1. Gary says

    Has anyone else wondered why NOW focuses on preventing same-sex marriages when a significant percentage of heterosexual marriages fail? I would think if they were truly interested in saving marriages that would be the place to concentrate resources on things such as counseling and other family support services

  2. says

    I agree, Gary, and also wonder why they’re not trying to push legislation that would end or restrict the biggest marriage threat of all: divorce.

    Yeah, counseling and family services to help save marriages would be worthwhile, but these are people who think person X and person Y being able to get legally married is going to somehow jeopardize the marriage of person A and B. So attacking divorce would seem to make more sense. (But they won’t touch divorce, because that would infringe upon their own rights.)

  3. just bill says

    that’s because they don’t really care about preserving the institution of marriage, they simply want to discriminate against gays and lesbians. do you expect consistency and rationality from these people?

  4. just bill says

    that’s because they don’t really care about preserving the institution of marriage, they simply want to discriminate against gays and lesbians. do you expect consistency and rationality from these people?

  5. Dastius Krazitauc says

    The message of this video is that if same-sex marriage is allowed in Hawaii, the handsome man in the video would OF COURSE prefer to marry another man, and the lovely woman would OF COURSE prefer to marry another woman. That’s just how appealing homosexuality is, right, NOM?

  6. says

    It was traditional among members of the Hawaiian royal family to marry their brother or sister. Is this the sort of “traditional marriage” that NOM wants to bring back?

  7. Sam says

    Hawaii actually has a decent Mormon population for some reason. Only reason they see an effort to advertise.

  8. ed adams says

    An important development that needs to get more attention in the gay community is the long-term game plan of NOM, AFA, and FRC.

    They know they’ve lost in the industrialized West. It’s just a matter of time.

    Now they’re pumping most of their efforts into turning or keeping as much of Africa and Asia and Eastern Europe as virulently anti-gay as they can. We all have seen Scott Lively in Uganda and Brian Brown in Russia.

    Their ultimate hope is that eventually, through economic and population pressures, the West will be forced to re-import the criminalization of homosexuality.

    The World Congress of Families is at the heart of coordinating this effort.

    LGBTs need to understand that the war on our rights is now global and we and our organizations need to be prepared. Historically, the anti-gay forces have been 10 steps ahead and we have had to play catch-up.

    We can make no mistake about it. What happens in Uganda and Russia has direct implications on what may happen to us. We must increase our mobilization and commitment to the struggle on a world-wide level.

    It would be helpful if blogs like this one start connecting the dots and addressing the issue. It can’t be just a story here on Africa, a story there on Russia. It’s time to bring to light the long-term, well-funded, tightly-coordinated game plan of these virulently anti-gay organizations.

  9. Steve says

    Stop advocating making divorce harder. That’s a really, really stupid idea. Sometimes divorce is the right thing. Especially in abusive relationships.

    It’s also a really stupid idea to “stay together for the children”. They easily pick up on friction even at a young age.

  10. Elwoodl says

    Of course NOM is only trying to preserve the Post Christian “Ohana”. Mahus have had positive traditional roles in Hawaiian culture for hundresds of years before Christians ruined everything.

  11. Bob says


    Most of these people are trying to protect the rich old church people who pay them and the churches that do not know how to accomodate Gays.


  12. says

    This stupid sh*t again? Every time NOM makes an ad, it’s the same stupid scare tactic, claiming that men marrying men will tear families apart and destroy society.

    Of course, bigots said the same thing about interracial marriages 50 years ago, and America hasn’t crumbled into the ocean yet.

  13. simon says

    If you read the comments over there at their Youtube channel, they are even worse than here. 100% thumbsdown. Poor NOM. Poor Brian.

  14. Leslie says

    Ad ends: “…tell your state representative to let the people decide on marriage…”

    The people told the legislature to decide on marriage in 1998. Now NOM wants “the people” (some people) to tell the legislature to let “the people” decide.

    Marriage has never been a popularity contest. And couples never used to go around their state asking total strangers, if they could marry, let alone, to go vote on their marriage.

    Strange definition NOM has of marriage (for some).

  15. Bill says

    Of course NOM wants them “to let the people decide” because that means an expensive initiative campaign with lots of money to raise and spend (which keeps NOM’s management gainfully employed).

    BTW, contrary to the headline of the article, NOM’s video did not come across as hateful – they don’t want to turn the average person off so they went for “positive” messages, a standard propaganda trick. If you aren’t paying attention, what you’d remember is something about men marrying women and some soothing background music, plus some Hawaiian terms that I guess are meant to generate warm, fuzzy feelings. Then when someone is asked to sign a petition to put something on the ballot, there’s a good chance he’ll remember something about marriage, “let the voters decide”, and soothing background music. That encourages people to sign the thing because they’ll forget the details and just vaguely remember some soothing ads.

  16. says

    Yes, the Mormons are powerful and rich in Hawaii. They funded the first round back in the ’90s to stop marriage, and they’re no doubt behind this (and behind NOM in general).