Gay Marriage | New Hampshire | News | NOM

NOM Uses Obama Rally Photo as Its Own

Nom

Super-sleuth Jeremy Hooper at Good As You once again exposes the fact that NOM are big fat liars.

The National Organization for Marriage is misrepresenting crowds at its rallies by using photos from rallies that people actually attend to try and make the case that the repeal of marriage equality (in this case, New Hampshire) has popular support.

Hooper points out these two photos (above, below).

He's also got another example HERE, where NOM used a Reuters photo of an Obama rally in St. Louis to try and make it look like they've got massive crowds.

NOM is lucky if they can get 100 people to their pathetic anti-equality rallies.

In fact, a recent poll showed that only 27 percent of New Hampshire adults support repeal of marriage equality while 50 percent strongly oppose it. The NH House Judiciary Committee is taking up the repeal issue today.

Obamarally

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. well, it's no secret that Christian Conservatives will happily and readily break God's Ninth Commandment whenever possible and then convince themselves that it's not a lie, because it's a "necessary way to ensure God's plan."

    Yeah. Right. Pious hypocrisy.

    The fight for "traditional marriage" headed by a woman who non-traditionally doesn't use her husband's last name (because it sounds too "foreign" for her target demographic to hear) and raised a son that she had from a drunken fling with a guy she wasn't even in a serious relationship with.

    because that all makes sense. what we see in Maggie Gallagher is a woman who is seeking to punish others as an act of Atonement for her own perceived complicity in sin. It's ridiculous. She lives and anti-gay life to make up for the fact that she had a child out of wedlock. The woman is insane.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Oct 25, 2011 12:40:49 PM


  2. Way to go Jeremy!! I love it when anti-gay organizations are busted on their underhanded tactics.

    Posted by: sparks | Oct 25, 2011 1:27:40 PM


  3. Kiwi, may I say a few words in defense of Maggie here? Yes, Mrs. Srivastav had a child out of wedlock. But wouldn't she have been a hypocrite if she'd had an abortion? And are you certain that Maggie was a Christian conservative back in 1978 when her son was conceived? If she wasn't then she was simply an ordinary teenage girl of the 1970's who was going along with the mores of the times.

    And when people speak of "traditional marriage" that is not a term with an exact definition. There were always famous woman (and long before Maggie's time) who kept their own last names after marriage for a variety of reasons. Within the conservative movement alone I can think of Gertrude Himmelfarb and Midge Decter right off the bat. And as for the idea of Maggie marrying a Hindu and this being non-traditional, couldn't we say that this at least shows she isn't racist? And can Maggie really be in favor of a theocracy if she married a non-Christian man? A theocracy wouldn't allow this.

    What is she had been dating Mr. Srivastav when she was a single mom and decided to break off the relationship rather than marry him due to the race/color/religion difference? Something tells me Towleroad would contain the following:

    "Maggie G....the perfect HYPOCRITE! Yes, she has a child out of wedlock and then refuses to marry a guy who loved her and wanted to provide her with a "traditonal" home. And why? Because it's a "sin" to marry a non-Christian. Because he wasn't the right color. Yeah, great Maggie. Keep your kid fatherless. Keep your bloodline white. really KKKoool, huh?"

    As to the use of Obama's photo, clearly they should use photos only from their own events. I'll grant you this much.

    Posted by: Mary | Oct 25, 2011 8:36:42 PM


  4. I guess in the interest of full disclosure I should say that I am Maggie's half-sister...we have different mothers but the same father...who is in jail now serving time for polygamy.
    It probably shouldn't matter, but like my sister, I believe in full transparency.

    Posted by: MARY | Oct 25, 2011 10:17:21 PM


  5. "Mary", (or whatever your real name is), I am not Maggie's sister and I've never met her (although ironically, we are about a year apart and come from similar backgrounds). But I do consider myself a supporter of NOM. Instead of being snarky, why not try responding to what I wrote, or making a legitimate comment regarding Andy's post?

    Posted by: Mary | Oct 25, 2011 10:43:28 PM


  6. Well, Mary Number 2, Thanks for coming onto this site and telling all of us gay people that we deserve less than you. You've made our day.

    Posted by: Wilkby | Oct 25, 2011 10:55:47 PM


  7. To all the Marys: The only legitimate response to this post is to call out NOM for once again using lies and deceit to further their anti gay-family agenda. Since they don't have justice on their side, and their rallies are ignored by the public, they must resort to false propaganda to keep the cash flow from the churches to Maggie and the other leaders' pockets steady. Their only purpose is to line their bank accounts by stirring up up bigotry and animosity towards gay couples, parents, and children. Equality harms no one. NOM is selling snake oil to the ignorant.

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 25, 2011 11:21:01 PM


  8. The irony is that we see (presumably str8) soldiers dancing with each other in musical videos they put online all the time.

    Posted by: Coach Outlet | Apr 23, 2012 5:32:08 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Rick Perry Says He Perpetuates 'Birther' Talk Because 'It's Fun': VIDEO« «