When Floyd Corkins shot a guard at the Family Research Council, some people focused on the injured hero; others on the disturbed shooter. Some decried our nation’s fraying discourse; others worried over rhetoric vs. reality.
The National Organization for Marriage, it seems, is focusing on dollar $igns$. I wouldn’t begrudge them even that, if they weren’t using deception — lies, plain and simple — to con money from their supporters. I got an email from them today, containing a DONATE TODAY button. It read:
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-proud civil rights group that is now nothing more than a hard-left attack machine, has also tagged the FRC with this [hate groups] epithet, and they’ve threatened to do so with NOM as well. Our hateful crime? Opposing homosexual “marriage.”
This is a lie. This is a lie. This is a lie. This is a lie. And you know what else?
This is a lie.
In late 2010, the SPLC explained it drops the “hate group” label on organizations that propagate known, scientifically discredited falsehoods:
By “known falsehoods,” we mean such things as asserting that gays and lesbians are more disposed to molesting children than heterosexuals…Nowhere in our report do we equate taking a position against same-sex marriage with hate speech.
…We analyzed in detail each of 18 organizations we cite as purveyors of anti-gay rhetoric, and determined that the activities of five of them – including the National Organization for Marriage – did not meet the above-stated hate-group criteria despite their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Also from 2010:
Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.
NOM lies. We take that for granted, but their supporters do not. And to be honest, I find this fleecing of their own somehow more disturbing than their war on us. Treating your enemies fairly is always a challenge (and they do consider us enemies — this same email refers to “gay ‘marriage’ thugs”). But to take money from your friends? That requires a complete lack of scruple.
This isn’t new. NOM’s been lying for years. Sometimes as part of a direct fundraising appeal; other times just to build up their base. Here’s a sampling:
- NOM president Brian Brown dishonestly solicits donations by claiming that in Illinois, “government is refusing to work with Christian adoption agencies.”
- NOM founder Maggie Gallagher dishonestly claims that she has never rested an argument “on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form.”
- Maggie dishonestly claims that SPLC has added “a dozen or so ‘anti-gay hate groups,’ some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage.” (They’ve been pushing this falsehood for a while!).
- Brian Brown dishonestly claims that 57% of Washington state voters oppose changing the definition of marriage (in fact, less than half expressed opposition — not quite as juicy a stat for him, but more honest).
- Jennifer Roback Morse, NOM’s resident intellectual, dishonestly claims Judge Walker and attorneys Olsen and Boies “didn’t even mention [anti-gay precedent] Baker v Nelson” during the Prop 8 trial.
- NOM runs a dishonest headline: “Tell Christie to Withdraw Nomination of Pro-SSM Judge For Extremist Views Equating Christianity and Slavery” when the judge did nothing of the sort.
- Brian Brown exploits soldiers with a fundraising email dishonestly claiming that guidelines were issued requiring naval chaplains to conduct same sex weddings (the donate button appears in the email version, not on their blog).
These are not judgment calls, not differences of opinion. These are lies. NOM lies and lies and lies, and just when you think they’re done, they lie some more.
Go ahead and share these links. Do you have friends or neighbors who support NOM? Family or colleagues? Share these links. Do you see blogs or articles or editorials claiming groups like NOM are vilified just for opposing same-sex marriage? Share these links.
And when you share, don’t forget to ask: If these groups have to lie to make their case, what kind of case could they possibly have?