Tell Christie to Withdraw Nomination of Pro-SSM Judge For Extremist Views Equating Christianity and Slavery


Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I need your help right now to stop Gov. Christie from making a horrible mistake—appointing a radically pro-gay marriage anti-Christian judge to the state supreme court.

Click here to send Gov. Christie a message.

Gov. Chris Christie has been the hope of millions of Americans across the country looking for honest conservative leadership.

Last week we asked you to thank Gov. Christie for saying he will follow through on his campaign promise to veto same-sex marriage.

This week, we have urgent and terrible news to report—Gov. Chris Christie's nominee to the New Jersey Supreme Court is not only an outspoken advocate for gay marriage, he has extreme and hateful views equating traditional Christian views on sex and marriage with slavery.

This kind of intemperate and extreme view should be totally unacceptable in a GOP judicial nominee.

Yet Gov. Christie's proposed supreme court nominee Bruce Harris sent this email in 2009 to State Senator Joe Pennacchio urging him to vote for gay marriage:

"When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that's the way it's always been, I think of the many "traditions" that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these "traditions."

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman's letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you'd explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates—and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion."

Governor Christie says that Harris has promised to recuse himself when the same-sex marriage comes before the court, but even this unenforceable promise misses the bigger issue: a man who cannot tell the difference between supporting our traditional understanding of marriage and wanting to enslave a people lacks common sense and judicial temperament.

And to suggest that legislators should ignore the views of religious constituents, that moral views grounded in the Bible are somehow illegitimate in the public square, seriously compounds the offense.

These are not the words of a judicial conservative, a man who believes in common sense, strict construction of the state constitution—the kind of judge Gov. Christie promised to appoint to the court.

How did this happen?

When Assemblyman Mike Carroll was sent a copy of that email by a reporter, he had one word in response: "Yikes."

Gov. Christie's nomination of Bruce Harris appears to be a result of a failure in the vetting process, not a deliberate backhanded backroom betrayal by New Jersey's governor. If so, the Governor can and must honorably withdraw the nomination.

The next generation of GOP leadership on the national level have to understand: knowingly appointing radical anti-religious justices is unacceptable.

Please, right now, send Gov. Christie a message keep him from making a terrible mistake marring his record. Tell Christie: Withdraw the Bruce Harris nomination today. Protect our judiciary from radically unconservative judges with extremist views pushing gay marriage and equating Christianity with slavery.

Take Action Now

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.


  1. tam
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Most. Dishonest. Headline.


  2. MIke J.
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    NOM, thanks for the early birthday gift. I can't wait for Christie to tell Brian what to do with this. Go ahead and insult your biggest ally in NJ!

  3. Bobby
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    How incredibly dishonest and misleading. One need only read Harris' words to see that that's NOT what he said. Face it, NOM opposes him because he's gay. Brown would prefer to see no gay people holding public office - ever. That is bigotry pure and simple.

  4. Son of Adam
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    If Bruce Harris doesn't even know that the seperation of church and state is found nowhere in the Constitution, then he has no business being a State Supreme Court Justice, let alone a judge.

  5. Posted January 31, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Sadly, too many judges are lacking good judgement.

  6. Garrett
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Brian, come out of the closet already. It's obviously getting too cramped in there for you.

  7. james2
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    I believe gay citizens should have the same rights as straight citizens.

  8. Son of Adam
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    They already do, james2.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    James2,all citizens have an equal responsibility to completely refrain from same-sex sexual activity and criticize any defense of it anyone attempts to offer.

  10. Paul Cook-Giles
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    Louis, you appear to be suffering from the misapprehension that your opinions should have the force of law on your fellow citizens.

  11. M. Jones
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    This appointment is another attack on Religious liberty. The judge must go, we don't put a fox in charge of taking care of the hen house.

  12. tam
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Louis, are you ever going to explain WHY?

  13. Leo
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    @ PCG, and tam,

    Do you think same sex sexual active is worthy of promoting, and if so please explain? And try to stay subject!

  14. Mary
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    Tam, the reason is Louis is an extremely self-hating homosexual, who must constantly tell himself (he thinks he's telling us; he's really telling himself) that his homosexuality is horrible and unforgivable.

  15. M. Jones
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 3:14 am | Permalink

    Homosexuals are loved, buy like a good parent, sometimes you have to say no. No you cannot re-define marriage for the rest of us, now be good and go out and play nice.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Anyone else notice that when marriage corruption supporters are really mad the worst thing they can think of to insult you with is to declare you to be a homosexual?

    Sociopaths are like that; declaring you to be responsible for the crimes they are guilty of.

  17. Mr Burt Trattner
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    I have this German Shepard dog. I have him since a puppy. We sleep together and I really love him. Harris should be asked, why can't we get married? We are also best friends..

  18. leo
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    ...try to stay on subject!

  19. Louis E.
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Mary,my sexual interest is entirely in women.The tired old line that anyone who takes opposing the homosexual agenda seriously must be secretly homosexual is nonsense.So long as there are people who deny that same-sex sex is wrong,they need to be told that it IS wrong.

  20. ResistSSA
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Ha, ha, Randy King, that is so true! They themselves know what an insult it is to be called homosexual.

    I think many of them secretly dislike the orientation they have adopted but find it too difficult or feel that they are unable to fight it. I think many of them would welcome reorientation therapy if their cohorts wouldn't attack them over it,

  21. kieran
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink


    Why is same sex sexual activity "wrong", Louis E? Please explain.

