How’s your contribution to the Human Rights Campaign working out for you? You may have seen the screaming posts on their website nomexposed.org claiming that NOM lost most of the races we supposedly participated in during the 2010 election cycle. As far as we can tell, working on this website and shadowing NOM around at events are the only tangible work that the HRC does. Unfortunately for their donors, they can’t even get this right. Here are some things for the donors who give HRC over $40 million a year to consider about the 2010 elections:
HRC says NOM “lost more races than they won.” Really? We took out all three Supreme Court judges on the ballot in Iowa, and we won 13 of 16 state legislative races there, including flipping control of the Iowa House and bringing the Senate to within one vote. And we elected a pro-marriage governor. So Iowa will be pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the next legislative session – and we have a ton of momentum to do just that.
In Minnesota, NOM’s objective was to prevent backers of same-sex marriage from legalizing it in the next legislative session. We succeeded in Minnesota, winning 3 of 4 state legislative races. But in Minnesota we won control of not one but both legislative chambers. So there will be a major push to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Minnesota – and we have a ton of momentum to do just that.
By the way, a constitutional amendment in Minnesota does not require the approval of the next governor, Mark Dayton. It is strictly a legislative vote.
In New Hampshire, NOM succeeded spectacularly, winning 30 of the 32 districts in which we participated including all 22 House Districts in which we participated. Because of the way New Hampshire elects House members, NOM helped elect 119 members to the New Hampshire House! Not only did we capture BOTH houses of the legislature, we captured a veto-proof majority in both houses. So while it is true that we came up short of our desire to take out John Lynch, that doesn’t matter now. We’ll work to repeal same-sex marriage and override a Lynch veto if necessary – and we have a ton of momentum to do just that.
Thought you might be able to take another run at enacting gay marriage in Maine? Think again. NOM won 8 legislative races there and helped elect a pro-marriage Republican Governor and BOTH houses of the legislature.
NOM’s record of success in races in 2010 is just under 80%. Sure, we lost a couple here and there, but we won what we needed to win and we are in a position to go on offense. And what was HRC’s record in these critical races? Oh, that’s right. They didn’t participate in any of these elections. But they sure do have something going with that anti-NOM website don’t they?
43 Comments
While it's admirable for NOM to admit its interference in state politics, they still advocate a public policy that hurts children. That makes their organization beyond redemption.
I just took a look at one of those ridiculous attack ads on the site. It looked like the trailer for a grindhouse horror film!
Their policies no more hurt children than the Edmunds Act and the Edmunds-Tucker Act hurt children.
Patrick wrote: "While it's admirable for NOM to admit its interference in state politics..."
ROFL! Come on, Patrick, you can do better than that. That one is too ridiculous to even refute, LOL!
Patrick wrote: "That makes their organization beyond redemption."
I'm glad to see that you've started thinking about redemption, Patrick. It's never too late, you know!
What has happened is that homosexual marriage activists are in panic mode following the results of the midterm elections. The myth of inevitability which they have promoted is evaporating. Their "faithful" are shaken. Reality is setting in and HRC is trying to do a huge spin job, saying "it just ain't so." Regardless of what HRC says, the world is still round, not flat!
Gay activists complaining about NOM's "interference" in state politics is blatant hypocrisy. Considering the Gill Foundation has spent far more time and money doing exactly that for LGBT issues.
"And what was HRC’s record in these critical races? Oh, that’s right. They didn’t PARTICIPATE in any of these ELECTIONS"
two words 'TAX-EXEMPT STATUS'
Wait....HRC has tax exempt status? I count three words there, but let's not let paltry mathematics get in the way of a good point.
OK, folks, here's the big one, the elephant in the living room. If NOM is SOOOOOOO ineffective then why has HRC devoted a website to spreading lies about NOM and why is HRC trying so hard to say that NOM has made no difference? If NOM were REALLY so ineffective then HRC would simply ignore NOM. "Methinks thou doth protest too much!"
No, NOM has Tax-Exempt Status as a non profit and if they are (since I obviusly have to spell every little thing out for you so that you can understand) Participate in the elections of officials as they so admit above, then they should have their non profit tax exempt pulled...don't ya think?...or do they get to live with the double standard in this aspect as well?
