Apple | DOMA | Facebook | Gay Marriage | News | NOM

NOM's Days Of Future Past

Newmedianom

With basically every major tech company coming out against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, the National Organization for Marriage will soon have no choice but to spread their homophobic word via carrier pigeons, a mode of communication fitting for their early-20th century-inspired hate.

[Image from March 4 Marriage's Facebook page.]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Can we not find a gay breeder of carrier pigeons so that NOM must boycott pigeons as well?

    Posted by: SC David | Mar 2, 2013 5:07:52 PM


  2. word is that the Union of Carrier Pigions have oined the amicus brief as well... NOM may have to resort to a message in a bottle... one can only hope.

    Posted by: Louis | Mar 2, 2013 5:11:21 PM


  3. I have trouble not seeing the above as childish gloating. Of course it is great that companies are coming out for the cause, but the article seems to say that NOM will have trouble communicating (running ads)-- of course, NO media can turn them down, it would be unconstitutional.
    NOM is simply a few bureaucrats headed by mormons and catholics, supported by a few old donors

    Posted by: Bob | Mar 2, 2013 5:45:47 PM


  4. Agree with Bob. This was produced by "The New Normal" crowd. Looks slick, still ultimately sick.

    Posted by: Jake | Mar 2, 2013 6:05:55 PM


  5. @Bob-
    Andrew's article left out the context, so that may have confused you. NOM likes to boycott anyone that supports gay rights. As more businesses support us, NOM finds it harder to keep their ideological pure hatred from getting contaminated. Nobody's trying to deny NOM a voice. They have tried to drive business away from companies that support GLBT persons. It's amusing to see them try to maintain their purity as there are fewer businesses that they can do business with while hewing to their position of avoiding gay-positive businesses. To stay consistent they will have to self-censor or use the services of gay-positive businesses. Isn't that worth a chuckle of schadenfreude?

    Posted by: SC David | Mar 2, 2013 6:06:29 PM


  6. @Bob: There's no constitutional impediment to ANY media refusing to run NOM's ads! The constitution restricts government actions, not media actions.

    And there's nothing wrong with a little childish gloating, either.

    Posted by: Vint | Mar 2, 2013 6:07:10 PM


  7. "Light the way to Justice?" Light the way to my ass....

    Posted by: Jack | Mar 2, 2013 6:08:06 PM


  8. I say GLOAT... GLOAT ON!!! This organization has done (and continues) to do so much damage to the LGBT community this is but a scratch. Sometimes it just feels good to scratch and not have to always take the high road.

    Posted by: RONTEX | Mar 2, 2013 6:16:38 PM


  9. Gloating? B!tch, Ima do a Billy "White Shoes" Johnson Funky Chicken touchdown dance on the steps of the Supreme Court next time I'm in DC, after the SCOTUS pimp slaps Gallagher, Brown, Peters et al back into the 20th century.

    Posted by: Number 84 | Mar 2, 2013 6:17:38 PM


  10. Only gays could give pigeons a bad name.

    Posted by: Gary | Mar 2, 2013 6:18:31 PM


  11. Gary, troll somewhere else!

    Posted by: MateoM | Mar 2, 2013 6:26:49 PM


  12. @SC DAVID -- I am not dumb, not confused, I knew all that. But if they want to buy a copy of Windows or a Mac, they will. And pettiness is not attractive for our cause
    @VINT -- Media running political ads cannot turn down the side they do not like (unless it's religious media, etc) And let's gloat as little as possible: the point is to DEFEAT them, not to be smarter or nicer than them.

    Posted by: Bob | Mar 2, 2013 6:30:30 PM


  13. @Bob what are you talking about?! Broadcast media has to give equal time to candidates in a partisan election (not subject matter stuff like gay rights), but that's because of FCC regulations and an Act of Congress or three; the Constitution has nothing to do with the matter. If anything, the Constitution opposes such restrictions; the FCC can only require equal-time for broadcast media because the government theoretically owns the air.

    You may be thinking of the Fairness Doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the FCC may require broadcast media to present both sides of controversial issues, but that it isn't required to do so. The FCC formally revoked that doctrine a few years ago.

