NOM Employee Promotes Transphobic Ads To Attack Alaska Non-Discrimination Measure
April 03, 2012 9:23 am ET by Carlos Maza
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is best-known for its work to exclude gays and lesbians from participating in the institution of marriage, but its anti-LGBT agenda goes far beyond the marriage debate.
Over the past few years, the group has branched out into promoting other forms of anti-LGBT discrimination, including:
- Denying gay couples the ability to adopt children
- Refusing service to gay couples preparing for a wedding
- Blocking efforts to make public schools LGBT-inclusive
Now, the list of NOM-approved anti-LGBT discrimination is getting a little bit longer.
In an April 2 tweet, NOM’s cultural director Thomas Peters asked his supporters in Alaska to vote against Proposition 5 – a measure that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT people in employment, financial practices, housing, and other businesses in the city of Anchorage. According to Peters, the non-discrimination law threatens “religious liberty & business owners”:
[Thomas Peters tweet, 4/2/12]
The videos Peters refers his supporters to are a series of ads produced by “Protect Your Rights,” an anti-gay group with ties to the anti-LGBT Alaska Family Council. The ads themselves have been condemned for their promotion of transphobic stereotypes. One ad warns that Prop 5 would require day care owners to hire a “transvestite,” while another plays up fears about men entering women’s locker rooms. Both are complete with wildly offensive depictions of transgender people:
As outrageous as it is to see a NOM employee openly endorsing this kind of anti-LGBT propaganda, it isn’t the first time that a NOM employee has lobbied against basic non-discrimination laws. In 1996, NOM co-founder and board member Maggie Gallagher wrote:
I oppose extending anti-discrimination laws to gays for many reasons — a distaste for big government, fear of the job-shrinking side-effects of more lawsuits, a sense of injustice that a small affluent group should be pressing for new economic protections.
Peters’ rhetoric about protecting “religious liberty & business owners” closely mirrors the language used by NOM while opposing marriage equality. Now that two top NOM employees are on the record criticizing even basic efforts to prevent anti-LGBT discrimination, can there still be serious doubt about what the organization’s long-term goals are?