Home ›

same-sex marriage

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Nimocks: Bans on Interracial Marriage Were Wrong Because They're Discriminatory, But Bans on Same-Sex Marriage A.O.K.

Submitted by Coral on July 27, 2011 - 10:40am

After his testimony at last week’s DOMA hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund has been doing the rounds in the right-wing radio circuit. In a recent interview withthe Concerned Women for America’s radio show, Nimocks hit all of the classic anti-marriage-equality arguments, claiming that marriage between a man and a woman “naturally builds families,” and that children do best with two heterosexual parents. Nimocks then tried to discredit the comparison of DOMA to the laws against interracial marriage during the civil rights movement.

“Interracial marriage and the racism that underscored the prohibitions on interracial marriage in this country have nothing to do with the question of same-sex marriage, and for multiple reasons. When you look at it from a big picture, we understand what racism was about. It was about white supremacy and about keeping people apart. And there was an underlying bad associated with that doctrine and that policy that found its way into our laws. Marriage is not about keeping people apart. It’s about bringing together the two great halves of humanity, men and women, for a deep, deep social good. And the drastic difference in those two things cannot be overlooked. And then you look at that and say wait, marriage is about bringing people together, and it doesn’t discriminate on the basis of people’s skin color.”

Hold on a second, Nimocks. So bans on interracial marriage were about keeping people apart, but the bans on same-sex marriage are about bringing people together? And there was an “underlying bad” associated with racism, but there isn’t one associated with homophobia? And marriage shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of skin color, but it should discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Excuse me if I’m not exactly compelled to the case you’re making.

It comes as no surprise that the Concerned Women for America or the Alliance Defense Fund are making illogical arguments and holding moral double-standards, but the logical leaps they’re making are becoming more and more obvious as time goes on.

PFAW
Filed under:

National Organization for Marriage on the attack in New Hampshire

Submitted by Brian Tashman on September 30, 2010 - 12:28pm

Republican Presidential hopefuls aren’t the only ones going to New Hampshire to take down Democratic governor John Lynch: the National Organization for Marriage is launching a $425,000 ad campaign to oppose the governor. In June of last year, Governor Lynch signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, which put him in NOM’s crosshairs. NOM has also spent $235,000 attacking members of Iowa’s Supreme Court, which unanimously decided that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state constitution, who are up for a retention vote. Moreover, the group spent tens of thousands of dollars in unsuccessful efforts to defeat members of the DC Council that voted in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Hopefully, their ads in New Hampshire will be just as "memorable" as their Gathering Storm ad. NOM will surely utilize the same deceptive tactics and bigoted rhetoric present in their other ads, especially since they are working with the New Hampshire group Cornerstone Action, the political arm of the state’s foremost Religious Right organization. Cornerstone Action believes that adultery should be a criminal offense, and in 2007 their executive director claimed that same-sex couples are “unnatural” and worked to oppose civil unions as an “acceptance of a behavior that is jeopardizing the health of our children.” Without a doubt, the gubernatorial race in New Hampshire will be another test of NOM’s plans to defeat public officials who back LGBT equality.

PFAW
Filed under:

NOM Skirts IRS Regulations on Disclosure of Tax Returns

Submitted by Anonymous on August 21, 2009 - 3:22pm

In the current issue of the Washington Blade, Lou Chibbaro interviews Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay group behind Proposition 8. The interview contains this gem:

"Brown promised to release to the Blade NOM’s 2007 IRS 990 finance reporting form and said the group also would release its 2008 990 form as soon as it completes its processing. He said the group submitted the 2008 report to the IRS last Friday."

NOM's finances are a complete mystery, and the group seems intent on keeping it that way for as long as possible. But there's just one problem -- there's no such thing as a "processing" period.

NOM, as with all nonprofits, must make their tax returns -- form 990 -- available to the public. This must be done from the date the 990 "is required to be filed (determined with regard to any extensions)." (see pg 15 of IRS publication 557)

NOM filed for a routine three-month extension to the standard May 15th filing deadline and reportedly filed its 990 on Friday, August 14th. In other words, NOM was required to disclose its 990 when asked by the Blade's Chibbaro.

NOM should know better than to play games with its 990. The group could be fined by the IRS for its conduct and is succeeding only in generating greater interest in its finances.

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content