What a Silly Consolation

After years of crying, “Let the people vote!”, the National Organization for Marriage is desperately searching for some to prove that the votes in Minnesota, Washington, Maine, Iowa, and Maryland don’t really mean anything.

Their latest attempt is to quote from breitbart.com in a post they called, “Breitbart’s Ken Klukowski: “Marriage Still Wins When Equally Funded”:

…given the narrow margins in these races, traditional marriage still wins when equally funded, but a large imbalance of resources for promotion and organizing to mobilize voters can give gay marriage a winning edge.

Perhaps. And if pigs had wings they’d be pigeons. Klukowsi’s quote should alarm rather than console them. It should make them ask, Why was gay marriage so well funded?

How on earth did a tiny group of extreme homosekshul activists fighting for a fringe, perverted cause roundly opposed by the vast majority of decent Americans manage to raise so much more money than the godly folks at NOM and all those wealthy, wealthy churches?

Perhaps it’s no longer a fringe cause. Perhaps it was never perverted. Perhaps those homosekshuls aren’t so extreme. Perhaps support isn’t limited to a tiny group, and the vast majority of decent Americans don’t oppose marriage equality.

Perhaps NOM should stop fantasizing about what they could do with more money and ponder instead why can’t get it.

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

6 comments to What a Silly Consolation

  • 1
    Jason D says:

    Absolutely “Why was gay marriage so well funded?” 
    The money wasn’t stolen, the donor’s weren’t told they were buying chocolate brownies and then not given brownies. 
    Gay marriage (or as the Canadians call it, “Marriage”) was well funded because it’s popular. The notion of civil equality rings with donors and voters alike. 

  • 2
    clayton says:

    My recollection is that when Prop 8 lost in California (and by a fairly narrow margin) it was largely because of the millions of dollars that poured in from NOM, the Mormon church, and outer out of state donors who wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman.  I don’t recall NOM saying at the time that their financial superiority was an unfair advantage.  Indeed, they probably celebrated their financial advantage as proof of the majority support behind their position.  But now–when they’ve suddenly lost four ballots in a single day–its only because all those fabulously wealthy homosexuals with all their disposable income outspent them!  And somehow, to NOM, that just isn’t fair! 

  • 3
    Roosterbear says:

    It must really suck to be on the wrong side of history when the tide finally starts to shift.

  • 4
    tavdy79 says:

    Some high-level figures in NOM and similar orgs have been pointing to their win in NC in May as evidence that there isn’t yet significant support for marriage equality, and that they can still win the fight. However they’re ignoring a couple of inconvenient facts about that “victory”.
    Firstly, the ballot took place on the day of the state’s Republican presidential primaries, when Republicans would be out in force while Democrats wouldn’t, and in a state known to be generally hostile to LGBT rights, so the homophobes had an in-built advantage to begin with. It was highly unlikely that NOM would lose.
    Secondly, relatively little was donated to the pro-equality cause compared to other similar ballot measures this year. This was for two reasons: firstly, the Repug primaries made the ballot measure an effective slam-dunk for state homophobes, so the amount of money and effort needed to win would have been exorbitant. Secondly, the ballot wouldn’t have changed the legal status of gay NC couples in any practical way since gay marriage was already illegal under state law, and any change to that is likely to come through SCOTUS. This meant the NC battle was far less important than the later ones in ME, MD and WA, where legal recognition of gay marriage was on the cards, and MN, where defeating the constitutional amendment wasn’t just an achievable goal, but would make a shot at legal recognition possible too (unlike in NC). Much more money would have been needed to win in NC, and the return on investment (in terms of the effect on the lives of gay couples) would have been far lower than in the other four states. Donors – especially small donors – are most likely to put their money where it can do the most good, especially in the current ecnomic situation, since many have more limited financial resources. Net result: NOM had a big financial advantage over us in NC.
    The NC battle was already tilted heavily towards the anti-gay side, and that side was better funded, so it was almost inevitable that NC would add a ban on gay marriage to the state constitution. However their NC victory has left NOM with a problem. Obama’s reelection and the GOP’s abysmal performance in the Senate races means any hope they might have had for a federal constitutional amendment has just gone up in smoke, so they’re stuck with fighting it out at the state level. There’s still a handful of states where a constitutional ban on gay marriage might get past the voters – WY, IN, WV or (if they’re bloody lucky) PA, however gay marriage is already banned by state law in all four, so state constitutional amendments wouldn’t be that much of a victory. By contrast, they could soon find themselves fighting to retain constitutional amendments or laws in HI, OR, CA, NV, CO, WI, IL, MI, DE, NJ and RI, and they could face a battle against legalisation in NM as well.
    Every major electoral battle NOM is likely to have to fight in the next decade is one where they will be on the defence, and that puts them at a massive disadvantage.

  • 5
    Chris M says:

    It sounds like both a deflection of blame (“we didn’t lose because we are wrong, we lost because YOU PEOPLE DIDN’T GIVE US ENOUGH MONEY!”), and a set up for money demands in the future (“we lose when YOU PEOPLE don’t give us enough money, so FORK OVER THE DOUGH!”). Or something like that.

  • 6
    Matthew says:

    Simply an attempt to tell the Catholic Church that they will needs LOTS more money the next time. 

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>