Richard, Did you know that HRC is also a nonprofit? They claim to have 501c3 tax exempt status. NOM has 501c4 tax exempt status. Lemme give you a primer:
What Is a 501c4 Organization?
The difference between a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4
Mar 1, 2007 Estela Kennen
501c4s are a common type of non-profit organization that can engage in lobbying or political campaigning.
501(c)4s are tax-exempt non-profit organizations. More specifically, according to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 501(c)(4)s are:
* “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,
* "or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality,
* "and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.”
Comparing 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s
501c3 and 501c4 organizations are very similar in many respects. In fact, any organization that qualifies for a 501c3 tax-exemption would also qualify for a 501c4. There are, however, important differences.
Non-profit status:
* Both 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s must be run as not for profits.
* Neither 501(c)(3)s nor 501(c)(4) earnings may benefit a private shareholder or individual.
Tax-exemption:
* Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are exempt from paying federal income tax. State tax-exemption status varies by state.
Lobbying (trying to affect legislation):
* 501(c)3s are limited in the amount of time and/or money they can put into lobbying.
* 501(c)4s can do an unlimited amount of lobbying (but then become ineligible to receive federal monies like grants).
Political campaign activity:
* 501(c)3s cannot in any way support or oppose anyone running for public office, though they may be involved in political campaigns by way of non-partisan public forums, voter registration drives, etc.
* 501(c)4s can engage in political campaign activity, so long as this is consistent with the organization’s purpose and is not the organization’s primary activity.
Charitable Donations:
* Donations to 501(c)3s are deductible to the full extent of the law.
* Donations to 501(c)4s that are public entities (ie, state, local governments, volunteer fire stations) are deductible if they are used for public services. Donations to other 501(c)4s are not deductible.
Should your organization be a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)4?
If you are planning on doing limited or no lobbying and no campaigning, then you probably want the 501(c)3 tax-exemption so that people can benefit from donating to your organization (unless you represent the state or a political subdivision thereof). However, if your organization will be doing substantial lobbying or any campaigning, you should form a 501(c)4.
If you want the best of both worlds, you can have two separate but affiliated organizations – one a charitable 501(c)(3) and the other a 501(c)(4). Many trade organizations lobby extensively on behalf of their members, but have an affiliated 501c3 foundation for charitable giving.
Maybe you should give HRC a heads' up on that. They too can join the ranks of the campaigners with just a little switch.
Thanks for setting the record straight, Brian. It's a shame that something as commonplace as marriage has to be fought for, but glad to see that we are winning the fight.
Let the homosexuals do what they will with one another, but don't let them rob more children of the blessings of a mother and a father by changing the definition of marriage. Keep up your good works in protecting our children, our country's future.
(You're amazing, TC!
)
Mike Brooks said: "Thanks for setting the record straight, Brian. It's a shame that something as commonplace as marriage has to be fought for, but glad to see that we are winning the fight. "
Anything worth while usually has to be fought for: freedom, indipendance, etc, so if it is worth while and you truely believe in it then you will likely have to stand up for it.
"Let the homosexuals do what they will with one another,"
Why dont you do that then?
" but don't let them rob more children of the blessings of a mother and a father by changing the definition of marriage. Keep up your good works in protecting our children, our country's future."
You are aware that gay couples can and DO have children regardless of their marital status right? Even if there are no adoption rights, marriage, or ANY protections homosexuals will have and do have children in all of the states. Marriage only guarantees that the children in these families will be given the same protections that other maried couples get. But I guess you only want to protect the children in traditonal homes?
The children of gay parents, divorced parents, single parents, adopted, wards of state, homeless, etc, etc, dont deserve protection and arent part of the countries future?
Lewis wrote:
[The children of gay parents, divorced parents, single parents, adopted, wards of state, homeless, etc, etc, dont deserve protection and arent part of the countries future?]
The above quote is almost as lame and shameless as homosexuality being equate with skin color.
Homosexuality should be defensible on its own, but you never see the activists try that approach because they'd lose a lot of support.
Hi, Lewis!
We're talking about marriage, Lewis. The organization is the National Organization for Marriage!
Hi Don!
Yes, YOU may be talking about marriage (a fair debate) however one of your board member chose to interject children into the issue (a seperate issue) so I merely chose to address that.
