NOM’s Time Is Passed

by on

I think that Salon may be jumping the gun in declaring that the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage has “collapsed into debt“—it doesn’t take much money to fund a group that basically issues press releases and talks to the media, so I suspect it will be around to make mischief and get quoted. But NOM’s fortunes are clearly in decline as the freedom to marry advances without popular backlash, outside the diminishing fever swamps of the anti-gay right. Also, alienating bedrock Republicans by backing liberal Democrats over gay GOPers was just plain stupid.

21 Comments for “NOM’s Time Is Passed”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    NOM’s time passed the day it was founded. I expect that it will fold, as it should, but it will probably go out kicking and screaming, trying to morph into another “mission” equally useless, until the Catholic Bishops decide to pull the plug.

    NOM should follow the example of “Freedom to Marry”, a group created to campaign for marriage equality. According to Marc Solomon (the group’s National Campaign Director), FTM will shut the doors as soon as marriage equality is a fact nationwide:

    Once that from the Supreme Court ruling comes down, Solomon said that will the end to Freedom to Marry. A nationwide ruling where same-sex couples can marry across the nation will prompt the organization to shut its doors, he said.

    “We’ve always been set up as a campaign, and we are a campaign, and when we’ve won nationwide, we’re finished,” Solomon said. “I want to see some of the really good people stick around in LGBT stuff, or in other progressive causes, but Freedom to Marry’s done. That’s I think a great holding out is put yourself out of business.”

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    A note about developments at the Supreme Court:

    6th Circuit – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee

    All of the cert petitions for the 6th Circuit cases have been filed. The Ohio and Tennessee petitions were docketed on November 14; the Michigan and Tennessee petitions were docketed on November 18.

    Because Court rules allow for a 30-day “response” period after a petition is docketed, and the Court does not have conferences scheduled during the last two weeks of December, the earliest conferences at which the Court is likely to consider the cases the January 9 or January 16 conference.

    If cert is granted at either conference, the cases will be on track for argument in March or April, and decision this Term.

    5th Circuit – Louisiana

    In a somewhat surprising (to me, anyway) move, Lambda Legal has filed a cert petition for direct Supreme Court review in Robicheaux v. George, the Louisiana case that decided against marriage equality.

    The petition (technically a “Petition for Certiorari before Judgment”) argues that there is no need for the Court to await “further percolation of the issue in the courts of appeal” because a “head-on split” exists among federal appeals courts, and, as a result, it “would serve little utility” for the Justices to let the Louisiana case proceed in the 5th Circuit.

    It is an interesting petition, because it, in effect, seeks to circumvent the 5th Circuit, whre a negative decision is widely expected, entirely. If cert is granted, the Court would, presumably, stay proceedings in the 5th Circuit, at least with respect to the Louisiana case, pending decision by the Supreme Court. (The 5th Circuit also has an appeal pending from Texas, and soon will have one from Mississippi.) The timing is also interesting, because the 5th Circuit has set a hearing for the Louisiana and Texas cases on January 9, and the Court is unlikely to consider the petition at conference until either the January 9 or January 16 conferences.

    The Court does not often hear direct appeals from District Court decisions, bypassing the appellate level, but the Court has done so on occasion in the past.

    Issues

    The petitions docketed present related, but somewhat different questions for review by the Court. The Court can elect to take up none, some or all of the cases, and can limit or expand the issues it will consider in the cases it takes up. We will have to wait and see how the Court handles it.

    Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee)
    Questions: (1) Whether a state violates the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by depriving same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry, including recognition of their lawful, out-of-state marriages; (2) whether a state impermissibly infringes upon same-sex couples’ fundamental right to interstate travel by refusing to recognize their lawful out-of-state marriages; and (3) whether this Court’s summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent as to petitioners’ constitutional claims.

    Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio)
    Questions: (1) Whether Ohio’s constitutional and statutory bans on recognition of marriages of same-sex couples validly entered in other jurisdictions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether Ohio’s refusal to recognize a judgment of adoption of an Ohio-born child issued to a same-sex couple by the courts of a sister state violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky)
    Questions: (1) Whether a state violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by prohibiting gay men and lesbians from marrying an individual of the same sex; and (2) whether a state violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to recognize legal marriages between individuals of the same sex performed in other jurisdictions.

    Deboer v. Snyder (Michigan)
    Question: Whether a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

    Robicheaux v. George (Louisiana)
    Questions: Whether a state’s constitutional and statutory bans denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry and recognition of their marriages validly entered in other jurisdictions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  3. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    —alienating bedrock Republicans by backing liberal Democrats over gay GOPers was just plain stupid.

    Well, their was no way that the NOM was going to endorse an openly gay GOP candidate (unless they were in favor of say, the Federal Marriage Amendment). Expecting them to is well, politically stupid.

    Strategically, it was probably not the best idea for an interest group heavily aligned with the Republican Party to back any Democrat (or even a third party candidate).

