Alex Blaze

NOM's Superficial Diversity

Filed By Alex Blaze | May 03, 2011 6:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Media, Politics
Tags: images, NOM, photos, race

Louis Marinelli, the NOM organizer who defected, has a post up about how NOM uses imagery of racially nom-screen-cap.pngdiverse crowds in their promotional materials. The entire thing is worth a read - he publishes a bunch of emails that NOM staffers send each other asking who has pictures of black people at their rallies to put in newsletters and YouTube videos.

Her e-mail message itself wrote:

Does anyone have one they can send Eve Tushnet???

He's black, he's on our side, he's COGIC, I need a close-up please advice [sic]. Maggie

Later on in that same e-mail dialog between the three of us, we came to an agreement about which of the photos that I took would be a good choice for the newsletter to tout the black Bishop's role with NOM and in opposition to same-sex marriage. Maggie wrote:

great! Eve, work with Louis if nec. to figure out how to display this in the newsletter tomorrow. We'll make a big deal of Bishop Battle and COGIC. [sic]

Maggie

That wasn't the end of it. About two weeks later I received an e-mail from Matt Haas of Syndicate Pictures, which handles NOM's visual media items, like the videos they post on YouTube. The August 11, 2010 e-mail was addressed to the two videographers on the road with us from Syndicate Pictures, Justin Haas (NOM's Director of Operations) and to me with the follow subject line: "please interview bishops, at Maggie's request".

It was a short message letting us know that Maggie Gallagher wanted us to arrange interviews with any of the Bishops that came to the rallies in Harrisburg, PA and Washington, D.C., the last two stops of the summer bus tour. That e-mail included quoted text from an e-mail between Maggie and Matt Haas which wrote:

I believe these are COGIC bishops, black bishops. That's why I'm saying make sure we feature and focus on thjem. [sic]

Get interviews.

Any Catholics [sic] bishops that show up interview them too! Maggie

Here's an email from one of their consultants:

This is a great contrast shot of our people all happy and smiling (majority black, only one non-black in the picture) versus the angry counter-protesters. (Josh, this would be a good post. Luke / Colton: We may not a spot right now but keep this one close for future use - maybe a dynamic picture that rotates between positive, happy shots of our people versus our angry foes?) [sic]

I'm not naive enough to believe that conversations like that haven't happened at some point in half the corporate marketing departments in the US. We're a people who's easily duped by imagery of diversity, and white people often like it because it makes them feel less guilty about slavery, Jim Crow apartheid, segregation, and institutionalized racism and think that things are changing materially because Benetton has pretty ads.

Is it right for an advocacy group to be doing the same thing? Well, it's easy to criticize when it's NOM and Maggie Gallagher. Gallagher is just about the most hated person there is in the LGBT blogosphere and when someone we hate does something wrong it's always easy to point it out.

But it's not like LGBT orgs don't do the same thing, keeping power away from minorities, deciding the agenda on their own, and then using stock images as a veneer to make it seem like it's all inclusive. Perhaps the language used to discuss that is less crass, but the effect is the same.

It would behoove us to work on our own diversity to short-circuit these arguments, because complaining to outside parties that NOM is only superficially diverse will ring hollow otherwise.

img a screencap of NOM's website, taken 5/2/2010 by Alex Blaze


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Whenever I read about the National Organization for Marriage, a Cookie Monster voice in my head goes "NOM NOM NOM".

Regan DuCasse | May 3, 2011 8:32 PM

Our side IS more diverse than given credit. Maybe not on all things can agreement be reached, but wherever I've been to do my bit, it's a LOT more mixed than what NOM represents. I don't know about other states where the presence of people of color, especially those who are LGBT, wouldn't be as dense as say, Los Angeles or NYC.
But gay LGBT are not divided so that ONE group deliberately tries to keep one group from having the same things. We differ on how to get there, how to communicate different needs.
Visibility with each other isn't as much of a challenge, I'm sure, as it would be for NOM. It's true that commercial goods and services work to reach out to different communities to gain their DOLLARS.
And sometimes they are more clever and creative about it. And sometimes the racism is blatant and condescending in that attempt at reaching out.

It's the latter that NOM is guilty of. And I'm glad that Louis is pointing this out. NOM is engaging a minority that actually has more in common with gay people, whereas, NOM's history and reps do not.
Note that NOM invokes civil rights icons and goals to further their agenda as if it's justifiable discrimination.
These people can pervert anything, and do.