In terms of NOMs "wins":
Over a dozen new and returning pro-equality governors in critically important states. In Iowa where you ousted the judges (yes I think NOM did accomplish this) you did nothing for overturning marriage because Iowa senate majority leader Mike Gronstal has said he will not allow issue up for debate. Also elected included Janet Duprey, and over 100 openly LGBT elected officials from city councils to the U.S. Congress.
And when we review the oft-maligned mood of the electorate, it is worth fully understanding that the political culprits of this year’s electoral upheaval were government spending, health care reform, and a feckless response to the economic crisis, not the country’s hostility or ambivalence toward equal rights for LGBT people. On the contrary, survey after survey has shown the American people are on a steady trek toward fully equality for gays and lesbians.
I notice some of you say you are "winning" on the issue of marriage. I question how you define winning? Because when NOM was started gay marriage was non-existant wasnt it? It is now in several states and the district of columbia, as well NOM and other groups effots in Americas borering countries were for not as the USA is now surrounded by marriage equality from Canada and Mexico. But more importantly is the fact that the only areas where marriage issues would have really been affected by NOM would have been in California (a complete loss on all fronts) or NH governor. It would appear that people didnt vote on marriage but rather on economy. I mean even gays and lesbians voted republican (according to polls at around 40%)
Did NOM have influence? Of course, was it a huge influence? Not really (maybe in Iowa judges mainly because people were aware that could actually remove judges) But other than that there werent really any substatial wins for NOM...
And this all may be moot anyway as 9th circuit court is primed to set a precident on same sex marriage federally (if they grant standing).
They will grant standing. See Richardson v. Ramirez and Sierra Club v. EPA , 995 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1993). Also see Bishop v. Oklahoma , where the district court granted the state of Oklahoma's motion to dismiss it as a defendant, leaving the Tulsa County Clerk as the sole defendant in the Question 711 claim.
High-fives to Brian, Maggie and everyone else!
Patrick #1: "they still advocate a public policy that hurts children"
Few things hurt more children than when their mother and father aren't married to each other. It's not like there's a LAW against that or anything... some folks choose to do otherwise, as is their right. And kids suffer.
Hey, Lewis, if you want to feel that you are prevailing with homosexual marriage, knock yourself out. It's free.
In terms of the results of the elections, time will tell! However, when GOProud feels the need, immediately after the elctions, to send a letter to the GOP leadership urging them to steer clear of social issues, I think it reasonable to conclude that they are more than a little concerned about the election results! No one addresses a "problem" which doesn't exist!
GOProud said that voters are "disinterested" in social issues. Really? Then how did a ballot measure come about in Maine following an attempt to legislate homosexual marriage into law? How is it that voters rebuffed the legislators, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. How is it that voters removed three Iowa Supreme Court judges from the bench after not having removed a single judge in almost 50 years? Does that seem like "disinterest" to you?
Lewis wrote: "On the contrary, survey after survey has shown the American people are on a steady trek toward fully equality for gays and lesbians."
Really, Lewis? Let's see. There's California, there's Maine, there's Iowa... Gee, there seems to be a discrepancy between actual votes and your polls! I wonder why that is? How about we simply put it to a vote of the people, then we won't need polls!
Lewis wrote: "Did NOM have influence? Of course, was it a huge influence? Not really..."
Oh, I see, Lewis. That's why HRC actually created a new website just to attack NOM. That is why HRC is so bent out of shape about the money which NOM raised and put into things like running ads.That is why homosexual marriage activists are standing on rooftops shouting, "NOM isn't effective!"
Gee, why would so many resources be devoted to trying to diminish NOM if it is so ineffective? If NOM were "ineffictive" it would be completely ignored by homosexual marriage activists. There would be no reason for them to pay attention to NOM.
You see, Lewis, NOM has punched a great big hole in the myth that homosexual marriage is "inevitable". The idea behind that piece of propaganda is to attempt to psychologically demoralize those who support traditional marriage so that they won't make any effort. You know, keep people passive, give them a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness. That sort of psychological warfare has been around for a very long time. It was in evidence in the radio broadcasts of Tokyo Rose as far back as WWII.
The REAL reason that HRC and homosexual marriage activists are so bent about NOM is that NOM is demonstrating, time and again, that homosexual marriage is in no way "inevitable". NOM is rallying people to action and pointing them to effective ways to exercise their lawful powers. That is the LAST thing which those like HRC want to see. An active electorate exercising their rights and powers is what HRC fears the most. HRC fears democracy in action!
