In seven states (California, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and Washington), the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has tried to conceal its donors by claiming said donors would be threatened and intimidated by gays.

And in those seven states, four federal judges and three state boards have declared NOM’s claims to be highly vapid.

That’s the subject of a very thorough and very satisfying Huffington Post article which examines how NOM has been unsuccessful in pushing the “gays are trying to intimidate us because we believe in traditional marriage” card.

The article points out that the main reason for NOM’s losses is the simple fact that neither the judges nor the state boards have been swayed by the evidence it provides of so-called intimidation by the gay community.

In fact, some of the evidence NOM provided is downright laughable. One stand out in particular because it underscores just how empty and pathetic NOM’s argument of so-called “gay intimidation is:

. . . in Washington state, an opponent of marriage equality was collecting petition signatures to challenge a law granting legal protections to same-sex couples, when two ladies “glared at him and one said ‘we have feelings too.'” He did not report the incident to the police.

When you are done laughing and maybe mopping up your keyboard, check out Amanda Terkel’s article and above all, spread it – particularly that “glaring” example of so-called gay intimidation – to your friends and neighbors.

Let them see just how NOM is faking it.

Intimidators? (photo: darcyandkat)

In seven states (California, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and Washington), the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has tried to conceal its donors by claiming said donors would be threatened and intimidated by gays.

And in those seven states, four federal judges and three state boards have declared NOM’s claims to be highly vapid.

That’s the subject of a very thorough and very satisfying Huffington Post article which examines how NOM has been unsuccessful in pushing the “gays are trying to intimidate us because we believe in traditional marriage” card.

The article points out that the main reason for NOM’s losses is the simple fact that neither the judges nor the state boards have been swayed by the evidence it provides of so-called intimidation by the gay community.

In fact, some of the evidence NOM provided is downright laughable. One stand out in particular because it underscores just how empty and pathetic NOM’s argument of so-called “gay intimidation is:

. . . in Washington state, an opponent of marriage equality was collecting petition signatures to challenge a law granting legal protections to same-sex couples, when two ladies “glared at him and one said ‘we have feelings too.'” He did not report the incident to the police.

When you are done laughing and maybe mopping up your keyboard, check out Amanda Terkel’s article and above all, spread it – particularly that “glaring” example of so-called gay intimidation – to your friends and neighbors.

Let them see just how NOM is faking it.

Alvin McEwen

Alvin McEwen

7 Comments