Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Utter deception or utter delusion?

NOM Exposed

Cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

by Rob Tisinai

I can’t believe this.  Here’s what NOM wrote on their blog, complaining about Paul Krugman saying that toxic, eliminationist political rhetoric comes overwhelmingly from the right.

By “eliminationist rhetoric,” Paul Krugman means rhetoric which suggests that one’s opponents are not just wrong, they are illegitimate—that in a better world they would not exist.

Well, you and I know a little about rhetoric that sounds like that don’t we?

(He may only be speaking of rhetoric inciting to violence, and I want to be clear that I don’t consider gay-marriage advocates on their worst day to be doing that.)

But for me the worst part of the gay marriage debate is this eliminationist quality coming (in my experience, and of course I’m speaking only about public and visible organizations and spokespeople) almost exclusively from one side: activists who support gay marriage.

“Almost exclusively from one side: activists who support gay marriage.” All I can say is…

Are

You

Kidding?

This is just two days – two days! – after NOM quoted a Catholic Bishop who called same-sex marriage “the modern day evil works of Satan.”

Who distorted the Bible to say God slaughters entire cities for homosexuality.

Who said – one day after the shooting of Rep. Giffords: “In this battle, there is no neutrality, no demilitarized zone.”

Really NOM, you don’t think anti-gay eliminationist rhetoric is coming from the right?  Let’s go to Facebook and check out your “Favorite Pages.”

There’s the Family Research Council!  Their president thinks gays are in the hands of the Enemy.  Their spokesman says the US should be deporting gays.  And that homosexuality should be criminalized.

Speaking of throwing gays in prison – the Texas GOP platform also wants to criminalize homosexuality.  So does Montana’s.  Can you name anything – anything – comparable in a Democratic Party platform?

Yet you stand there and say the eliminationist rhetoric comes “almost exclusively from one side: activists who support gay marriage.”  It’s baffling, infuriating, bizarre.  Are you lying?  Or have you broken with reality?  Believe me, if there’s a third option I’d love to hear it.

On the other hand, maybe you’re right.  Maybe the eliminationist rhetoric is only on the left.  Because what I see when I look at your allies on the right is an eliminationist agenda.

25 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Kathleen  |  January 14, 2011 at 2:32 am

  • 2. Peterplumber  |  January 14, 2011 at 2:33 am

    ♂♂

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 14, 2011 at 2:34 am

    Scribin too – This is not the reading I want just before the perfect weekend!

  • 4. Ann S.  |  January 14, 2011 at 2:35 am

    Points well made, Rob.

  • 5. Ed Cortes  |  January 14, 2011 at 2:50 am

    metoo

  • 6. Ronnie  |  January 14, 2011 at 3:05 am

    (head hits desk)…. : i ….Ronnie

  • 7. Carpool Cookie  |  January 14, 2011 at 3:10 am

    The whole reason the Prop H8 challenge carried is because for all practical purposes, marriage equality doesn't "eliminate" anything. It is about giving something, not taking away.

    (It does strive to eliminate the Straights Only signs that currently hang at City Halls….in the way that the Civil Rights Movement removed the Whites Only signs from buses, drinking fountains, etc. But only wackos yearn to have those back.)

  • 8. Nat  |  January 14, 2011 at 3:30 am

    If you want the clearest counterexample, look at all the groups that are refusing to attend the CPAC conference because GOProud will be in attendance. That's right, they''re staking out the position that a group that is in agreement with the right on most principles cannot be allowed in the room with them, for they are not sufficiently anti-gay to be part of the conversation.

  • 9. Sagesse  |  January 14, 2011 at 3:45 am

    Busy day. You're onto something with your two most recent posts. Later, when I figure out what, I'll be back.

  • 10. Casey  |  January 14, 2011 at 4:12 am

    The CPAC example is, I think, indicative of the panic the anti-gay right is beginning to feel. Log Cabin Republicans filing lawsuits…GOProud having the audacity to think they should have a place at the Republican table…anti-equality folks are seeing that there are gay people – proud, and god forbid, politically like-minded people – with a growing voice in their own party. If LGBT folks can be right-wing, how much can anti-equality Republicans continue to rely on the concept of "other"? Ahh! That does not compute! Must boycott GOProud before they get The Gay on us!!

  • 11. Mouse  |  January 14, 2011 at 4:21 am

    "Are you lying? Or have you broken with reality?"

    Yes, they are lying, and yes, they have broken with reality.

    It is the tried and true tactic of these liars to accuse their opposition of doing whatever despicable thing they themselves are doing. Once you've made the accusation first, a reply of "No, we're not doing that. You're the ones doing that" sounds childish, even though it is true.

