Carrie Prejean | News | NOM

NOM Actively Sought Out 'Glamorous Non-Intelligent Celebrities' to Sell Its Anti-Gay Message


GLAAD's Aaron McQuade pulls a gem out of yesterday's National Organization for Marriage document dump. NOM actively sought dumb but beautiful celebrities to advance its national message. "All the beautiful people are supposed to be for gay marriage," whines their document.

Maggie_gallagherFrom p. 19/20 of one document:

"Hollywood with its cultural biases is far bigger than we can hope to be. We recognize this. But we also recognize the opportunity - the disproportionate potential impact of proactively seeking to gather and connect a community of artists, athletes, writers, beauty queens and other glamorous non-cognitive elites across national boundaries. (This is applying the Witherspoon and IAV model to non-intellectual elites.)"

PrejeanNOM's basis for thinking this way seems to be based on the splash made by former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, which they note in the subsequent paragraph:

When Carrie Prejan first burst on the national scene, the Miss California USA organization responded by cutting an ad featuring beauty pageant queens who were for gay marriage. This effort fell completely flat: nobody noticed because no one was surprised. All the beautiful people are supposed to be for gay marriage. One Carrie Prejean had an enormous, disproportionate effect on the national debate (at least temporarily) because she interrupted Hollywood's nomopoly, its false cultural assertion that youth + beauty = support for redefining marriage.

What NOM fails to realize is that it's the people who are beautiful on the inside that are for marriage equality.

Said Herndon Graddick, GLAAD’s Vice President of Programs and Communications: "Celebrity or not and 'cognitive' or not, given how cynically NOM views its supporters, who would want to stand with them and support their agenda?"

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I'm assuming they mean Institute for American Values, but who knows? NOM supporters' pools of reference are likely to be small (and odd), if they expect immediate understanding when referring to "the IAV and Witherspoon models."

    Posted by: cwm | Mar 31, 2012 6:27:45 AM

  2. Well, if there's one work that sums up Presean perfectly, it's "non-cognitive".

    Posted by: mododavid | Mar 31, 2012 7:44:37 PM

  3. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «7 Minutes in Heaven with Jon Hamm: VIDEO« «