NOM BLOG

Seattle Times on NOM's Promise to Help WA Defeat SSM

 

The Seattle Times:

With same-sex marriage virtually assured in Washington state, opponents seeking to undo it are looking ahead to summer and fall, and to a campaign they say will draw on the resources of national organizations that have waged and won these kinds of fights.

A day after the state Senate approved same-sex marriage on a 28-21 vote and moved the bill to the House, where it's expected to pass, the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) said it's fully committed to repealing the measure in November.

One of the largest national funders in the fight against gay marriage, NOM also is gearing up for ballot battles in North Carolina and Minnesota, where voters this year will decide whether to ban gay marriage in their constitutions, as 29 states already have done.

In Washington state, NOM will employ strategies not unlike those it used four years ago to help roll back legislatively approved gay marriage in Maine and bring about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California under Proposition 8.

"We plan to submit a referendum on this to the secretary of state before the ink is dry on the governor's signature," said Chris Plante, regional coordinator for NOM. "We've got a major constituency; faith communities across the state will carry a heavy load on this. But they're not the only ones committed to retaining the current definition of marriage."

19 Comments

  1. MIke J.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Leo, if the whole conspiracy of gays forcing the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM is true , how come this doesn't come up in court? That would be a strong basis to fight all gay rights.

    Oh wait, it hasnt because it's not true.

  2. Ash
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    I think I do know this stuff better than the EMU staff, Mike J.! You must not have heard about the legal setback they suffered. Read Michael Ejercito's words in post #83. They couldn't show in court that counseling referrals are prohibited. Actually, they showed the opposite.

    But feel free to cure me of my "magical thinking."

  3. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    MIke J.: Oh,... so, number of comments, and number of angered comments, means... what? I can post many 'angered' comments on a comment thread, under different names, and the moderators can filter out comments they don't happen to like. So, where's your logic. Oh, you forgot to bring it, today.... I see, said the blind.

  4. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    The.Truth: You are not talking truth, though you think you are. Polls can only be used to present a rise in public opinion if the questions and statistics of all the polls are the same, or very similar. You are basically arguing for a poll of polls, which mathematically irrational. When do you ever consider the sampling margin of error, and other errors that polls are affected by? Your user name would be more accurately - The.Truth.Unreached.

  5. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    The.Truth: The real question is whether a perceived statistical increase is a monotonic increase, or is it an increasing and later decreasing trend. Even if polls are used naively, ignoring how the questions are generated to show more controversy, ignoring that some polls are automated, ignoring survey participants can easily lie, ignoring that children might answer an automated survey (children like to press buttons), the trend doesn't necessarily start at zero, where it can not go more negative, and go to 100%. That is a matter of interpretation, not Statistics (a branch of Mathematics). People who sincerely believe an erroneous conclusion, as a matter of sympathy or philosophy of life, often justify the means for the goal. What about polls taken just before each of the 31 States passed a marriage amendment disqualifying friendships as 'marriages'? If we are to make a mathematical conclusion, you better be ready to reason.

  6. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    MIke J.: What is zillions?
    '...are zillions of gays lying about not choosing to be gay?' Of course, not. They are not lying. It's their belief system. They have been brainwashed that there is no hope in exiting homosexuality. NOM supporters, for the most part, believe there is hope for many of the zillions (does that terms come from 'zit'?) of whatevers? To start the discussion, define in scientific terms what a 'gay' is. Is it a human being? I think i am a gay person, but that's an adjective.

  7. Spunky
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Oy, my post 98 is missing a sentence. It should read

    "I should have been more clear. Churches can have marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but they don't mean anything legally. On the other hand, when churches have marriage ceremonies for opposite-sex couples, these ceremonies are legally binding. This is because states "allow the religious [marriage] ceremony to double as the state ceremony."

    (Italicized sentence was missing.)

  8. Leo
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Mike J.

    I'm not an attorney, so you can ask an attorney who would handle cases of that natural...

    Maybe because the "argument" has been whether SSM should be illegal, not whether homosexuality should be illegal...

