Brian S. Brown has sent out his organizational Christmas card to supporters. He needs to lay off that white bread. Were Brown’s suit jacket button to pop off, it would be expelled from his girth with the force of a howitzer round. The child in Mrs. Brown’s arms is in peril of being perforated. I must admit, however, that the kids are cute.

Seriously, though, this virtual card says a great deal about Brown. It is something that a trained professional would never send out because it substitutes the leader and his family for the organizations. L’etat c’est moi. If NOM and  IOF haven’t sufficient staff for a photo (or they prefer not to be in one) then the organizations should use other art. Furthermore, combining the two organizations (linked by their leader) is a mistake. Each should have its own unique identity. Ultimately a quality-managed organization is detached from its leaders and particularly from the leader’s family.

Meanwhile, National Organization for Marriage announced yesterday afternoon details about its new project, The First Freedom Initiative. The painfully long-winded email is filled with Christian-nation imagery and claims of religiosity among our founders that are not supported by history. It reads like something written by a Tea Party crackpot. It attempts to define religious liberty in a way that does not align with the First Amendment’s guarantee of Free Exercise.

The project has its own website that — surprise, surprise — collects email addresses and asks for money. It does not indicate which of NOM’s entities is the recipient or whether donations are tax deductible.

Like sharks that are compelled to perpetually swim in order to survive, NOM must constantly attempt to appear to be doing something. Each new effort only demonstrates the lack of planning and focus. It also highlights the fact that NOM did not fulfill its original purpose (some $70 million later). Brown, surprisingly demonstrating some self-reflection writes:

Now I want to make this clear. The First Freedom Initiative is not a new direction for NOM, nor does it represent a change in our mission. Our mission remains unchanged: we exist to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. We are totally and unalterably committed to restoring marriage to our nation’s laws.

I am wired for optimism but even Gorsuch did not hesitate for a second to assert that marriage is settled law. Brown goes on to explain that Kennedy is rumored to be retiring. Nevertheless, stare decisisrespect for precedence — is a fundamental doctrine of American jurisprudence. Otherwise our laws have no stability and are subject to change with each new administration.

But forget all of that. More importantly, I cannot think of a single reason to reverse marriage equality. Brown’s “reasoning” is that it offends the Catholic Church and that is not a valid concern. What secular argument could they possibly make? Now that Masterpiece Cakeshop will be decided by the Court separately they cannot even make an argument (one that was never valid) based on self-manufactured victims.

NOM continues to exist in order to raise money to continue to exist. It doesn’t actually do anything other than raise money. Just how dumb must someone be to pour more money into this black hole?

Related content:

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.