NOM-NH runs ad slamming GOP legislators for gay marriage vote

The New Hampshire chapter of National Organization for Marriage launched a brutal ad campaign on Friday, targeting 87 Republican state representatives who voted against the recent bill to repeal the state’s law allowing same-sex marriage.

The ad accuses the legislators of misrepresenting their support for traditional marriage to voters when running for office, points out that every Republican presidential candidate opposes same-sex marriage, and singles out Manchester Rep. Michael Ball for a statement he made that the ad says “mocked the very institution of marriage that God himself authored.”

View the ad here:


Author: Staff Reporter

Share This Post On
468 ad
  • Mike Ball

    The people at NOM who created this ad apparently couldn’t be bothered to hire a fact checker which would have prevented the misleading quote attributed to me. I would venture a guess that fact checkers are a lot cheaper than erroneous, full page, newspaper ads. The comment NOM attributed to me was made in reference to House Bill 437, a poorly written, ill conceived, hateful piece of segregationist tripe that would make a Klansman blush. I DO NOT think there is anything wrong with the institution of traditional marriage. In fact, I have been in one for the past 25 years with my high school sweetheart.  I DO believe, however, that HB 437 is a dog of a bill that deserved to be put out of its misery. When HB 437, stripped of all of its amendments, was revealed to the members of the House, they overwhelmingly turned their backs on it and killed it on the spot. Many members who are adamantly opposed to gay people being allowed to marry couldn’t bring themselves to support this bill because even they recognized that it stripped our gay citizens of both the right to marry AND the right to have a civil union. It left them with nothing at all and the huge numbers of Republicans were revolted by this basic unfairness toward our fellow citizens. If the folks at NOM had spent 5 minutes reviewing the speech I made on the House floor, they would have known this. Since they apparently have no Sherlock Holmes types working at NOM, I’ll make it easy on them. Go here:  and click on “Afternoon Video” for the 3/21/12 session and fast forward the video to about the 3:26 mark. Watch for yourself and then decide if NOM has any distant acquaintance with the truth.

    NH State Rep. Mike Ball – Hillsborough District 9

  • C. dog e. doG

    The sooner we get Nanny out of the matrimonial business, the better.  Then we don’t have to listen to the sanctimonious posturing of NAGS, NOMS, this church, that church,  and the janitor down at the local gov’mint school.  Time to let the adults swim in the deep end of the pool, sans Nanny Guard.
    – C. dog treading water lookin’ for rapid move toward freedom

  • Greenpoint Guy

    NOM is a disgusting hate group.  I hope this massive failure on their part to turn back marriage equality marks the beginning of the end for them.

  • Alice Johnson

    *To all those who read here: we are
    continuing a conversation about why gay marriage is bad for children.

    Overcame!! Hi!

    Yes, you caught me.

    You said, “You look at your own
    little situation and ask, if everything else is so screwed up, why
    not just allow you to be yet another of unconventional lifestyles
    that aren’t nearly as bad as others?”

    I did say that, you’re right. I guess I
    was trying to make you admit that my little situation couldn’t be
    anywhere near as important as the others I mentioned. So I want to
    say two things. First, you SHOULD be working 100 times as hard to
    change the other problems as you are changing gay marriage. The kind
    of abuse and neglect in broken families is sometimes criminal. I
    guess I’m not in favor of legislating them out of it against their
    will because it’s very hard to judge exactly what is best for the
    children in each situation.

    Just to be clear, I’m speaking of
    people who divorce, even though it will affect their children
    adversely; people who DON’T divorce and it affects their children
    adversely; people who don’t marry the other parent of their children,
    such as single moms; or anyone who does not have the kind of marriage
    you believe is right: Only Mom, Dad and kids of their own DNA. I
    guess we could collectively call them ‘the bad parents’ or something
    like that, but you also want to include single women who DO work and
    who have an Uncle Bob who comes over twice a week to be with his
    favorite nephew, who has a mother who loves to be Grandmother to her
    favorite grandchild, and so forth. You want to include people who
    adopt children. You want to include folks in many situations,
    including MY little situation in which my children will have two
    loving, intelligent, responsible, committed parents – who happen to
    be of the same sex.

