional Marriage" include a fight against divorce?
it would certainly include a fight to prohibit mixed race marriages, since "traditionally" only people in the same race got married to each other.
Can't we finally put this garbage down?
1. Separation of Church and State, a policy loudly supported by those who support same sex unions, as well as those who support freedom of religion.
2. "Marriage" is a religious term used to denote the union of a man and a woman which has also been adopted into secular legislation (due to convenience) to describe the social contract of two people in a spousal arrangement. This word seems to be the major sticking point.
3. The simple answer is- Expunge the term "marriage" from all federal, state, and local secular legislation and documentation. Replace the religious term "marriage" with the term "Civil Union" and apply said term "Civil Union" to all persons seeking to engange in a 'spousal arrangement' wether they be same sex, opposite sex, or two intelligent adults from any species capable of making a concious decision to do so.
4. Give all persons covered under the newly inserted "Civil Union" term the same rights, responsibilities, opportunites, and obligations under the law concerning taxation, dependency, etc..., et al, ad infinitum....
and at that point, Get Over IT!
nah, I like it better this way too..its fun watching the righties lose the battle as gay marriage becomes legal around the country.. I do feel a little guilty for taking advantage of the challenged.
Actually "holy matrimony" is the religious ritual, whereas "marriage" is the secular legal contract recognized across jurisdictions.
Just ask a divorced & remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you.
WRONG. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years; religion did not get involved in marriage until around the mid-1500s. As skrekk pointed out, "holy matrimony" is the religious term; legal marriage in this country is strictly a civil contract.
That's the simple answer?
Wrong. The simple answer is for the minority who are opposed to equality to go ahead and call their own marriages something else if they are just so insanely bigoted that they can't share a word with people they disapprove of.
Good grief people....get over yourselves. The entire world isn't going to bend over to accommodate your dysfunctions any longer.