    Maybe we should start making the "argument" whether or not homosexuality should be illegal-like pedophilia is illegal-both mental conditions are linked; both “illnesses” engages in sexual abnormalities, and self-gratification. In both cases, the individual feel out of control, and will take dangerous risk without any regards of the outcome, or who they may hurt. I personally think it should be part of the “argument”, as why the APA suddenly removed homosexuality from the mental illness code…Maybe it has something to do with the reason there are now-where it wasn’t before- a good percentage of gays/lesbians, possibly including trannies, bi-sexuals as part of the club-membership. If we hold anything the APA says to be as the highest intelligent on the matter, then by all means they should be apart of any court proceedings involving in SSM, however they would not be seen as creditable witnesses. Of course that maybe a pledge of war with the homosexual community at this point… If the LGBT propaganda continues on the course it is on, making that pledge will be easy.

  9. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    If photographers are fined or sued for not agreeing to photo shot a same-sex civil union or 'marriage', they will simply stop answering certain kinds of inquiries (which already they don't answer), and give some sort of lame excuse like.... "Hmmmm, sorry i am already booked for that date", 'oh! you will change the date to accommodate my services?', 'Well, let me see... i think i'm planning my family (1man+1woman) vacation around that time...", 'By the way, i recently raised my prices, also, but my web page hasn't been updated.' When it comes to business, you cannot force the issue.

  10. Publius
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    @Spunky

    “Churches can have marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but they don't mean anything legally.”

    They do where marriage has been redefined.

    The Churches should decide the definition and nature of marriage for the respective churches. The people should decide the definition and nature of marriage for the people of the state as a commonwealth.

  11. Publius
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    “…the refusal of … religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage [will mark] them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.”

    From
    MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
    Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
    An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans
    Released January 12, 2012

  12. Louis E.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Spunky,a church can call whatever it likes a marriage,and a government can let them call it that.But a government has a responsibility to treat only opposite-sex relationships as offering a benefit to secular society by existing and being acknowledged as the norm,and must only give specific benefits to opposite-sex relationships.Any constitution not requiring this needs to be amended to do so.

  13. Spunky
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    @ Publius

    Yes, I meant where gay marriages were not legal. I was responding to Son of Adams post, where he said that regardless of marriage law, churches could marry whoever they chose.

    So in states where gay marriages are banned, the church's religious liberty is compromised, because the government doesn't recognize its gay marriages.

    My point wasn't about who decides marriage law. My point was that marriage inequality can directly take away religious freedom from some churches, while marriage equality doesn't have to.

  14. Layne
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    "I think if the SSM supporters want eqality by getting married, they should seek reparative therapy.."

    @Leo: Reparative therapy is junk science was debunked decades ago.

    Even the most prominent "ex-gays" admit they still have attractions towards the same sex, and have yet to see a single person (out of hundreds) "cured" of homosexuality.

    It's a joke, and always has been.

  15. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    @Leo: Reparative therapy is junk science was debunked decades ago.

    Even the most prominent "ex-gays" admit they still have attractions towards the same sex, and have yet to see a single person (out of hundreds) "cured" of homosexuality.

    It's a joke, and always has been.

    Sounds like you speak from experience? Provide us with some factual info to debunk the treatment..

    Now that you agree that homosexuality is a problem, but you also believe that reparative treatment does work, does that mean we give up trying to cured the problem, or continue finding solutions... Should we embrace and promote the brehavior or embrace non-junk science to find a reliable cure? Its about making really good decisions or really bad once for ours country, do you know difference?

  16. maggie gallagher
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    In case there is anyone out there who for religious or other reasons would like to live in accordance with their basic moral beliefs, there is good scientific evidence that therapy can help:

    http://journals.biola.edu/jpt/volumes/27/issues/4/articles/329

    Sexual desire is hard to manage and direct for all of us; we don't always choose the challenges we face.

    Of course this is an option not a requirement.

  17. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Maggie,

    NOM should post the link on its site as a permanent fixture...

    My post at 115, pleas excuse my misspellings, thanks!

  18. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Maggie,

    NOM should post the link on its site as a permanent fixture...

    My post at 115, pleas excuse my misspellings, thanks! Post was the directed at Mike J

  19. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Oops! Sorry, post 115 responding to post by Layne at 114...

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.