Gay Marriage | Massachusetts | News

BigGayDeal.com

NOM Robocalls Attack Coakley's Pro-LGBT Positions in Massachusetts

The National Organization for Marriage has begun to assault Massachusetts voters preparing to vote in the contentious Senate race between AG Martha Coakley and state senator Scott Brown with robocalls attacking Coakley for her pro-LGBT positions, DC Agenda reports:

Brown Say the calls:

Our household just got an automated call from the “National Organization for Marriage,” with a 202 area code. The auto call features a male voice, which is clearly a recording, asking if you support marriage as being only between a man and a woman. If you say “yes,” then the voice urges you to vote for Scott Brown as the only candidate with a proven record of supporting marriage as between a man and a woman. The call says that his opponent is a “radical” supporter of same-sex marriage who has opposed letting the people decide and has used taxpayer dollars to support the agenda of same-sex marriage. The call ends by asking if “we can count on you to vote for Scott Brown.” The quality of the recording is mediocre at best.

Coakley's campaign responded to the calls:

“This is the usual last-minute attack by one of the biggest anti-equality organizations in the country,” said Representative Katherine Clark, Coakley Campaign Finance Committee Co-Chair. “This just reaffirms what we already knew — Scott Brown is the favorite candidate of ultra right-wing conservatives. Marriage equality has been the law of the land in Massachusetts for nearly six years, and it’s supported by a majority of voters who know first-hand that the sky hasn’t fallen just because we have marriage equality.”

Previously...
Race for Kennedy Seat in Massachusetts Has Dems Worried [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I hope he wins

    Posted by: ousslander | Jan 17, 2010 10:39:12 AM


  2. Then you're a douche.

    Posted by: adamblast | Jan 17, 2010 11:19:06 AM


  3. I'm sorry, but any candidate who is a smoldering hunk who once posed nude in a magazine has my vote.

    That said, Coakley is AWFUL. Voters need to send a message to Obama to rein in his insane expansion of government; maybe then he'll return to the Clintonian center instead of the fringe where he is now.

    Posted by: Dan | Jan 17, 2010 12:33:36 PM


  4. These sorts of tactics just backfired in the Houston Mayoral race and they may well here. The majority may be homophobic but they also cringe at overt homophobia.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Jan 17, 2010 1:17:47 PM


  5. Too bad it is not reported here that Brown has gone on record saying that the gay marriage issue is "settled state law." Meaning it would not be actively opposed. He is also for civil unions - just like Obama.

    So Andy, how about using a picture of a leader of NOM in this post as that would be much more accurate. And, if real news was being reported here, how about looking at all the problems Coakley has had in speaking recently. I mean google here and she has said more stupid stuff in the past 2 weeks than Palin ever said.

    Posted by: BC | Jan 17, 2010 2:57:58 PM


  6. First of all are any of you previous commenters from MA? my guess is probably not.I really hope he doesn't win, for a myriad of reasons. I did not receive his robocall, but i did just get a message from massequality. Telling me about his message and urging me to vote. As a person who cares about this country and the state of Massachusetts I am voting Coakley! And i urge everyone else to do the same...

    Posted by: MAresident | Jan 17, 2010 5:20:16 PM


  7. BC, we do agree that Attorney General Coakley has proven to be a weak campaigner, with her comment about the right-wing a-hole and former Red Sox Curt Schilling cringe-worthy (as opposed to her debate comment about Afghanistan, which has been distorted by Republican party head Rush Limbaugh and other wingnuts, in which she very clumsily but accurately noted that the principal mission of the war in Afghanistan - removal of the Taliban from power - had been achieved).

    However, before you start demanding answers from Andy, why don't you answer a question for the rest of us?

    Why would any gay man or lesbian with the slightest amount of self-respect (so we've already eliminated the Log Cabin crowd) even consider voting for a man who said that it was “not normal’’ for then-state senator Cheryl Jacques and her partner to have children and who also referred to her “alleged family responsibilities"?

