The Republican and religious roots of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) have never been in doubt. But is NOM becoming more frankly partisan and more narrowly religious? Consider three items:
***In California, NOM is running ads opposing Tom Campbell in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. The ad mentions marriage only after attacking him for supporting higher taxes. On its website and in emails, it is dubbing Campbell a RINO (Republican In Name Only), an epithet used in intra-party squabbles.
NOM is now against higher gasoline taxes as well as gay marriage. I'm waiting for the "Drill Here, Drill Now" ads.
***In Minnesota, NOM is running ads criticizing the state DFL (Democratic) party repeatedly by name for opposing a voter referendum on marriage. It also attacks Independent candidates.
The surprise is not that NOM would oppose pro-SSM candidates, but that it would do so in a way indistinguishable from a GOP ad.
***In a recent fundraising email, NOM Executive Director Brian Brown claims that same-sex marriage evinces a "profound untruth about the human person." The term "human person," a redundancy to the uninitiate, is most distinctive to Catholic theology and especially prominent in the writings of conservative Catholic natural-law theorists.
Opposite-sex marriage, Bown continues, is "written on the human heart." It's an elegant and evocative phrase. Google it and the first thing that pops up? An important and, especially for Catholics, influential address by Pope John Paul II entitled, "God's Law is Written on the Human Heart."
Brown concludes his email in language that combines the partisan and religious strands in NOM's DNA: "Here's NOM's promise: We transform your values into action, action into victory--victory for God's truth about marriage. What God has joined, no RINO Republican has any right to put asunder!"
It's perfectly legitimate for NOM to make itself a home for religious-conservative Republicans and a particular strand of natural-law Catholicism. This reflects the group's governing philosophy. Indeed, as compared to downplaying these facts for strategic reasons, it's refreshing to see NOM come out of its partisan and sectarian closet.
21 Comments for “NOM Comes Out”
posted by Bobby on
“NOM is now against higher gasoline taxes as well as gay marriage. I’m waiting for the “Drill Here, Drill Now” ads.”
—Interesting strategy, I am pro-drilling, and anti-higher gas taxes (California already has some of the highest in the nation), so it’s clear to me that NOM is trying to appeal to the common man.
I do hope Tom Campbell isn’t a RINO, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Bloomberg are proof that RINO’s are bad for America.
posted by Tom on
It won’t take long for NOM to be singing the praises of Tim Pawlenty, who vetoed a bill a couple of weeks ago that granted same-sex couples the power to decide about how to dispose of a deceased partner’s body and file wrongful death suits.
In his veto message, Pawlenty had this to say: “Marriage – defined as between a man and woman – should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.”
Now there’s “reasoning” right up NOM’s alley.
It’s not unexpected — in recent years, wherever Republicans have had the power to block domestic partner rights, however minimal, the Republicans have exercised that power — but it demonstrates, to me, anyway, the strangle-hold that religious conservatives have over the Republican Party, and the lengths to which Republican politicians are forced to go to appease religious conservatives.
posted by Tom on
Why? NOM’s supposed “neutrality” is about as neutral as the partisan “voter guides” that religious conservatives flood the church pews with every election cycle. It is an election year and all manner of special interest groups are making independent expenditures in the campaigns.
posted by Jorge on
Michael Bloomberg may be bad for unregulated hustler gun dealers across America, but he’s great for the city of New York. He’d be even greater if he weren’t still mayor. I will not dispute his RINO status, though.
posted by Bobby on
“Michael Bloomberg may be bad for unregulated hustler gun dealers across America,”
—Really? Why? Do criminals follow the law? OMG, smoking pot is illegal, I guess I’m not gonna smoke pot! The truth is that more guns means less crime.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.
All Bloomberg has done is persecute law-abiding people by raising their taxes, going after their tobaco use, banning trans-fats (I guess “my body, my choice” only applies to abortions), and making New York City more like Nazi Germany without concentration camps (for now).
“but he’s great for the city of New York. He’d be even greater if he weren’t still mayor. I will not dispute his RINO status, though.”
—How would he be greater if he were not mayor? To me he’s simply one of those rich billionaires who do more good by running their businesses and creating jobs rather than by getting involved in politics. I don’t know why some of America’s billionaires are so stupid, I mean people like George Soros, Warren Buffet and even Donald Trump hold very liberal views, specially on taxes. And they are all progressives!
posted by Jorge on
I agree with you that all things being equal, more *legal* guns means less crime. However, not only did Bloomberg further decrease the crime way in NYC from its already historic lows, but he did not meaningfully change the supply of legal guns in New York–we started restrictive and we strayed restrictive. What Bloomberg did was attack the supply of *illegal* guns in New York. And from what I can gather, he achieved success.
