The National Organization for Marriage was the first anti-LGBT organization to attempt to exploit last week’s shooting at the Family Research Council, with Brian Brown lashing out at the Southern Poverty Law Center for what he called its “incendiary rhetoric” of designating “hate groups.” Other organizations like the American Family Association and FRC itself followed suit. If that messaging strategy were not deplorable enough, NOM is now using the tragedy for fundraising purposes, according to an email Brown sent out today describing the shooting as a hate crime against Christians, though it has not been designated as such:
We must fight back and condemn violence against anyone. It has no place in civil society.
But we must also fight back against the violent and hateful tactics of intimidation being pursued every day by gay “marriage” thugs and activists. They will do whatever it takes to intimidate Christians and marriage supporters including harassing people at home and work.
The National Organization for Marriage is fighting back to defend marriage from gay activist bullies but I need your immediate contribution of $50, $100, or as much as you can give right now to fight back. […]
P.S. We’re not going to allow gay activists to get away with attempted murder. And we’re not going to shut up so they can go about the business of redefining marriage. We’re going to fight, and we’re going to win. But we can only do this if you stand with us today. That’s why we need your immediate contribution of $50, $100, or as much as you can give right now to fight back for marriage.
The insult of the fundraising ask aside, NOM’s rhetoric has escalated to a dangerous level. The organization is committed to “fighting back” against a shooting? “Gay activists” and “gay ‘marriage’ thugs” are to blame for “attempted murder,” instead of one troubled individual acting alone? This is nothing short of inciting opponents of marriage equality to engage in their own violent backlash, then asking for donations as an alternative. The more NOM tries to claim that advocates for equality are the ones using “incendiary rhetoric,” the weaker its case becomes.