There has been no satisfactory justification presented to the same-sex marriage proponent’s unethical approach to voter intimidation (how could there be?). As a result of their actions, we will likely see a shift in disclosure laws. The Courts are an appropriate place to start, and if fairness does not prevail, there will be a voter correction to the laws.

I wish Molly had discussed a little more the characters that inflame the innuendo and suggest pure meanness as the motive for supporting traditional marriage. Fred Karger is so over the top in his “connect-the-dots” conspiracy theory regarding Mormon takeovers and evil strategies that he has no credibility among the moderate majority. He now is clearly damaging the cause he espouses. No one likes a bully.

His strategy, which has been mentioned, is to attempt to destroy a specific minority religious organization and attempt to embarrass and demean its members. All this as a “shot across the bow” to all of conservative Christianity, or other non-Christian religionists that are fighting to preserve the definition of marriage.

I am grateful for the restraint and measured responses that NOM and others defending the definition of marriage are espousing. No organized listing of donors against traditional marriage, no contacting employers, no boycotting businesses, no creating maps to their homes, no researching their lives and posting their personal, yet publicly available info in this electronic age. These disgusting, unethical and yes, evil tactics are unconscionable and dangerous to personal liberties and freedom of speech, association, as well as voter protection laws.

Source:

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=292761

When is a PAC not a PAC? Apparently whenever NOM decides it isn’t. Rather than file (like the rest of us), they decided to sue.

Go figure that pleading for special exemptions might bring heightened scrutiny.

Whiners.

Since religious bias against Mormons is the only reason that accusation was worth printing, why should the Post even bring it up, since giving light to such a claim is an implicit endorsement of the idea that feeling irrational prejudice against Mormons is a legitimate attitude.

For example, what if the accusation was that Orthodox Jews were major contributors to NOM? It would immediately be seen by many more people that this was playing to an anti-semitic bias among many people. But by using “Mormons” as the target, the Post was relying on the widely shared assumption that it is OK to think of Mormons as Inherently Not to be Trusted, and Presumptively Up to No Good, in a way that most people would object to if the accusation were directed against Jews.

Seriously, there is no other point to the Post’s statement. If they had said large numbers of married heterosexuals had contributed to NOM, or it was a front for people who worship God, the sentence would have no meaning. The reader would say “So what?”

Using the Mormons, however, is an invitation to the reader to exercise his preconceived religious bias against a poorly understood minority group. The accusation is, essentially, that the Mormons themselves are so unpopular that they have to have a “front” like NOM in order to carry out a political agenda. If the Post had added the phrase “and, as you know, Mormons are evil and weird”, it would not have added anything to the semantic content of the statement, because it was already implied by the simple fact that they thought associating NOM with Mormons was the journalistic equivalent of revealing that NOM had horns and a pitchfork.

Also, one of the commenters to the GetReligion noted in Lowell’s post today tries to connect some dots (although it’s not clear whether this effort is an attempt to prop up the WaPo article’s premises or to point the way some of the most vitriolic of the conspiracy-mongering groups).

I smell Mormons. the Mormon church has deep pockets for this nonsense, and hate being revealed as bigots.

In addition to the Mormon funding of the lying Prop 8 campaign in California, it’s believed they’ve pulled some shenanigans with campaign financing law in order to hide Mormon funding of the anti-equality forces in Maine, funneled through the Catholic Church coffers there.

To answer Mollie Hemingway’s question — “Why don’t they [active Christians] get the same scrutiny as the Mormons, who actually may have had no discernible role in the Maine campaign?” — the answer is simple: Mormons are targeted because of their tiny numbers, their distinct theology and history, and especially because leaders on all sides of the political and cultural spectrums actively promote hatred against them. From Hollywood to the Bible Belt, from Maine to the Pacific Northwest, venting hate against Mormons is not merely socially acceptable, it’s encouraged.