Apparently, some people still haven't learn the lessons from January 8, 2011. NOM's one of them.
They've endorsed Claudia Tenney for the Republican primary in New York's 22nd congressional district, which is tomorrow. Here's what they have to say about the district's incumbent, Richard Hanna:
In contrast, Rep. Richard Hanna is rated the 3rd most liberal politician in Washington by the National Journal and in 2013 he endorsed same-sex marriage — only the second sitting Republican member of Congress to do so.
They've also created this graphic:
But
that's not all (emphasis added):
Richard Hanna has abandoned Republican principles and is a foe of New York families. He wants to redefine marriage and has refused to allow voters a say on this critical issue. He's also militantly pro-abortion. Hanna's positions are anti-family and in favor of big government.
[...]
NOM sent a direct mailer to tens of thousands of voters in Hanna's district, New York's 22nd Congressional District noting that Hanna is the 3rd most liberal Republican in the US House, according to National Journal. The mailer said, "On core issues, Richard Hanna has abandoned us." It says that Hanna is "militantly pro-gay marriage" and "shockingly pro-abortion."
We realize that Congressman Hanna may have a lead in this race, but we believe he is unfit to serve New York. We are hopeful that New York voters will shock the establishment just as voters in Virginia did in unseating Rep. Eric Cantor. Regardless of the outcome, we are standing on principle to let Rep. Hanna and his allies in Washington know that we will not sit still and watch liberal Republicans join with liberal Democrats to redefine marriage and kill innocent children. We urge voters to reject Richard Hanna on Tuesday.
Firstly, NOM: Pro-choice and pro-marriage equality is not pro-big government. When you want the government to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies and want the government to tell everyone who they can and cannot marry, that's big government.
Secondly: Did it ever occur to you that maybe he was elected to be a liberal, because New York is a liberal state? If you are indeed right, then maybe he wasn't a good representative of that area, but I don't think that makes him "unfit to serve in New York".
Thirdly: "Militantly pro-gay marriage" seems a little exaggerated.
Lastly: "[R]edefine marriage and kill innocent children"? That is an outrageous, offensive and dangerous comparison. The danger is that it could incite someone to fight back with the same force, i.e. "kill".
If you are voting in the Republican primary for New York's 22nd congressional district tomorrow, I urge you to vote for Richard Hanna.