NOM Issues Hypocritical And Repressive 2016 Presidential Marriage Pledge

Not content with completely humiliating themselves pre-Obergefell, NOM has decided to continue their soon-to-be redundant fight in the era of equality in all 50 states. They have issued a pledge to fight marriage equality, even after the Supreme Court's decision, to the Republican presidential candidates.

The pledge reads (particularly ominous parts bolded):

I, _____ _____, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

One, support a federal constitutional amendment that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Two, oppose and work to overturn any Supreme Court decision that illegitimately finds a constitutional "right" to the redefinition of marriage. This includes nominating to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, and appointing an attorney general similarly committed.

Three, conduct a review of regulatory, administrative and executive actions taken by the current Administration that have the effect of undermining marriage and work to restore our policies to be consistent with the proper understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consistent with this, prevent the promotion of a redefined version of marriage in public schools and other government entities.

Four, support the First Amendment Defense Act and other legislation that recognizes the right of organizations and individuals to act in the public square consistent with their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman without fear of retaliation from the government.

Five, direct the Department of Justice to investigate, document and publicize cases of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

So NOM: you want to "prevent the promotion of a redefined version of marriage in public schools and other government entities." Apart from sounding ominously like Russia's anti-LGBT "propaganda" law, have you considered the implications of this?

Who is going to be prevented from expressing support for marriage equality? Just teachers and administrators? Will students be as well? Either way, expect to run into some major First Amendment problems. You know, we always hear the false and inaccurate whining from the religious right that no one is allowed to say "Merry Christmas" in schools anymore. But apparently, freedom of speech doesn't matter when you guys don't like it.

Do you remember when Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran was fired back in January for distributing a homophobic book at work to his colleagues against their will, and then defying his boss, Mayor Kasim Reed, by publicly declaring, while suspended, that he would continue to do so? Here's what you said:

Our founders prohibited "religious tests" within the constitution for government service so that governments could not punish, fire or refuse to hire those that did not hide their denomination and faith. It is not religious freedom to say that Kelvin Cochran or anyone else has the right to believe what he wants—he just can't talk about it.

But if someone believes in marriage equality, and wants to express that, I guess they wouldn't be allowed to, wouldn't they?

And just in the last couple of days, you have endorsed the "First Amendment Defense Act", which actually goes way beyond the First Amendment, as properly defined by Justice Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith by requiring the federal government to sanction discrimination. This bill is modelled on last Congress'"Marriage and Religious Freedom Act", which you also endorsed. It would have provided that:

The Federal Government shall not take an adverse action against a person, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

But I guess if they acted in accordance with their support for marriage equality, then all bets are off.

Now we move to their next proposal: DOJ investigations of "harassment". What is it going to be doing? Investigating ordinary people because someone said that they were "harassed" by them for opposing marriage equality? Surely you must see, NOM, how this could turn into another McCarthyism, especially when you look at what you consider to be harassment. You recently reported on a Christian business in Iowa that ran into trouble for discriminating against a gay couple like so (emphasis added):

This time, the victims are Richard and Betty Odgaard, the owners of Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, which they bought and turned into a bistro, flower shop, art gallery and wedding venue. Members of the Mennonite faith, the couple had a successful business until they were asked to rent the facility for a same-sex ‘wedding.’ Because their deeply held religious beliefs preclude their participation in something that violates their faith, they declined to be involved. Within 24 hours a complaint was filed with a government agency. After the couple was forced to settle and pay a $5,000 fine, they had to stop participating in wedding celebrations altogether in order not to have to participate in gay ‘weddings’ that violate their faith. But portrayed as bigots, the damage to their reputation was done and the couple is shutting their doors.

Would the people who "portrayed" them as bigots be investigated?

And how can you seriously continue to claim that our side is the intolerant side?