    I suspect that the folks running NOM were probably not use to having to think strategically, because 99.9% Republicans were all too eager/willing to engage in calculated, political gay bashing in order to score points as the ‘family values’ candidate.

    In just a few short years, NOM (and company) is no longer able to (with little effort) viciously attack not just gay marriage but almost anything that they were willing claim was somehow linked to gay marriage (which at one point included the AARP.)

    Well, they still can attack, but the money and ‘street cred’ (if you will) has been greatly lessen and now NOM was put in the position of actually having to think about the sort of strategic decision-making that most interest groups have to do on a regular basis.

    2004 was not THAT long ago, but I suspect that NOM failed to realize just how much power and credibility they had lost.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      It looks like a desperate attempt at relevance by an organization that has become irrelevant. It probably didn’t work but desperate attempts at anything almost never do.

  4. posted by Houndentenor on

    Ummm…that final statement was in the plural. Were there other “liberal Democrats” that NOM endorsed besides DeMaio’s opponent?

    • posted by Mark Peterson on

      They endorsed Seth Moulton against Tisei, but Moulton rejected their endorsement.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        As well he should have. Most groups will not endorse a candidate who doesn’t want their endorsement (which is why some of Stephen’s bitching about HRC not endorsing Republicans who didn’t request an endorsement is so much hot air). Does anyone think this endorsement made any difference in the DeMaio race? It was close after all.

  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    But NOM’s fortunes are clearly in decline as the freedom to marry advances without popular backlash, outside the diminishing fever swamps of the anti-gay right.

    The “backlash” against equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians (as embodied in the anti-marriage amendments) was not a natural, backlash, but instead a manufactured backlash, the product of a long anti-gay campaign that arose out of conservative religious tub-thumping and, eventually, craven political expediency.

    During the years from 1970 to 2000, the country slowly — sometimes glacially slowly — moved toward “equal means equal”, ending police harassment, eliminating sodomy laws in most of the country, including gays and lesbians under non-discrimination laws, embracing employment protections and benefits, and so on. During those years, religious conservatives (the so-called “Moral Majority”, Pat Buchanan and the “culture wars”, and so on) were loud and strident anti-gay voices, to be sure, but they were not particularly powerful, and gays and lesbians were lumped in among all manner of “evils” (birth control, pre-marital sex, abortion and so on), not singled out for special treatment.

    That changed in 2004, when the Bush/Rove “Jorge, Jorge” strategy was devised and implemented. The strategy ginned up opposition to “equal means equal” around the marriage issue, and focused on gays and lesbians as an attack on the foundations of American civilization, as in this February 2004 statement from President Bush:

    “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. If we’re to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America.”

    and his follow up statements in July 2004 (justly chewed up and spit out as “piffle” by Andrew Sullivan):

    “A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened.”

    What would have happened, do you suppose, had the Republican Party not created an artificial and well-organized “backlash” against the country’s progress toward “equal means equal”? We can all speculate, I suppose.

    But I think that one thing is reasonably clear: Without the “backlash” that was ginned up for craven political expediency, “advances without popular backlash” would have continued to proceed in a more-or-less orderly fashion, and we would not have had to endure a decade of political and cultural struggle to get back on track.

  6. posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on

    I can only speak from experience (and that of my boyfriend)….

    I certain parts of the Midwest, their is certainly still an audience for people to say rather nasty things about gay people and (interestingly enough) Muslims. In these communities NOM (and groups like it) can probably still get people to write the checks, attend the lectures and complain on call.

    I suspect that NOM may find itself having to (try to) repair some burnt bridges over its endorsements. Again, something that I do not think that the people running NOM have much experience with, because that requires long-term, strategic thinking,….

    It will be interesting to see if any of the Republican candidates for President seek out or accept a NOM endorsement. How many candidates in this election cycle accepted/sought a NOM endorsement???

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that at least one minor candidate will take at least a neutral issue on gay rights. I don’t think that candidate lasts past South Carolina but I think there will be at least one libertarian-style Republican or moderate who stands up to the religious right. Someone has to in order to break this logjam.

      • posted by Doug on

        “. . one minor candidate will take at least a neutral issue on gay rights. . . “, that would be Rob Portman. If he goes full in on gay rights he goes nowhere and in all probability will go nowhere regardless of his position on gay rights.

      • posted by Jorge on

        How is that any different from Mitt Romney saying he supports gay rights (but only when he was asked directly about his Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy) in the last campaign? Or Michelle Bachman saying she’s not running to be anyone’s judge (I believe when asked about her family’s views on reparative therapy). Or Elizabeth Dole saying she would not return a donation from the Log Cabin Republicans in the 2000 campaign? Or even George W. Bush saying (what did he say opposite Kerry in their 3rd debate?) “we respect someone’s rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn’t change, or have to change, our basic views on the sanctity of marriage”? Although in fairness, Bush probably practiced for that one.

