Posts Tagged ‘NOM’

Skeptics or logicians reading the title of this post may recognize an inherent logical fallacy, the tu quoque (literally, “you, too”). This is an informal fallacy which means that the logic is flawed, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion reached is flawed.

Many on the far right wing over the past several months have pointed to the fact that both Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have presided over same-sex marriage ceremonies. Therefore, the thinking goes, they have pre-judged any same-sex marriage case that would go before the Supreme Court and therefore they should recuse themselves. I wrote about this once before back in 2013. Since I wrote about it before, I’ve generally ignored follow-up WND posts on it.

But, I decided to knock out an easy one today and let you know that it’s still A Thing over at WND, such as this latest story by Bob Unruh quoting the vehemently anti-gay Brian Brown of the National Organization for (straight-only, two-people-only, God-fearing-only) Marriage (NOM) (who also has a WND column): “Calls for Ginsburg to Drop Out of Marriage Case Escalate.”

The issue of judicial recusal is a tricky one. I don’t understand all of the details, but I do know that it is often very much up to the jurist to decide their own conflict of interest and make that determination themselves. I also know that it has long been held that a jurist’s makeup (such as gender, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is not grounds for recusal.

Public statements specific to the case? Perhaps. I’m not sure. In which case Ginsburg – who stated this week that people need to get over it, same-sex marriage is going to happen (that’s me paraphrasing) – might be considered as someone who should recuse herself.

That said, if she does, then Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also must recuse themselves. Interesting that I don’t see WND or anyone else on the right pointing this out.

Why do I say this? Because of the tu quote or, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” While Kagan and Ginsburg have both made their general personal position on marriage equality fairly clear, so have Scalia and Thomas. Thomas has been a bit more cagey in his remarks, but as a strict textualist and very much a person seeking to limit the federal government, his opinions have pretty much always sided with restricting individual rights when those are rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. And, he’s seen as one of the most conservative members of the Court and voted against the majority opinion in the decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws. As for Scalia, he has been very outspoken against same-sex marriage and made his opinions on the issue very clear. He has been the primary dissenter in any legalization or striking down of anti-legalization of pro-homosexual issues, including the anti-sodomy laws and DOMA. In addition to that, both Scalia and Thomas frequently associate with vehemently anti-gay groups.

Do I actually think any of these four will recuse themselves? No. But if you call for one side to do so, you must call for the other. But, WND and its ilk want to stack the deck and know that the ruling this year is likely to be a 5/4 decision, but if both Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves, then the Court will uphold marriage equality bans.

Surprisingly, at the moment, the top-rated of the 147 comments on the 18-hrs-old WND story is by “BobSF_94117” and he points this out: “Scalia goes around the country offering his opinion on SSM and, far worse, his legal opinion of it.” You have to scroll through many, many other comments (when ranked form “Best” on down) to find one expressing similar ideas.

This was a story I’ve been following on and off since it started several years ago: In Maine, there is a law that requires any group that raises more than $5,000 for a ballot measure must reveal their donors. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) raised over $2,000,000 for a 2009 ballot measure against marriage equality. Therefore, they have to reveal their donors.

Not so fast! NOM said they don’t. And because NOM is Christian, rules that apply to other people don’t have to apply to them. Duh.

Well, the latest development is that the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices “unanimously adopted a staff recommendation to impose a record fine on the National Organization for Marriage and compel the antigay group to reveal the names of donors to its 2009 campaign to repeal the state’s marriage equality law.” The fine is $50,250. Trivial so far as NOM’s finances go. But, the big part is that, yet again, they have been ruled against and told they must – gosh! – comply with the law that applies to everyone else.

NOM has refused to pay it and is now filing ethics complaints against everyone else they can for exactly what they’ve been found guilty of. I think it’s going to be awhile before we see that donor list. And I hope that someone is jailed if they destroy that list, for they have to know in their heart of hearts (unless they really are as stupid as many of us think they are) that they are not going to be successful in keeping it secret.

