Christopher Plante, NOM's regional director, is telling people of faith that they (a) must have an anti-equality outlook and (b) must use their personal faith to influence shared public policy. That's of course offensive to the millions of pro-equality people of faith who know that accepting the world's full spectrum poses no conflict to their religious outlooks, as well as to the millions more who understand the danger of using personal theology to undermine citizens' civil freedoms.

But that's actually not what I want to focus on here.  Instead, it's the first part of this comment I find compelling:

"There are no 'safe' states anymore, no matter how 'red' they may be politically or how far below the Mason-Dixon Line they are located," Plante warned.

"People of faith need to take advantage of resources to educate themselves about the importance of God's design for marriage, speak boldly to their family and friends about their position, and continue to put political pressure on their elected officials to defend marriage and our religious liberties." [BP News]

NOM's regional director is totally right: there is no such thing as a state that's "safe" for discrimination.  The reasons for that are varied.  And quite frankly, we have NOM to thank for many of them.

For one, people across the nation now know that voting on civil rights is a bad idea.  NOM overplayed its hand here.  With efforts like Prop 8, NOM attempted to turn this debate into a popularity contest, with a movement's ability to win a majority vote supposedly speaking to that movement's merits.  Because NOM was so aggressive on this front, those of us who value a richer civil rights conversation had more opportunity to connect dots for a suddenly-more-receptive public.  Now, in the wake of the Supreme Court decisions, even more people across this country of ours have come to understand that our constitution is more precious than a student council election.  Thanks, NOM!

Also, because NOM has been so insistent on marriage equality being a northeastern, blue state, "liberal" idea, those of us building a pro-equality coalition found ways to use that to our advantage.  We know that there are many people who reside in historically red states, as well as many who vote along GOP lines, who are with us on marriage.  Now, when we highlight these voices, they are even more effective than they would have been.  Every red stater or Republican who takes a stand becomes a direct challenge to the narrative that NOM needs in order to sustain its existence.

And what about the courts?  NOM loves to frame judges who side with marriage equality as "activist," and NOM is fond of claiming that our movement needs such a black-robed advocate to advance.  But lately, our side is having a lot of trouble losing in court.  This is true even when our cases go before Republican-appointed judges, which is precisely why NOM sees a need to come out really aggressively against those judges who side with equality (see their crude and cruel attacks on Justice Kennedy).  They undermine the judiciary's role because it scares the heck out of them!  When it comes down to the fundamentals of equality, a truly fair court will not care whether it is in Mississippi or Massachusetts; a fair judge won't be swayed based upon whether President Obama or President Bush appointed him or her.

Or what about the conversation surrounding rights, history, and the lines NOM uses to keep people from supporting civil equality?  With thirteen states now granting civil marriage equality and the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages, every citizen of every state is increasingly likely to see, know, and consider a few facts about gay couples and what our freedom really means.  When people in states with more rigid polling see these couples, they are going to have to ask themselves a few things: Is this modern fight really that different from past fights?  Where did my state stand then and where does it stand now?  Does my state's stance make me proud?  Does the rhetoric I hear from the anti-gay crowd really square with the ever-apparent reality of marriage gay couples?

I'm more than convinced that southern red states are going to experience an unprecedented change of pace in the days to come.  Christopher Plante is right on this.  Where he is wrong is in his belief that more of the same from NOM is going to change the inevitable tide.  I will always believe that this organization has helped us gain more ground than we might have had it not gotten in the game, and I believe they will help us win the remaining holes in the map—no matter how far south the states are located (*or how far south NOM takes its rhetoric).