Reader comments · US: NOM admits it can’t find anyone in Oregon to back defence of same-sex marriage ban · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Current Affairs

US: NOM admits it can’t find anyone in Oregon to back defence of same-sex marriage ban

  • Riondo

    ‘Lots of nice Oregon folk want to take up the cause but don’t dare because those nasty lgbt terrorists will get them if they stick their necks out. For that very same reason we can’t say who they are or offer any evidence for their existence just in case they wake up buried under a pink bridge.’
    Oh, please. We are deafened by the sound of barrel-bottoms being scraped.
    Just face the fact that nobody wants the embarrassment of betting on the nag that everybody knows is going to lose.

  • Jasr

    I think the right wingers are slowly starting to realize that supporting this type of organizations, tags you for the rest of your life.

    • Joeoz

      Yes indeed!
      The internet never forgets!
      I wonder how these people will feel when…
      Someone finds out what lunacy they up to, way back when…?

      A bit like asking…”What did you do in the war Daddy?”

      • Like a certain Mozilla CEO.

        I don’t get what the problem is with these crazies. If it were a politician of the 1950’s in the press for proudly funding the KKK it would be deemed correct that this be remembered in history, but somehow funding a hate group attacking LGBT people is not the same… yeah, to those who are also bigots it might not be the same, but they should still be remembered in history for the things they campaigned for and supported.

  • Yesh U R

    Why not call on Jesus to appear on their behalf? Sorry, that’s right that’s just another fabrication like the one they are trying on in Court at the present time. Well they could always fall back on the good old rolling on the floor and talking manic gibberish, sorry, they do that all the time and it hasn’t got them what they want. OK back to Jesus.

    • Joeoz

      Love your post…!
      You must remember, you really can’t ask Jesus to make a personal appearance!

      Jesus and god just don’t work that way! You must remember
      the last time that Jesus did a show stopper was 2000 years ago…

      Ladies and Gentlemen… Jesus has left the building!

  • David Waite

    I expect Judge McShane will respond, “The court will consider NOM’s request to intervene on behalf of its members as soon as NOM submits a sworn true copy of its membership rolls..” NOM keeps its membership/donor lists secret.

  • Ra

    That is bullshit. In the whole state they could not find one stupid, hating nut to hook their case on? They are just using this as a ruse to reinforce their new idea that the gay mafia is so strong that people are afraid of them. They are losing and being seen for who the haters they are, and now they want to project they are being beaten-up by the gays.

    • Joeoz

      hear, hear…!
      Now that things are going pear shaped for them, they’re getting more and more desperate… It appears to be an old tactic! These nutters have been attacking, equal marriage and the LGBT community has fought back! Now that NOM are losing their futile fight, they want to blame the LGBT community.
      These religious nutters are beginning to sound like the boy who cried wolf…

      Cry wolf too many times and no one will listen…!

      • Yesh U R

        It’s the time they cry wolf and it comes around to bite them on the arse I want to watch. Oh! hang on a moment, that’s exactly what’s happening right now isn’t it?

        • Joeoz

          Hope the wolf just doesn’t bite them… hope it tears a large chunk out of their, holier than thou, fat backsides!

  • Truth

    That’s because, unlike you homophobic, religious bigots, most people understand the concept of ‘equality’ and how despicable it is that religion has sought to deny gay people the same rights as everyone else.

  • Bullsh*t are they scared of “reprisals”, they’re scared of their family, friends and colleagues finding out they’re a bigot!

    I just read comments on YouTube from people attacking Michael Sam saying they’d lost friends on Facebook because they posted their opinion on the kiss. That’s what people are “scared of”, they know that they are a bigot and in a minority, and they’re too scared to stand up and say something they know they would be rejected for saying.

    • tom_beauchamparnold

      They lost friends on Facebook! Oh, noes!!!
      No equality for us gays, then.

      • I find it all rather amusing, but it shows the level of thinking they’re at. They’re like the Republicans who complain that it’s intolerant for us to be intolerant of their intolerance, that we should give them their “right” to attack us. These people think the same way, they just don’t understand that sensible and rational non-bigots don’t want to be associated to bigots, and they call this “gay mafia”.

        In reality it’s just decent people making a moral choice to reject those who are hateful.

    • Gary D. Sargent

      I’d say that it’s a little bit of both. U.S. law can be labyrinthine at times, and straight forward, at others. As was said, SCOTUS’s decision leveled the playing field and put the burden of incontrovertible proof on the denier’s backs. As to the other, the haters and bigots are just now discovering that the stereotypes they’ve used in the past to bully us are embarrassingly outdated and we’ve not only gained courage and cohesiveness, but we’ve amassed supporters from the heterosexual population, as well. They’re discovering that that “lace glove” has a titanium fist in it. They’ll find that there are a lot more “ouchies” in their future.

  • Oliver216

    Ironically they reference National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama as one of the precedents by which they should be able to intervene on behalf of their members.

  • Maryland Kid

    This article is a little bit misleading. Oregon is a reasonably large State, with about four million people. I’m sure that they could find plenty of people who are dissatisfied with this ban and are willing to voice that concern to the Federal Courts. The problem that NOM is facing in Oregon, not that you would gather this from their claims of intimidation and scare tactics, is one of finding a defendant with Standing to appeal the law.