    Also, it's apparent that you feel enormous gratitude that Brown, in the midst of a heated election in a very progressive State, has finally in 2010 come out in favor of civil unions (we understand!; you Log Cabin types have so few morsels thrown your way that any Republican who is not loudly comparing gay people to pedophiles or shoplifters is pretty exciting stuff for you!). As observed by commenter Ken on joemygod, who notes that he was there in the trenches when equality advocates were beating back attempts of the anti-equality crowd to overturn marriage equality in the State by writing anti-gay discrimination into the State's constitution, "Scott Brown wouldn't even settle for civil unions at that time -- he voted AGAINST the "compromise."" That's right, Scott Brown stood with Mitt Romney and the rest of the anti-gay crowd back in 2004 and 2005 when they were furiously attempting not only to overturn marriage equality but to ban civil unions as well. He even bragged about it in his 2004 race for a state senate seat. Hardly a surprise, though, that the Log Cabin crowd is lecturing us, now that he's been forced because of his own political self-interest to accept civil unions in 2010, that we should ignore his comments about our familes being "not normal" and welcome him as a "moderate"!

    Btw, Brown's sudden receptivity to civil unions must not be too enthusiastic because his website makes no mention of them, while nonetheless emphasizing that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Can't upset the wingnuts who are fueling his campaign!

    Martha Coakley, though a lousy campaigner, has been a friend to the gay and lesbian community, last year becoming the first Attorney General in the nation to bring suit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.

    Andy is not the one with some questions to answer, loser. Gay men who would support a candidate who has attacked our families as "not normal" (judging by certain comments on this and other blogs, in some instances for no better reason than that he is "hot") are the ones who should be answering to the rest of us. You may think that the most important issue in this and other elections is the rate at which your capital gains will be taxed but it is our equality which you're playing with.

    Posted by: Patric | Jan 17, 2010 10:50:45 PM


  8. As a life long gay resident of MA i am not voting for Coakley. Brown has the momentum to win Tuesday's vote. I'm sick of preachers telling me if I'm gay that I have to vote for the Democrat. It's a little tough to hear anything when you're preaching all the time. What the hell have they done for gays. Obama could give a shit about us until Nov 2012. I don't like the Republicans as much as you, but I'm sick of the way Obama and his elitist Democrats, who can't remember to pay their own taxes, are running things. Obama only came to Boston to save his own ass. I hope he's sent back to Chicago in 2012. So let the insults fly, but before you do, maybe you should write your NY State Democratic Senators and ask them why they voted against YOU.

    Posted by: Brown for Senator | Jan 17, 2010 11:58:03 PM


  9. Scott Brown has been at the forefront of the anti-gay movement for years. Whether or not you like Coakley, even if you think she'll do nothing, that's better than having one of our biggest opponents represent us for the next six years. As a resident of MA, I'm embarrased that this race is even close.

    Posted by: jim | Jan 18, 2010 8:24:10 AM


  10. Yes, the seat in question should have been handed down like a peerage or throne. Dam what the votersd think.
    She would just be another member of the corrupt cabal that is the white house and senate.

    Posted by: ousslander | Jan 18, 2010 8:44:37 AM


  11. Patric - I appreciate a civil debate, which was the direction I thought your comment was going until the typical name-calling started. First, I didn't demand anything from Andy, I said how about using an accurate picture to go with the story.

    Let me try to answer you in a nutshell. I am a strong believer in one step at a time. It's all fine and good that liberals are in support of gay marriage (which a lot are not). But, we cannot expect people who at one point were opposed to suddenly do a 180 and be all for gay marriage. So yes, when a conservative says that in his own state it is a non-issue and is now for civil unions, I'll take it as a step in the right direction. So it took him 5 years to like civil unions. Maybe a little more convincing and he'll be all for gay marriage. Point being - he believes in what Obama believes.

    Why would he post anything about civil unions on his website? It's not an issue in MA anymore. He has said it is state law and it will not be challenged. It is not a campaign issue whatsoever. The only people making it an issue are the gays

    You are making an awful lot of assumptions of me based on a couple sentence comment here. I don't have an enormous amount of gratitude towards ANY politician. They're all corrupt!

    And the really sad part is, the voices in the gay community imply that one cannot change their mind. Well, democrats can, republicans can't. I support ANYONE who once was not all that supportive of us and now has begun to change their mind.

    Posted by: BC | Jan 18, 2010 10:53:46 AM


  12. Brown for Senator:

    What stupid logic. Yes, vote against democrats who vote against you. But why take your anger out on Democrats who vote FOR you and who actually brought a lawsuit to defend your right to marry? Makes no sense whatsoever, and you make no sense whatsoever.

    Posted by: John K. | Jan 18, 2010 4:22:12 PM


  13. BC:

    I'm so tired of hearing people trotting out Obama's beliefs to defend the beliefs of other candidates. Obama is an ASSHOLE on marriage equality. I voted for him because McCain was an ASSHOLE not just on marriage, but on every other gay rights issue, and I quite frankly didn't think we could afford McCain appointing three justices to the US Supreme Court. I'm not necessarily voting for Obama if he doesn't deliver on most of his promises for the LGBT community in his first time.

