Wednesday, March 27, 2013

What is it, exactly, that National Organization for Marriage Does?

At some point, some non-profit organizations exist solely to fund their continuing existence. Frankly, I'm not so sure that I want an incompetent adversary to go away. Brian Brown claims that they are going to switch over to a constitutional amendment enterprise if the Court strikes down DOMA. I am all for that.

Let's face it; National Organization for Marriage gets a colossal fail for yesterday's marriage march. Either they grossly overstated the money that they raised, or they grossly overstated their needs, or they grossly overstated the interest of people to attend     or all three. Where were all those buses that donors supposedly ponied up for? The Catholic Church and other religious groups were possibly responsible for most of the attendees. About 40 "sponsors" averaged about 100 bodies each. What did NOM do? Design a marriage discrimination website?


As I noted earlier today, NOM manipulated their donor base. Whether or not any of them realize that they were played is another story. It is a reasonable certainty that some of the money donated was not tax deductible but will, nevertheless, be deducted.

I am formulating yet another referral to the IRS. Unfortunately, the Service does not seem very attentive to non-profit scams.

Notwithstanding various appeals for money, NOM is not "defending marriage" at the Supreme Court. The Prop 8 case is being challenged by a California organization. DOMA is being defended by John Boehner's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

Last November NOM went oh-for-five. Three marriage contests, one constitutional amendment and one judicial retention election were all losers. NOM backed candidates (including Romney) did not fair much better. Aside from the direct losses, a candidate for President of the United States was an avowed proponent of marriage equality and he won.

Not only did NOM lose but their losses were expensive. NOM and state groups were faced with huge bills from Frank Schubert who presumably appropriated the agency fee which could have gone to an in-house agency. Surely, the word has gone out to local marriage discrimination groups.

More recently, NOM lost the battle for civil unions in Colorado. Illinois and Rhode Island are stalled but both are probably inevitable. We seem to be sneaking up on Delaware.

I am guessing that Judge Vaughn Walker was correct all along and that the 9th Circuit erred on Prop 8. From the bench, Walker addressed standing, or what he perceived to be the lack of standing. For the record, while they will try to frame it otherwise, that not really Governor Brown's fault. The real problem is that Protect California could not demonstrate any harm that they would suffer. Marriage discrimination lacks a coherent secular argument. California is done     I hope.

With respect to DOMA, I am guessing that Section 3, and only Section 3, will be invalidated. That leaves us with the proposition of needing one more case to challenge the full faith and credit prohibition. Winning such a case would effect nationwide marriage equality. If that becomes the thrust then there is not much for NOM to do.

I am also hoping that NOM is transformed into a group whose main goal is a constitutional amendment. That would provide NOM was a spectacular opportunity to demonstrate even more incompetence.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.