    For a private individual to act as a plaintiff or defendant in a Federal Court Case, they must first establish Standing. In layman’s terms, this means that they have to be able to prove that the laws being reviewed by the court can reasonably be said to affect them. So, for example, if I wanted to bring a case to the Federal Courts challenging a State law concerning the manufacture of pork products, then I would first have to prove that I am actually involved in the production of pork and that the law affects me. Likewise, if such a case were brought against a State Government and they refused to defend the law, I have the right, as a private citizen, to step in and become the defendant, but only if I were first able to establish that I have Standing.

    If you remember, a while back the voters of California passed a ballot measure called Proposition 8, which banned the civil recognition of same sex marriages by the State government. A group of LGBT Californians filed a lawsuit against the California Attorney-General on the grounds that Prop. 8 violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. The Democratic California State Government refused to defend the law to the Federal Courts, so a Republican State Senator named Dennis Hollingsworth stepped to defend the law on behalf of the citizens of California who voted in the majority to pass Proposition 8. This case, which was renamed Hollingsworth v. Perry, eventually made it’s way to the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed on grounds of standing. In the Majority Opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court argued that the citizens of California could not reasonably demonstrate “personal and tangible harm” as a product of allowing LGBT Californians to marry. Since the United States has a Common Law Judiciary, this decision sets an enforceable legal precedent throughout the entire jurisdiction of the appellate court, which in the case of SCOTUS is the entire country.

    Under this Common Law established by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry, it has become extremely difficult to establish standing for any case such as this. In fact, under a strict interpretation of the Hollingsworth decision, it could be argued that only the Governor, Attorney General or Legislature of a State would be capable of establishing standing in a challenge to a same-sex marriage ban. In the case of Oregon, of course, all three have declined to defend the law, which is not surprising seeing as they are led by Democrats in a fairly liberal State. Some conservatives are using a much broader interpretation of the decision to argue that county clerks have standing to appeal, but this is extremely questionable seeing as a county official cannot contradict state law. Either way, there are a finite number of clerks in each State and it is not a very large pool to find plaintiffs or defendants from.

    Which brings us to the real issue here. SCOTUS has established such a narrow definition of Standing in Hollingworth v. Perry that it is essentially impossible to find somebody who has the legal authority to defend the law. It’s not that people are scared to stand up in court, but rather that NOM cannot find a business owner or county clerk who could provide a shred of evidence that they are directly adversely affected by same-sex marriage without those arguments being thrown out immediately by the Circuit Courts. By taking away the “generalized grievance” argument that conservatives have been cowering behind so far, SCOTUS has effectively neutered the anti-LGBT movement, at least in the liberal states.

    So while the arguments of NOM are, of course, complete bullshit in this situation, it’s a lot more complex and interesting than either they or Pinknews explains.

    • Yesh U R

      You are, of course absolutely right in your comprehensive posting on this matter. I would only add this the Republican Party and especially the Tea Party, which is wingnut section of it have had the entire foundation of their anti-LGBT position entirely demolished by Hollingsworth v Perry but because they are incapable of reasonable consideration of anything involving facts they will keep beating their bone heads on brick walls all the while blaming us for their headaches. Long may it be so, I have waited fifty years for this event and I am enjoying every single moment of it too.

      • Maryland Kid

        Why thank you! I think that Hollingsworth v. Perry ended up being slightly overshadowed by The United States v. Windsor. A lot of folks don’t understand just how badly Hollingsworth eviscerated the arguments of the far right. Not to mention that as a legal decision, Hollingsworth is just far more interesting than U.S. v. Windsor, not to diminish the significance of the latter.

        I absolutely agree with your assessment of the current situation on the political right in this country. I think that it’s kind of a pity, really. You know, I really admire the old-school Republican politicians like Eisenhower and Ford. Even Nixon, for all his faults, was a moderate who supported a pragmatic domestic economic agenda. I consider myself a progressive democrat, but I think that it is very important that our nation’s political system always has a strong and reasonable opposition. So watching the Republican Party being hijacked by the Religious Right has been a bit of a disappointment to me. Though I would be lying if I said that I don’t get any pleasure out of watching the Tea Party self-destruct.

  • Steve_R

    Finally they found themselves battling the current on the creek without a paddle, and no one rushing to their rescue! That happens when you cry wolf once too often!

  • sJames6621

    ttkae a good look at Brian Brown – head of NOM. He kind of has the same kind of lips as disgraced minister ted haggard, outed by hiis boyfriend mike jones. Brown also has a someowhat feminine look if you can mentally peel back the extra layers of fat on his face – he’s prob both gay and a bottom

  • Robert W. Pierce

    They’ve lost the cultural war. From what I’ve read of this hate group, not one case of reprisals against any NOM donor has occurred and certainly no legal action brought. It has several court cases in which it was told to divulge its list of donors but so far has not complied. That nobody wants to back their defence is going to impact their coffers. Major donors and two important benefactors,he Mormon and Roman cults are going to think twice before throwing millions of dollars at them. A waste of money that could have gone to the poor, you know that Christian principle of feeding the hunger, giving shelter to the poor, none of which they uphold. So, that said, where is their god in all this, why hasn’t he helped them?

  • Aron Sasportas

    Oregon’s ban on same-gender marriage is eviscerated already because the state recognizes same-gender marriages lawfully performed elsewhere, so that all that same-gender couples need do is hop over the state border to California or to Washington, marry there, come back with a valid certificate of marriage, and the State of Oregon will recognize it.

    It’s clear from the 2600-word description of the current situation in Oregon in “Equal Human Rights and Civil Rights for All Persons, No Matter Their Gender, No Matter Their Sexual Orientation: A Newsletter” ( that the days of the state’s ban are numbered.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.