    Posted by: Steven | Mar 2, 2013 7:08:26 PM


  14. SEVERAL trolls above....

    They are probably upset at precisely how **sharp** this ad is.

    The ad is BRILLIANT.

    Posted by: taxpayer | Mar 2, 2013 7:47:36 PM


  15. Bob, you sure sound confused and dumb.

    The issue is not whether or not NOM can do anything. It is not about whether NOM can buy Apple or Microsoft products, but whether or not they have the integrity necessary to actually live up to their own ideological standards.

    They argue that GLBTQ people should do without something of value, as the result of a particular set of principles. Well, as this issue is playing out in society - it is NOM who will be required by their principles - required by their principles - to with-hold from themselves access to products produced by gay-supportive companies.

    And we all know that they will not, because their principles are a fraud, a fake, a veneer to make their hatred and contempt and greed more palatable. They've never been acting on principle, really. And there is no chance they will start now.

    Now, go tell Maggie that you earned your tuppence by posting.

    Posted by: We are Here | Mar 2, 2013 8:19:48 PM


  16. Hey GARY, come on over here a sec, a little further, that's right. SLAP.

    Gloat on dudes...and our little swish cheerleader KIWI will lead the way.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Mar 2, 2013 8:20:26 PM


  17. "They argue that GLBTQ people should do without something of value, as the result of a particular set of principles. Well, as this issue is playing out in society - it is NOM who will be required by their principles - required by their principles - to with-hold from themselves access to products produced by gay-supportive companies."

    YESSSSSSSSSS THANK YOU

    Posted by: bc | Mar 2, 2013 8:29:23 PM


  18. This site should be called KIWI ROAD. It's keeping someone busy.

    Posted by: Josh | Mar 2, 2013 9:06:10 PM


  19. Go find yourself a sink hole Mateom. The "Constitution" that you cling to also allows freedom of speech, and you are showing your age by calling someone a "troll" Prissy control freak..

    Posted by: Meteor | Mar 2, 2013 9:09:55 PM


  20. @WE ARE HERE --- WHAT A COMPLETE ASS!!!
    NOM's integrity is not in question -- they never had integrity
    NOM, if you follow Gay news, has been ineffectual lately, having trouble collecting money
    NOM is less than dogshit on my shoe nowadays, but they USED to be powerful.
    A MUCH MORE POWERFUL ENEMY IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, are you protesting to them?
    It is just sad how some queens who post here did not get over the 1960s bitchy thing

    Posted by: Bob | Mar 2, 2013 9:18:13 PM


  21. doma is actually from the late 20th century clinton era

    Posted by: rick | Mar 2, 2013 11:20:19 PM


  22. Pigeons are probably out too. They've been listed as No.4 on the list of the "Top 25 Gayest Animals" to exhibit homosexual behavior.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-gayest-animals

    Posted by: Rexford | Mar 3, 2013 12:14:32 AM


  23. Gary, every statue and many urbanites have already given pigeons a bad name. Namely, "flying rats."

    Gary, knowing what happens to trolls once they are dragged from their basement lairs and exposed to the harsh light of day, why would you LIKE pigeons?

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Mar 3, 2013 11:06:17 AM


  24. Hilarious. SCDavid said it best and my thoughts echo his.

    Posted by: noteasilyoffended | Mar 3, 2013 11:52:29 AM


  25. This ad is nothing more than childish gloating and counting ones chickens before they're hatched.

    There is no guarantee that all the amicus briefs will have any affect on the supposedly apolitical Supreme Court.

    Honestly, I see DOMA being upheld by the Supreme Court. I also see them using convoluted logic to uphold Prop 8.

    It ain't over until it's over. Childish gloating doesn't help the image of our cause at all.

    NOM may be three or four people but never underestimate the power of the psychology of victimization that can energize our enemies into action.

    If we are going to win these battles, let's do so with a little class. It never helps to stoop to the level of our adversaries.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Mar 3, 2013 2:42:07 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Scott Fujita, Female Todd Akin, Sink Hole 'Abnormal Sexual Oriented' « «