The National Organization for Marriage is dumb.

The National Organization for "Marriage" (NOM) [disclaimer: website extremely moronic] is a organization with non-profit status under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4). This gives the organization the opportunity to raise funds free of most income tax liabilities for the purpose of political policy advocacy.

NOM claims to "provide political intelligence and donor infrastructure on the state level, with a focus on developing new strategies for increasing influence in the Northeast and West Coast, where marriage is most under threat." In reality? It is really moronic.

The Human Rights Campaign has a "End the Lies" campaign in response to NOM.

NOM has this stupid "There's a storm gathering..." commercial that makes some strange claims... click here to watch it. [disclaimer: commercial extremely moronic]

Oh no my child is being exposed to alternative viewpoints at school! (Uh... you can always talk to them at home? Aren't parents supposed to be the primary socializing for kids anyway?)

Help! my marriage with my wife is falling apart because gay people can get married too! (See a shrink?)

One of the lamest claims made is...

"I'm a California doctor who must chose between my faith and my job."

The statement is a reference to a decision issued by the California Supreme Court last August. In Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, some unprofessional doctors withheld medical treatment to a patient (who happens to be lesbian), claiming that their religious beliefs gives them a right to refuse medical treatment to lesbians. The California Supreme Court, applying Californian anti-discrimination law, found that doctors cannot withhold medical treatment based on sexual orientation.

What does same-sex marriage have in connection with doctors denying treatment based on sexual orientation? With the exception of insidious discrimination, I don't see the connection.

I'm not going to address the legal nuisances because the commercial debates policy, not law.

I don't know about you, but if my profession required me to conform to a group of value sets that I am uncomfortable with, and fundamentally conflicts with my faith, I'll quit.

What sort of person engages or continues to work in a profession where the customs of practice contradicts their fundamental values? If a doctor has a fundamental objection to the medical treatment and well being of patients, should they really be a doctor?

I think we can all appreciate that different people have different values. Consistent with those values, some doctors refuse to perform certain medical procedures that they find objectionable (i.e. abortion, fertility treatment, contraception). OK - I can respect that. These individuals opt out of an entire category of potentially profitable endeavors out of a moral conviction, refer patients to other doctors, and move on. When their profession conflicts with their faith, they choose their faith, and aren't whining about it.

But in Benitez, the doctors are willing to provide the same medical treatment to patients who appear to be heterosexual (I doubt the doctors are actually capable of differentiating their patient's sexuality). Really? Do we really want to give doctors the "religious right" to discriminate against each individual patient based on the doctor's particular sensitivities? And ignore patient's well being?

What sort of lame public policy is that?

What if a fundamentalist LDS Mormon doctor, who has actually read Brigham Young (the second "prophet" of the LDS Mormon church), denies medical treatment to an person of African descent suffering from leprosy? Let's pretend that the doctor believes that persons afflicted with dark skin and flat noses are decedents of Cain (murderer of Able), and that the person's ethnicity and leprosy is punishment from God? Should we really say - oh religious freedom - yah go ahead and deny round of antibiotics?

Seriously?

Do we really want a society where professionals in any trade or practice can arbitrary discriminate against consumers based on race, sex, gender, nationality, sexual orientation?

Do we really want an environment where every individual on the planet who has a personal idiosyncratic viewpoint can redefine their job description?

A white supremacist working in the Peace Corp? Aw damn I'm not helping no brown person.

A volunteer combat infantry who is a pacifist? I'll take government pay but when it comes to deployment I'm declaring conscientious objection?

A firefighter who worships fire and has a fundamental objection to putting it out? Burn baby burn!

Absurd.