        • posted by Tom Jefferson III on

          How is that any different from Mitt Romney saying he supports gay rights—

          Um…Romney changed his position on abortion and gay rights when he ran for U.S. President. When he was running for U.S. Senate be positioned himself as a moderate, pro-choice Republican who would have a better gay rights record then the incumbent…..When he was running for president it was all; abortion is a sin and I oppose the gay agenda.

          –Congresswoman Michelle Bachman was very much opposed to any gay rights legislation and generally parroted the standard line about how she was simply protecting marriage, protecting children and the like. At some point — when their was some talk of her being a candidate for President or possibly VP — she found something nice to say about gay people, while still being very much opposed to gay rights.

          —Elizabeth Dole

          She said that she would not return a check from the Log Cabin Republicans (her husband had when he ran for President back in 1996). Beyond that I don’t think she taken many policy positions on the issue (but I haven not seen her voting record).

          —President Bush

          Well, he initially supported the Texas sodomy law…then he seemed to change his mind, in 2003. He told Larry King that States should be allowed to pass civil unions legislation (although his Federal Marriage Amendment would seem to eclipse this).

          These candidates generally did not actually express public support for gay rights legislation, generally wanted to please the religious right constituency (with a slight of hand to more moderate, anti-tax voters)

          • posted by Jorge on

            When he was running for president it was all; abortion is a sin and I oppose the gay agenda.

            Well, even Mr. Miller opposes the gay agenda.

            –Congresswoman Michelle Bachman was very much opposed to any gay rights legislation and generally parroted the standard line about how she was simply protecting marriage, protecting children and the like. At some point — when their was some talk of her being a candidate for President or possibly VP — she found something nice to say about gay people, while still being very much opposed to gay rights.

            Very well said. I hope you’ll help me find the people who have nothing nice to say so I can hammer them.

            So how is neutrality different from neutrality?

        • posted by clayton on

          You seem to have forgotten that both Romney and Bachmann supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, and both said they wanted to reinstitute DADT.

          • posted by Jorge on

            I haven’t forgetten.

            Last I checked, almost all Republicans voted against the DADT repeal. That hardly makes them all anti-gay rights.

            Answer the question.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            Actually it does. Maybe what you types isn’t what you meant. Susan Collins and a few others voted for the DADT repeal. The rest voted against. That is as anti-gay as it gets.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          W was running on a platform that called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That’s the statement he was running on even if he tried to hedge on that position when asked. Romney’s pro-gay positions were from over 20 years earlier. Of course Romney will say anything you want to hear, so who knows what he actually would have done as president. (Does he even know?) Elizabeth Dole’s candidacy was a non-starter. As for Michelle Bachmann, her husband runs a reparative therapy clinic. I can’t believe you’re including her in a list of Republicans neutral on gay rights.

  7. posted by Jorge on

    I think that Salon may be jumping the gun in declaring that the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage has “collapsed into debt”

    I don’t understand this author’s thought patterns. However, facts don’t lie, and he seems to be the first to notice them.

    Also, alienating bedrock Republicans by backing liberal Democrats over gay GOPers was just plain stupid.

    Hmm? You think John Boehner’s gonna get revenge? Maybe his support for DeMaio already put the nail in NOM’s coffin in some far-reaching indirect way. I’ve never heard of a Republican congressional leader winning a fight against a right-wing interest group. What a riot if that could be!

    The “backlash” against equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians (as embodied in the anti-marriage amendments) was not a natural, backlash, but instead a manufactured backlash, the product of a long anti-gay campaign that arose out of conservative religious tub-thumping and, eventually, craven political expediency.

    It was only recently that more people supported gay marriage than opposed it. I agree more with the train of thought that says the religious rabble-rousers shot themselves in the foot with crazy rhetoric. I think they channeled a silent majority; were there different, more moderate leadership, the backlash would have been milder but more entrenched.

    By the way, Tom, the way to fix problems with your shorthand is with longhand, not more shorthand.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      By the way, Tom, the way to fix problems with your shorthand is with longhand, not more shorthand.

      The only problem with my “shorthand” is you, Jorge.

      Nobody else seems to have any difficulty understanding the historical allusion — the Bush/Rove/Mehlman “faggot, faggot” strategy of using fear and loathing about homosexuals and homosexuality for political gain is akin to George Wallace’s adoption of a “nigger, nigger” strategy after 1958.

      I can’t fix you, but I can tweak you about your willful ignorance.

    • posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on

      The Karl Rove playbook in 2004 was Definitely focused on telling folks -directly or indirectly – that if they didn’t vote for Bush and company…..well gay marriages…

      It stirred up anti-gay prejudice, weakened progressive coalition building and involved some of the worst politicking since Nixon’s Southern strategy or the Wallace guy – and his still active American Independent Party.

      Now the Southern Strategy didn’t stop the civil rights movement or prevent the spread of enlightened/egalatarian attitudes about race, color, ethnicity and(esp the Catholic and Jewish) religion.

Comments are closed.