    Point is, if Brown were running against a Democrat who is worse on our issues than he is, I would say you make sense. But, your voting for the someone who supports civil unions over someone who supports full marriage. Plain and simple. Doesn't make much sense. We're not asking you to sit the election out on principle or to vote for a third party candidate because both are terrible. We're asking you to vote for the Democrat who fully supports our rights over the republican who clearly does not. Again, you make no sense.

    Posted by: John K. | Jan 18, 2010 4:28:22 PM


  14. OUSSLANDER you are an ignorant sack of shit! As is Dan... fuck you and the pathetic useless donkey you morons rode in on. I am sick to death of Republicans, obstructionists and conservatives. FUCK YOU ALL!

    I do not automatically support the Democrats and give them grief at every turn when they fuck up, but I believe that are FAR AND AWAY a better way for the country than the brain-dead conservatives!

    Posted by: CKNJ | Jan 18, 2010 7:01:33 PM


  15. Amen CKNJ!!! I couldn't agree with you more! I love how conservative republicans like to bitch about what is happening. But let's not forget who got us in this mess in the first place. Oh yeah the republicans! And Teddy would roll over in his grave knowing one of his potential successors wanted to kill his lifelong dream...

    Posted by: Amazed | Jan 18, 2010 9:53:19 PM


  16. BC, I'm not interested in being civil with anyone supporting a candidate who attacked gay families as "not normal" and who, in 2004, fought not only to ban marriage equality but also civil unions through an amendment of the Massachusetts constitution.

    You ask why Brown should mention his supposed support for civil unions on his website, given that the law in Massachusetts on marriage is settled. Your argument would work were it not for the facts that (i) he has taken the time to emphasize on his website that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and (ii) he is not running for Governor of Massachusetts but for U.S. Senator and federal law on marriage is very much not settled, as we will need votes to overturn DOMA and to appoint judges who respect the Constitution's equal protection clause to the federal courts (we can be confident that Brown will be against us in both instances).

    I accept that, as a community, we need to be open to welcoming growth on our issues from those who have not previously been with us, but that growth must be sincere and just hastily manufactured in order to win an election in a blue state. I have welcomed support for equality from Republicans I previously loathed (Ted Olson, for example). However, we should not be suckers for those who have consistently been against us in the past, and vehemently and viciously so, just because in order to win an election in a very blue New England State they suddenly do an about-face and tell everyone (other than their supporters on their website) that they'll accept civil unions. This guy isn't much different from the New York State Dem senators who said what they needed to say about gay rights in order to get elected in 2008 and then voted against us in 2009 (except, of course, that Brown, unlike those senators, already has a horrible record on gay rights).

    It is a sign of just how gullable some gay men are that you would consider Brown's newfound support for civil unions, which he was careful not to mention on the same website where he emphasized his opposition to marriage equality, as anything other than a politically-motivated, shallow effort to market himself in a progressive state (a playbook followed to perfection by such other noted homophobes as Bob McDonnell and Mitt Romney).

    Finally, your suggestion that Brown believes what the President believes on marriage reflects either shocking ignorance or willful distortion. The President has never supported an amendment of any constitution to enshrine anti-gay discrimination therein; Brown did and bragged about it in his 2004 campaign. The President has never referred to gay families as "not normal." Brown did but that is obviously not a problem for you and your ilk. The President will not have the support of NOM and other haters in 2012; those same haters are working vigorously for Brown as we write because they know what you either don't understand or choose to ignore: the election of Scott Brown, a man with a consistently anti-gay record, to the seat of the great Senator Kennedy will be an unmitigated victory for homophobes across the country.

    Posted by: Patric | Jan 18, 2010 11:23:51 PM


  17. Patric,

    You said it best! But these angry supreme fags are so angry because Obama won't bow to them and give them what they want. The anger is SMOKESCREENED it's the congress who decides the laws and Thanks to some bitter bitches. Equality will take a further step back because of electing Scott Brown.

    Once he's in DC whatever good he did in MA is a DONE DEAL.He will toe the line with the Conservative Right Wing to make sure fags will not obtain anything.

    Congrats to the Bitter Bitches of Massachussetts!

    Posted by: ax | Jan 19, 2010 5:56:15 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Supreme Court to Hear Washington R-71 Signature Case« «