    Second, I am really afraid that if each
    family were to go before a judge of some kind to have their family
    situation examined, who can say that these kids suffer over here and
    will be better for A, B and C types of behavior modifications on the
    part of the parents; or worse, that the kids aren’t suffering at all
    and these parents can now go home and begin abusing their kids all
    over again. The judges will have to be people, and people seldom
    understand other people’s family love or whatever binds them
    together. I’m really afraid that a judge could demand to examine my
    family (say, ten years in the future) and to take my perfectly happy
    family apart because someone told him once that two women cannot
    raise happy children. Okay, I guess I’m saying that no one has the
    right to judge these things. That’s why I’m so reluctant to back any
    kind of legislation that is meant to incentivize revision of behavior
    such as taking away a woman’s welfare payments because she has
    children under school age, can’t work, and doesn’t have a husband in
    the picture. She needs the payments, because she can’t work with
    three toddlers (babysitting is more expensive than any job could
    support) – so if you take them away, the kids will suffer. If you
    leave the situation be, more and more women will put themselves into
    that situation, knowing there is a safety net. Here, I think, it’s
    all about the children, not about shaming the adults. So I can’t
    think of any safe way to change that behavior, that trend of
    behavior. (Can you?) The federal government and most state
    governments give tax breaks and numerous other financial
    considerations to a man and a woman who go through a marriage
    ceremony, thereby incentivizing straight marriage.

    But, my dear, that doesn’t really
    work, does it? QED. So looking around at the wasteland of broken
    families of all kinds, the millions of families who do not have the
    blueprint you have created, you choose to back legislation which
    denies me the right to those same financial incentives because –
    well, why? Because it is wrong, even if the wrongdoing is in a
    misdemeanor class that is a galaxy away from the pernicious abuse of
    children who grow up with no love or training or schooling that a
    parent should do and those who would love to be adopted – by
    anyone! – regardless of whose DNA they carry, and so forth. You are
    looking at a scale of wrongness which, if you made it into a bar
    chart, would show my ‘wrongness’ as just a tiny little line above the
    bottom of the chart, and next to it, bars that represent hundreds or
    thousands or googols of magnitude greater in wrongness than the bar
    with my name on it.

    You say, well, it’s still wrong, and
    it’s something I can fix now with this anti-gay-marriage law.

    What I want you to see is this tiny,
    minuscule amount of righting a wrong wrecks my life and gains you
    practically nothing on your journey to make marriages work your way.
    I hope I am making myself understood, here; I’m not the best writer.
    I’m saying, look at those kids who are so poor they go to school
    without breakfast every day because they have no father – then tell
    me my kids are suffering because they carry DNA from a father they’ve
    never known. I’m saying, look at kids who are not loved by anyone,
    even their mothers, who grow up believing in negative self-worth and
    carry a vicious attitude toward the world that wronged them; then
    look over again at my happy family where, yes, there is no DNA-father
    present, but where my kids are so strong, happy, self-worthy, and
    intelligent – pushed to achieve, but loved when failure occurs; my
    kids will go to college with no baggage of neglect, abuse, poverty or
    strange sexual ideas that warp their lives. (I know, I know, this is
    all in the future – it hasn’t happened yet – but I have
    references! My first three kids have accomplished all this and more.)
    I think I have some experience in mothering, without a dad being an
    equal support; I think it will all go much more beautifully with an
    extra mom instead of an abusive dad.

    Now, go look again at the hopeless kids
    – not necessarily the ghetto kids who can’t read and don’t care,
    but the ones there in your middle-class neighborhood whose home lives
    are terrible, who wet the bed due to anxiety, who fail in school due
    to non-caring parents, who are being sexually abused by their cousin
    charlie, who are dyslexic but no one cares enough to test them for
    it, etc etc. Am I really so bad? Do you really want to spend your
    time and the government’s money to create a law that will not even
    FIX my particular situation – it is going to happen anyway, legal
    marriage or not?

    Possibly, you want to pass a law that
    makes same-sex parenting illegal, but you’ll never get anywhere with
    that. Instead, you want to strip me of the right to call my
    sweetheart ‘wife’ – and how will this protect my children or any
    others? How can you incentivize something like that away?

    Back later. Bye.