As Admiral Yamamoto said after the failed attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." HRC wants the giant to remain asleep because they know that if the giant is awakened that it is all over for homosexual marriage. NOM is riding across America shouting, "The British are coming!" This means that HRC has a battle on it's hands when what they hoped for was a free ride.
I'm terribly sorry that "ineffective" NOM is proving to be a thorn in the side of HRC but democracy and elections do tend to have that effect on those who would rule by tyranny.
""I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." "
Right on. That's exactly right. People have been asleep at the political wheel, trusting their representatives to do what they're supposed to do, REPRESENT them while they fill their days and hours raising families and building the nation. That time is over.
Well said Don! 3 Cheers for NOM!
Thank you very much, Jaxon, Marty!
Don said: "In terms of the results of the elections, time will tell!"
Well thats agreed, no one really knows what they will do or if these officials will be as "effective" as their predecessors...
But in terms of GoProud, they ARE a useless group that Im not sure if anyone likes so Im not sure what they are talking about but I dont think anyone is listening
"Really, Lewis? Let's see. There's California, there's Maine, there's Iowa... Gee, there seems to be a discrepancy between actual votes and your polls! I wonder why that is? How about we simply put it to a vote of the people, then we won't need polls!"
I didnt say polls showed a majority (it obviously hasnt) but ALL trends show that increase in support for equal marriage has only grown over time and that there are no credible sources showing a decrease in support, or even just looking at the climate around the issue. 10 years ago these votes wouldnt have recieved the support they did or wouldnt have even been issues at all. All trends show that as time goes on, as people are more highly educated, more developed, etc, etc, their support increases. This doesnt mean it is inevitible but it has shown that equal marriage has clearly been making ground (I mean it started with no gay marriage anywhere so it could only increase from there)
HRC puts so much money into their anti-nom campgain for various reasons, many Im probably not aware of but they have been trying to insure transparancy in noms money and spending as well as flat out lies that nom tries to use at rallys (see your speaker who claimed that the bad economy was due to gay people...), and they have also made entertainers aware of when nom is using their music so that the performers can make sure people know their position on issues (see the list of performers that have requested NOM to stop using their music at any further events)
Im not sure who this sleeping giant is that is being awoken? I would say this giant has been awake as has been preventing same sex marriage but the giant appears to be shrinking as slowly but surely peoples minds have been changed by seeing how states and nations that have it dont have any problems but rather benefit from it. And support IS increasing (no, it hasnt resulted in a majority VOTE in the places it has been on the ballot YET but just as President Obama appears to be changing his view many other people will continue to do so as well)
The famous author, Hans Christian Andersen, long ago identified the fraudulent methods used by HRC and other homosexual marriage activists to promote their agenda.
In his short story, "The Emperor's New Clothes", Andersen tells a tale of an Emperor who hires a pair of weavers to make for him the finest suit of clothes. The weavers say that the exquisite cloth they are using is invisible to anyone unfit for their position or "just hoplessly stupid". The Emperor pretends that he can see the cloth lest he appear unfit for his position or stupid. His ministers, harboring the same fears, also pretend that they can see the cloth.
The "suit" completed, the weavers "dress" the Emporer who then proudly leads a parade before his subjects, showing off his new finery. It takes a child in the crowd to shout out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all! Only then do the other subjects join in affirming the truth that the Emperor is naked!
In this story, Andersen is making reference to "the big lie technique"; if you tell a big enough lie and repeat it often enough, people will believe it!
What are some of the "big lies" being spewed by homosexual marriage activists?
1) "Homosexual marriage is inevitable."
2) "More and more Americans are supporting homosexual marriage every day."
3) "Homosexual marriage is a constitutional right."
4) "Courts exist to protect the minority from the majority."
5) "Homosexual marriage is a 'human right' and a 'human right' should never be subject to a vote."
6) "NOM is ineffective."
NOM, like the clear-seeing child in Andersen's tale, states simple and obvious truth, dispelling "big lies". As NOM does so, more and more people come to realize that the Emperor is, in fact, naked and they are willing to say so out loud. This is why NOM is so loathed by those who contrive to obfuscate.