The rest of what you cited I won’t defend, however there are many things you should give Bloomberg credit for. First, he has kept the city’s finances above water during two financial crises now. He achieved mayoral control over city schools, wrestling a lot of control from the teacher’s union and establishing the principle that schools should be evaluated and reformed based on student and teacher performance. We saw modest improvements in student test scores, and meanwhile he’s had effective enough relations with the teachers union that this principle is going to endure in some way for a long time. Racial tensions have been much decreased despite the fact that the NYPD is just as aggressive under Bloomberg as under Mayor Giuliani. And finally, under Mayor Bloomberg’s watch, the NYPD has eclipsed the FBI as the most effective counterterror agency in the country.
How would he be greater if he were not mayor?
I think he’s been mayor for long enough.
posted by Jorge on
crime way >> crime rate.
posted by Mark on
More partisan hacks, just like most gay groups! No offense, HRC!
posted by Bobby on
Alright Jorge, I guess I’ll give Bloomberg credit where credit is due.
As for attacking the “illegal” supply of guns, that’s up to the cops and our judicial system which is supposed to jail lawbreakers and not give them parole or minuscule sentences. What Bloomberg has done is antagonize law-abiding gun owners by his constant railings against guns, including attacking other states for having freer gun laws compared to New York.
Liberal politicians support gun control because it’s a lot cheaper to pass a law than to build a jail or even send people to prison. You also have to consider that since most criminals are black (generally speaking), the moment you put black people in jail you’re gonna have to deal with the race-baiters complaining about there being too many blacks in prison.
Giuliani on the other hand had a more sensible approach to crime, the “broken windows” scheme in which the aesthetics of a neighborhood are fixed to send a message to criminals that the neighborhood doesn’t tolerate their shenanigans. I like Giuliani better, he was pro-gun control but he was polite.
posted by Jerry on
**”God’s Law is Written on the Human Heart.”** If that were true, there would be no need for churches and clergy. Since religious folks are unwilling to let go of the churches and clergy, it’s obviously not true. Why is NOM not opposed to remarriage of divorced and annulled couples? Annulments are also bizarre. The Roman Catholic ceremonies I have attended always included, the phrase, “let those, whom God has joined together…” 50,000 annulments per year just in the United States. God makes that many mistakes a year? That doesn’t seem very bright.
posted by Bobby on
Jerry, why do you feel the need to attack religion? Is secularism that great? Ever seen the fervor of animal rights activists when the chain themselves to a redwood they’re trying to save, or when they blow up a Hummer dealership? Secularists are just as fanatic as any evangelical, if not more.
posted by Debrah on
Say it’s not so!
Al And Tipper Gore Are Splitting
Perhaps they both finally got a good look at that photo and it grossed them out as much as it did everyone else.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Go, Tipper!
It’s yo’ birfday!
Go Tipper!
Go Tipper!
posted by Timothy (TRiG) on
“Is secularism that great?”
Yes.
TRiG.
posted by Bobby on
“”Is secularism that great?”
Yes.”
—That’s all you can say? You think Cuba, Vietnam, China and the former USSR are that great? You think telling people that religion is the opiate of the masses while making the masses worship the government is a good idea?
Down with Big Brother! I’d rather worship God than government.
posted by Brian Miller on
This rhetoric is unsurprising, considering that “NOM” is a front group for the Mormon and Catholic religious corporations.
What would be interesting is finding out how much RCC money is being diverted to NOM that should instead be going to pay settlements and/or civil judgments on that corporation’s massive number of child rape cases.
posted by Jimmy on
The happiest countries on the planet are also among the most secular.
posted by BobN on
I’d rather worship God than government.
Uh… you don’t have to worship either one.
Just say “No”, Bobby, just say “No”.
posted by Bobby on
“The happiest countries on the planet are also among the most secular.”
—According to whom? Just because Nightline did a segment about how happy people are in Denmark doesn’t mean it’s true. I saw the segment, those silly Danes are such simplistic bores, they have no dreams other than getting married, having kids, working short hours and drinking beers with their friends after work. Tell me, is that sort of “happiness” worth socialism? Is a free college education worth anything when the taxes will never let you rise above middle class?
I’d rather live in America where people can aspire to be Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, and all those other self-made people. Unlike Europe, we don’t adore members of some stupid royal family, no, our celebrities did something greater than being born to be worthy of such affection.
posted by Brian Miller on
Unlike Europe, we don’t adore members of some stupid royal family
Actually, most Americans substitute either celebrities or religious “leaders” (or both) for royalty. A criticism of the pope or another religious “godhead” receives as much nasty backlash state-side as a criticism of the royals does in Britain.
posted by Wayne Besen on
It sounds like Princeton’s Robert George is writing NOM’s materials.