I got the above brochure in the mail a week or so ago. It's for a guy, Delano Hunter, who is running in Ward 5, the Ward I live, for city council. It's not directly from his campaign but rather the National Organization for Marriage. The thing that's rather ironic is that NOM is trying to pass itself off as some home grown, local organization. The fact is they've only been in DC since last spring (there was a wonderful puff piece about NOM in the Post Style section sometime in April of 2009).
The only reason they moved here was to fight against gay marriage. They don't care about any other issue.
I also like the very conspiratorial language of the "homosexual activists." Seems a rather desperate measure on their part. Sort of reminds me of the "death panels" from last summer's health care debate. It also plays into people fears about some outside group coming along and influencing a local election. The problem is of course as I stated the NOM is essentially outside group. It has a very short history in the District and for them to talk about "our right to home rule" is laughable.
In the paragraph above they state "they don't like his plan to improve our community, but only because he supports the Biblical definition of marriage." Notice they didn't use the word traditional form of marriage. The specifically used the word Biblical. This is to go after people who are religious in the Ward and also imply all those "activists" are some how not believers in God.
In their great wisdom the Post has decided to endorse Hunter saying in part:
Mr. Hunter is not a supporter of marriage equality, but he is not the homophobe his critics make him out to be, but rather someone who thinks there is a way to provide equality for gays while respecting the beliefs of religious groups. He said he would not seek to change the law.
It's interesting that in the brochure there's no talk about that at all. In fact one of the points raised is the "Right of DC residents to Vote on Homosexual Marriage." I'm curious as to how that is not seeking to change the law.
I have to say I'm greatly disappointed in the Post. Their logic on this one is very flawed.
And to NOM I'm awarding the hypocrisy with a capital H award for their brochure.