Yes, the Emperors new clothes is a very nice story about how a tyrannical majority was blinded by mob mentality as opposed to the minority view of the child who was able to see what was cleary true.
1) I dont know if it is inevitable... anything is possible so only time will tell
2) more and more ARE supporting every day http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Support-For-Same-Sex-Marriage-Edges-Upward.aspx but all polls and studies aside do you really not believe that support of same sex marriage has increased over time? If you dont think it is then why does NOM even exist? Why the need to oppose it?
3) So far judges have ruled that the wording of the constitution does lend itself to promoting a right... now many states have made amendments to the constitution (placing discrimination right on the face of their constitutions and the courts have accepted this as expelling the right)
4) One of the mandates of the courts and one of the fiduciary duties of the state and courts is to protect minorities
5) Human rights are nothing until they have legal backing so that ones confusing to me...
6) NOM has effect... its just no where near as effective as you believe. I mean it was less than half of their supported candidates that won (and in a overwhealming change over year where even gays were voting republican in huge numbers!) and in any races where candidates actually have power to change same sex marriage issues NOM candidates lost... but yes there were races where NOM was effective and helped bring votes to the candidates or the ousting of the judges for sure, but I mean do you really think the change over from democratic to republican in various areas accross the country were based on same sex marriage? That would be a bit dillusional...
So NOM is like the blinded crowd blindly believing what the majority says while the small child is like the minority trying to dispell the lies of NOM. The problem with making illusory analogies is that they can easily be turned on you, that is why in our moots we were told never to use them unless you can be sure of only your sides connection to the story. Usually analogies dont add anything and rather make it look like you have no factual basis left for your argument so you are trying to play to your audiences imagination (judges tend to have bad imaginations).
Lewis writes- One of the mandates of the courts and one of the fiduciary duties of the state and courts is to protect minorities.
That was not what Don contested, Lewis.
Don stated that it is a fallacy promoted by activists that the "Courts exist to protect the minority from the majority." He is correct, that is not a proper understanding of the role of the courts.
In the United States the courts are to protect all individual rights, period. It doesn't matter whether these rights are held by a majority or minority. Minorities can oppress majorities.
As for the future of marriage and it's meaning in our society? Who knows. But this may be an indication:
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_legislative_elections_results,_2010
Hi Anna,
you said: "That was not what Don contested, Lewis.
Don stated that it is a fallacy promoted by activists that the "Courts exist to protect the minority from the majority."
while I said that the courts are mandated and have a fiduciary duty to protect minorities.... so if you are addressing tha fact that courts SOLE existance is to protect minorities then of course you are correct they have many more roles, but it still stands that one of their various roles are to protect minorities. No, minorities are not allowed to oppress minorities so when minority benefits might infringe on majority the courts look at harms and benefits cause by giving the benefits or denying, etc. And minor infringments may be given for great benefits.
As to the election results, yes HUGE turn over from Dem to Rep, but as Ive already been addressing those votes had little to do with marriage issues and much more to do with economy, health care, etc and the disappointment with Obama. An ever growing number of gays and lesbians are voting republican regardless of social issues because they see more important issues that need to be dealt with.
So while you are correct that no one knows what will happen with marriage, but the results of the election are not much of an indication of how social views on the issue are moving but yes with republicans in control you are correct that there will likely be limited movement in such issues.
Homosexual marriage activists have used every unethical and deceitful trick in the book to get what they want, regardless of the negative impact of their methods upon our freedoms and our form of government. NOM, on the other hand, has been completely ethical and truthful.Why hasn't NOM fought fire with fire and engaged in the same low tactics as those who oppose what NOM stands for?
The answer is very simple. NOM knows that there are higher laws at work, laws which one must follow if one hopes to prevail against evil. Following such laws is a manifestation of wisdom. To succomb to the temptation to strike a low blow is to succomb to striking a blow against one's self. That is how higher law works.
Those who use harmful, deceitful methods in an attempt to fulfill their selfish desires at the expense of others and of the greater good are out of harmony with higher law. Eventually the dissonance becomes so great that their castles and fortresses fall of their own weight. A towering superstructure cannot be built upon an unsound foundation.
First comes knowledge of higher law then comes the self-discipline of acting in accordance with it. Those who do not understand higher law and therefor fail to cooperate it are ultimately doomed to failure.