But, they really really want to. Why? Because they are (in my non-binding non-legal, but personal opinion) effectively laundering money. The big deal is that NOM was organized in part so that they could tell donors that they could be anonymous. That they could give NOM money, and NOM would spend it in various places, and they would be anonymous in their bigotry. Therefore, if their donor lists were ever made public, their funds are going to dry up because bigots are going to be named.

Oh yeah, and WND posted on this … well, posted a two-paragraph snippet from Christian Post about it: “Maine Fines Pro-Traditional-Marriage Group $50,000.” Obviously, WND commenters are not happy. And apparently, this is all the liberals’ fault!

“oathkpr” is top-rated with 17 up-votes: “That’s what you can expect when you elect liberal-progressives to run your state!”

Or, “The_northwesterner” with 8 up-votes: “I hope that NOM not only doesn’t pay the fine, but refuses to give the corrupt commission its donors’ list and simply tells the commission to go take a flying leap.”

But, don’t forget, we’re hiding these lists for Jesus! (“ngorgh” –) “I wouldn’t pay the fine and would have by now destroyed all the names. As I said yesterday…..Is it time in America to start throwing Christians to the Lions yet? Start Jailing Christians and watch how bad GOD’S wraith will be!”

You own a company or are high up on the board of a public company. You see probably one of the fastest changes on a social issue amongst the American populace in many decades. You decide that it would probably be good public relations (PR) to be seen as supporting the side of that social movement that is very quickly winning.

You could remain neutral – true – but any sort of announcement of support is going to be spread among those who support it and are against it. It’s almost free publicity, and you’ll be seen in a positive light by >50% of the public.

It’s so logical that a Vulcan would probably approve.

Boycott Betty Crocker for Cooking for Gays

Boycott Betty Crocker for Cooking for Gays

But not World Net Daily. The list of companies that their followers need to boycott continues to grow.

“Experienced writer” (it doesn’t say he’s a staff writer nor a syndicated columnist) Dave Tombers alerts WND readers that “Now Betty Crocker Gets on ‘Gay’-Marriage Train” with the obligatory putting-of-the-gay-in-quotes as yet another kick in the testicles of any homo stupid enough to read the article (slowly raises hand …).

GLAAD (Gays and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, though now they just made the acronym their name and it no longer “stands” for anything) has announced, “Betty Crocker is performing this donation as part of ‘The Families Project,'” where “this” refers to a few couples – once same-sex marriage starts in Minnesota on Thursday – will get a free wedding cake, compliments of Betty Crocker. Betty Crocker is owned by General Mills which, to quote WND, “hasn’t been shy about promoting homosexual marriage.” In fact:

“Families are changing a lot. But they’ve still got one thing in common – the love that makes a home,” says the General Mills website “The Family Project.”

“At Betty Crocker, we believe that a family is a family, no matter how it’s arranged,” it continues.

The WND article continues with some more background on the company before going to NOM (National Organization for [straight-only] Marriage) statements. The horror is palpable:

“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage,” starts the organization’s sample petition signed by tens of thousands of people.

“Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” the petition says. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.

“Until you stop supporting this radical social agenda I must, in good conscience, look for substitutes that I can purchase instead of the following brands.”

NOM goes on to list a few dozen companies that have not openly supported marriage equality as ones that are still “safe” for their followers to buy from.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign has their own guide about gay-friendly companies. They also have an app, and a PDF, and the PDF is 70 pages long. Kinda reminds me of the NCSE’s “Steve” list to counter the Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwin” list.

While this hasn’t attracted the hundreds of comments I had expected from WND readers, it currently does have 22. Pretty much everyone is saying something along the lines of, “Well, I never liked Betty Crocker anyway, so THERE! I’ll just make darn sure that I’ll never buy anything from them because I only bought stuff from them before by accident!” Or some such whiney-ness.

Betty Crocker is Devil's Food

Betty Crocker is Devil’s Food

Edited to Add (September 21, 2013): Right Wing Watch reports that Family Research Council loud-mouth Tony Perkins is calling for people to boycott Betty Crocker because of this. (I also added some Facebook meme pictures.)