    It's also been established that if you repeat a lie often enough, stupid people will believe it despite evidence to the contrary. They know this, and exploit this weakness in their disciples on a regular basis.

  • 12. John  |  January 14, 2011 at 4:25 am

    What a mess. Yep, trying to keep people away from children, out of bathrooms, out of marriage, outside of the military, away from being TSA employees, etc, has nothing to do with exclusion.

    I guess what they really mean is that we want to see LGBT people able to have full lives in society, which means that anti-LGBT people will be "excluded" from being able to influence some spheres with their hatred.

    Poor anti-LGBT folk. They won't be able to govern us through religion. Darn.

  • 13. Rich  |  January 14, 2011 at 4:29 am

    I tried to post a response to Maggie's Nom site attempt to deflect the hate with a (my modus operandi) rendition of all that is good, decent and loving in gay families and a request to simply keep their own bias and religious zealotry to themselves; let this issue be resolved based upon the concepts of equality and due process as enshrined in the Constitution. But, alas, I am not allowed to post on their site and I can only assume it is because my posts are too mainstream, perhaps too obvious and logical and not intended to hurl vitriol. So, what is one to do? Maggie asks for an end to eliminationist rhetoric. Well, Maggie. Stop filtering comments that speak to a reasoned and, dare I say, convincing point of view.

  • 14. Carpool Cookie  |  January 14, 2011 at 5:12 am

    Can you email her?

  • 15. Carpool Cookie  |  January 14, 2011 at 5:12 am

    Although…I don't know what asylum she's been moved to….

  • 16. anonygrl  |  January 14, 2011 at 5:20 am

    Scene – Press Conference. The podium is draped with a flag. Several people in suits are lined up behind the podium, and there is a priest with them. An older white man comes out and taps on the mic.

    Man: Ahem. Is this thing on?

    We hear "tap tap squeeeeel…"

    Man: OK.. Hi. I would like to introduce myself, I am the Conservative Right Wing. Today we have one statement to make.

    Ahem. We're rubber and you're glue! Nanny Nanny Boo boo!!!!! Thank you for your attention.

    He steps away from the podium, but we still hear him as he talks to one of the people in the group as they are leaving.

    Man (trailing off): HA! We showed THEM who is boss…..

    Cut to the ONE press person standing in the room, holding a mic pointed towards the podium. He has a look of dumbstruck confusion, and he shakes his head as if to say "Really? REALLY?"

    Fade to black

  • 17. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 14, 2011 at 5:40 am

    Actually, it sounds to me as if NOM has once again fired up the turbo boosters on their spin machine. In fact, if they go back and review the videos of their three recent tours, not to mention the videos of The Call and Bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland (who keeps sticking his nose into DC politics), they will see that the eliminationist rhetoric is coming from their side, not ours. And it is not only rhetoric. Or has NOM forgotten about Lynching Larry's sign?

  • 18. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 14, 2011 at 5:41 am

    check the box, first, Richard!

  • 19. Rhie  |  January 14, 2011 at 6:41 am

    Watchin

  • 20. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 14, 2011 at 7:07 am

    There's no email program that reaches that far into schizophrenia. Sorry. ;)

  • 21. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Don't forget the initiative to have heterosexual couples killed in Uganda! Oh, wait….

    To be serious for a minute, here's the most violent imagery I recall associated with LGBT equality, from New York. Come on, though, cartoony shark attack imagery? They think this is worse than what their side, with imagery of nooses and eternal damnation?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBtqt8O0WZE

  • 22. Michael  |  January 14, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Sounds like a poorly formed excuse for shrill anti-gay activists at NOM to continue to wallow in the sin of homophobia to me. Maggie and Brian need to repent and publicly renounce the homophobia they promote and suicides they cause and the families they destroy.

  • 23. Sagesse  |  January 15, 2011 at 6:18 am

    The first part of this is typical, the rest is just weird.

    Same-sex unions 'penalize' traditional marriage, pope says
    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100

  • 24. Matthew  |  January 15, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    They just don't have a basis grounded in reality.

    I've been trying to get them to admit for weeks the fact there are tens of thousands of legally married gay families throughout the county.

    Every time I ask that question my post is deleted.

    They also don't like the fact that Adam and Eve couldn't have ever been married since there wasn't a priest or civil servant around, lol.

  • 25. Ann S.  |  January 16, 2011 at 4:27 am

    Also, Adam and Eve couldn't have a Christian marriage (if they could have gotten married), did they?

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!