Nom is following the slow, patient, self-disciplined path to victory, in harmony with higher law. Those on the other side mistakenly believe that they can simply grab what they want. Their hands will come up empty. They will have defeated themselves.
@ Don: Very well spoken. @ Lewis: "... more educated...", did you really mean "more brain washed..."?
Thank you, Ian!
Thank you Don, NOM's integrity, truth and honesty in the battle against the evil in society will ultimately prevail. Deceit at the expense of truth never wins. The HRC and its followers will come up in failure, empty, disappointed and disillusioned.
There is a very specific process which homosexual marriage activists have come up with for "rigging the jury" in favor of homosexual marriage. Here's how it works:
1) Start with the conclusion you want to reach.
2) Distort the facts so that they logically lead to the desired conclusion.
3) Point out how failing to support the desired conclusion is legally and morally at odds with American principles as based upon the distorted facts presented.
Here is a specific example of this at work:
1) Conclusion to be reached: Homosexual marriage must be legalized.
2) Distorted fact: Homosexual marriage is a human right.
3) Principle violated: Failure to implement homosexual marriage is a human rights violation AND a human right should never be subject to a vote.
Just as with computer programs, bad data in means bad data out. Calculations can never exceed the accuracy of the data entered. Distorted facts lead to distorted conclusions.
Here is what the process contrived by homosexual marriage activists looks like at "street level":
"Homosexual marriage is a constitutional right THEREFORE homosexual marriage must be legalized OR The Constitution is being violated."
"Courts exist to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority THEREFORE courts must rule in favor of the homsexual minority, making homosexual marriage legal, OR the courts are not fulfilling their primary function."
This process is completely dependent upon logic and deliberately so. Why? Precisely because only a logical process allows for distorted facts to be inserted in order to reach distorted conclusions.
Homosexual marriage activists demean faith and conscience and constantly attack churches and "organized religion". Why? Because such things are outside of and independent from the logic trap they use as the primary vehicle for making their false arguments. No logic process, no distorted conclusions can be reached!
Logic is of the mind. Faith and conscience are of the soul. Homosexual marriage activists hate and shun things of the soul because such things, being rooted in Truth, cannot be manipulated to suit their purposes. Fatih and conscience are immune from their distorted logical process.
Which should we use in determining our course regarding marriage, logic and reason or faith and conscience? The underlying principle is simple; use the right "tool" for the job! What is the job? The job is determining right from wrong. What are the faculties we use for determining right from wrong? Faith and conscience, not logic and reason!
If we are about to say something hurtful do we hold our tongue because logic tells us to do so? No! We hold our tongue because our faith and our conscience tell us that it is wrong to say hurtful things to others.
Marriage did not originate with man. Marriage came from the "mind" of God. As with all of the other wonderful things which God has brought into existence in this world, marriage became subject to the abuses and distortions of men. Homosexual "marriage" is one of the abuses and distortions of the perfect marriage idea of God.
Is that Gabe as in Archangel Gabriel?
Don,
While I truely think that you believe YOUR "truth" and likely do not hate. I find that you are not someone that can be reasoned or debated with. When points or questions are raised you go off on this great conspiracy about gay and lesbians how you say they hate and attack the church. You claim to know God's truth and what comes from the mind of God (perhaps you should be out telling the world and all the various faiths who is correct?). NOM spends fotunes trying to go break state finance laws by suing the state on free speech or just going ahead and breaking the laws to defend later, is it not concerning to you the number of actions that have been filed against NOM by various state governments?). This group (which is largly conservative christians) spend vast fortunes denying benefits to a group (including the children of those people) seemingly obsessed (talking daily) about homosexuals, paying your execs huge paychecks (but Im sure they are doing it out of principle right?), all the while the USA is in its worst economic situation while the needy go without. But no, Im sure you are right Jesus would be right there with you at your NOM meetings...
I leave now and this site as I see you are so blinded in extreme views that the sections about love, compassion, treating your neighbours, etc seem to be lost (along with the fact that you and the church have been having these failed views for centuries... evolution, witch burnings, inter-ratial and inter-faith marriages, etc etc)
Please take care and I truely hope that regardless of your views you can at the end of your life stand before God and say that you helped people in this world and contributed in making it a better place. Im going to go out with a quote from Ghandi:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mohandas Ghandi
Lewis, you were much more effective in your argumentation when you pretended to be open minded.
