In its latest blog post and email blast, National Organization for Marriage seems destined to promote their own failure. Perhaps they stopped paying the folks who used to write this stuff. When you title something “It’s not too late” it gets people thinking “is it too late?” I have said many times that NOM is staffed with managerial amateurs.
Between two donation links Brian Brown informs the faithful:
The Supreme Court will likely take up the definition of marriage again next year as many of the cases throughout the country make their way through the legal system. And we must use this precious gift of time to let the justices on the Court — as well as the politicians, media elites and voting citizens — know that America still stands for marriage!
In other words, giving money to National Organization for Marriage will influence the United States Supreme Court. Really? Brown likes to use the word elite. I thought that went out with the demise of Sarah Palin’s last shred of credibility.
And what’s a NOM polemic without some victims?
It’s not too late to make the case for marriage, but now is the time to stand up. The American people have been the victims of a lie perpetrated by same-sex ‘marriage’ activists and the complicit mainstream media that this fight is over.
Of course “standing up” means giving money to NOM (that they will piss away). Exactly what is the lie? Brown doesn’t tell us. Nor does he tell us exactly how American citizens have been victimized.
The following passage reveals that Mr. Brown actually believes his own bullshit:
NOM’s own exit polling after the 2012 elections showed that 60% of all voters who turned out to actually cast ballots — Democrat, Republican and Independent — supported the position that marriage should be the union of one man and one woman. And that number jumped to 80% of likely Republican and Republican-leaning Independent voters in a recent poll done by the Family Research Council and American Values.
So who to trust. NOM, FRC or Pew Research which shows increasing support for marriage equality? Brown concludes with a reference to the Michigan affirmative action case (Schuette v BAMN). Apparently he is wed to the notion that this has something to do with equal protection and due process as it applies to gay citizens who wish to marry. Then we get this bit of sophistry:
Combined with the Court’s unanimous decision to take the highly unusual step of issuing a stay in the Utah marriage case, and the rationale of the Windsor case last year, Justice Kennedy’s language strongly suggests that the Supreme Court still believes the marriage debate is an open question that the states should decide for themselves.
Are you fucking kidding me? In Windsor Justice Kennedy specifically stated that states are free to regulate marriage providing that they respect the constitutional rights of citizens. He then cited Loving v. Virginia. What could possibly be more telling?