No, the courts' duty is to interpret the law. If the law happens to protect minorities, so be it.
The Supreme Court reiterated in Washington v. Glucksberg that one of the properties of fundamental rights is that they are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition.
Now we have the HRC claiming that the LDS Church changed it's policies in certain specific ways regarding homosexuality, and the LDS Church itself denying that it has made the claimed changes. Who knows more about LDS polilcy, the LDS Church or the HRC?
This is yet another illustration of the "big lie" technique outlined above. It is yet another example of the HRC distorting facts in order to reach a preconceived conclusion. Lord knows, the HRC certainly needs all of the help it can get right now seeing as it was proven ineffective by the midterm elections.
"Is that Gabe as in Archangel Gabriel?"
- Thank you Don, but real angels sent from the heavens are Charles Cooper and the folks at NOM doing the lords work.
Lewis -
While gay people can have kids, when they do, they effectively and intentionally rob a child of one of its parents, one of the greatest losses any child could ever have. Adopted children, children of divorced parents, and other examples are unfortunate tragedies for children; we can only do what we can to try and prevent those situations. Same-sex couples can never give what every chlld should have the right to: both of its parents.
If homosexuals wish to live together, sodomize one another and whatever else they do, that's their business; they should just leave marriage alone, and allow society to continue to encourage the union of men and women: the only union that can produce children, the only union that can assure the perpetuation of life.
Mike Brooks: "sodomize one another and whatever else they do"
and there it is Mike... I suppose thats all they are looking to do and how candid and Christian of you to state. It is clear that your view is not one in "defense" of marriage but rather opposition of homosexuality, and to that I say okay that is your view! Have it and make it clear and fight for your oppinion! But do not lie before God and everyone else and claim it is some moralistic fight for families. Go out and say homosexuality is wrong and that is why it shouldnt entitle to marriage, then at least you are being honest to yourself.
In terms of families... you will notice that 30% of children live in homes where their parents are seperated, thousands live with gay parents, and countless other are orphans. You have a very idealistic view that kids live in nuclear families when they in fact do not. Families are made up of grandparents, adoptive parents, and various other caretakers. The goal should be to provide ALL children with the same opportunities and protections (something you wish to deny).
To TC Matthews: thank you again for making an empty statement contributing nothing to dialogue... you are a credit to your side of the debate
And Michael: You clearly have no concept of law so I will only recommend that you do a few google searches and you will be made aware of the fact that YES in fact courts have a fiduciary towards minoritys, aboriginals, etc, and while not paramount is something they must take into consideration
To Don: I believe Ive already said that HRC has very limited credibility and has lost many supporters as a result, that aside Im not sure why people on here would talk about them in relation to that article? Arent you only concerned about gay marriage? Or is this just another demonstration of everyone in NOMs obsession with gay issues??
ROFL!!!!!!!!
WHO is obsessed with "gay" issues, Lewis?
You see, you HAVE to make it APPEAR that those who support traditional marriage are anti-homosexual, Lewis, that we are full of hate and that our REAL agenda is to get rid of homosexual people. Why do you HAVE to do that? Very simple! Without that you have nothing! It is your only strategy for implementing homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage activists have to make homosexuals appear to be poor, downtrodden victims! What a bunch of garbage!
Homosexuals are SO poor and SO downtrodden that Tim Gill is a multi-billionaire, free to use his money to promote a homosexual activist agenda! THAT is how poor and downtrodden homosexuals are in America, LOL!
Lewis wrote to Mike Brooks: "But do not lie before God and everyone else and claim it is some moralistic fight for families. Go out and say homosexuality is wrong and that is why it shouldnt entitle to marriage, then at least you are being honest to yourself."
You can dish it out, Lewis, but can you take it? Here is a dose of your own medicine for you! You offered up this quote:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mohandas Ghandi
Don't lie before God and everyone else, Lewis, and claim that you are in some moralistic fight for homosexual "rights". Go out and say that Christianity is wrong and that is why it shouldn't entitle to traditional marriage, then at least you are being honest to yourself, Lewis.
Don't hide behind Ghandi's words, Lewis. Have the courage to come out and say that you hate Christians. Then at least you are being honest with us!