  22. JR
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Louis E. - If your sexual interest is "entirely in women", why is it that at 50 years of age you are not yet married? You have stated your age here and your conviction that you could not marry in your home state of New York because marriage equality is law in NYS. Is there a potential Mrs. E who also shares your rabidly anti-gay views and cannot marry in NYS as well? Or is there no potential Mrs. E?

  23. Vilous
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Randy, ResistSSA,

    Actually, the derogatory thing they are calling you is a probable hypocrite and an "Uncle Tom"

    Its not even that subtle, really.

  24. Vil
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Randy, ResistSSA,

    Actually, the derogatory thing they are calling you as a probable hypocrite and "Uncle Tom".

    Its not even that subtle..

  25. Mr Burt Trattner
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Don't call pro Choice republicans Liberal. You will destroy the republican party by calling pro choice Republicans liberal. Why do you think Santorum and Bachman Paul are by the wayside? Why did romney win FL. News Flash! Not because of the negative $ adds. It's for same reason that the other 3 qualified candidates are behind. If Palin was pro-choice McCain would be president.
    Newts contract with America includes overturning Roe/Wade. That is NOT what most republicans want. And that does not make them Liberals. Pro-choice is a matter of individual conscience. There is no law that says you must have an abortion. You want freedom? Keep government out of my face and let me do with my own body as I choose. Wake up or we will never get rid of the Democrats. Stop calling pro choice republicans Liberal. You will drive away the Independents that is need for victory.

    I am a conservative republican. I love my country, served and want capitalism to reign with small government. I want our own oil exploited. I want to end the idiotic Green movement. Calling me a Liberal is an insult. I am more conservative then the social right. Why? Because I will be willing to eat my craw and vote for an anti -abortion Republican to end democrat/socialist rule. The social conservatives will stay home and hand Obama a victory because they don't trust Romney or a Republican whom is pro-choice. . The Social Right is a vocal minority. Pro-choice republicans are silent because "why throw the sand in the eyes of Right." The biggest voting block are the Independents. Woman went for Romney In FL because they want CHOICE! Take abortion and school prayer out of Newts mandate and he will win.
    Although I cant justify Newt over his remarks about Ryan's budget. He called Ryan's budget Right Wing Social engineering. A lunar base on the mood is lunacy! When we went to the moon in the 60's at that time we were the richest nation on earth. Now we are broke. Does Newt understand that? Or does he think government spending for the program will help the economy? Hello Obama! Get me gas under a dollar and I will fix the US economy.

  26. Willing to Read
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Kieran, you asked "Why is same sex sexual activity "wrong"?"

    It depends on if you are a morally grounded person. And for those with morals, same sex activity is equated with "Adultery", Polygamy, Pedophilia, Fornication, etc. and all are immoral activities that do not promote children growing up being raised by BOTH of their biological parents (mother and father)

    But some do not believe that adultery is wrong, or having multiple wives or same sex relations, just like in China they do not believe that stealing or "bootlegging" is wrong but most Morally grounded people believe do.

    And morally ground people believe that marriage is fundamentally about children and families, not just adult sexual 'happiness".

    While most same sex marriage advocate see marriage as fundamentally about expressing who they love and receive benefits for their love, when actually, the benefits are supposed to be for the societal promotion of responsible procreation - not expressing love.

  27. Arthur
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Same-sex marriage has only been legal in New York for six months. There was a huge window of opportunity before that.

  28. Arthur
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    And I wonder if any married hetero-couples got a divorce once the same-sex law went into place to protest? That would be an interesting statistic.

  29. James
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Actually, the comparison of slavery and Christianity is quite appropriate given the Southern Baptist Convention's strong and vocal support of American slavery (until the finally apologized .... in 1995).

  30. Arthur
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Also, a black person had the right to sit on a bus, they just couldn't sit in the FRONT of a bus because that was the overwhelmingly popular opinion of the South. Then they had to go and use that pesky legal system to redefine "bus sitting" for everyone.

  31. Mike
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    We're here, we're queer, get used to it. People who affiliate with organizations like this absolutely HATE that the world is seeing gay people for what they are: human beings who need and desire the same things straight people do. We are not the monsters you tried to make us out to be for decades in this country.

    We WILL have the right to form unions and families and WE WILL call those unions a marriage!

  32. Chris
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    NOM is a HATE Group.

  33. Randy E King
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Funny how you like to reference popular culture with such expressed disdain, Arthur, when your prclivity is, in fact, a product of popular culture.

    The constitution was written with the intent of protecting the majority from the tresspasses of the same popular culture you are pimping.

    Additionally; the only real similarity with your proclivity and slavery is that once again we the people are at war with a well heeled decadent horde of miscreants that is demanding their depravity be embraced as though it were of God.

    See you on the front lines brother.

  34. James
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Randy writes: "The constitution was written with the intent of protecting the majority from the tresspasses (sic) of the same popular culture you are pimping."

    No it wasn't. It was written to guarantee the rights of the minority and protect them from the tyranny of the majority (among other things). For example, the interpreters of this document have found that couples cannot be kept from marrying merely because the majority gets itchy at seeing an interracial couple (and at one point in this "Godly" nation, 95% of Americans found interracial marriage to be not just distasteful but immoral).

    Roger Pilon (once part of the Reagan administration) writes:

    "The majority must justify its claim to rule the minority; the minority does not have to justify its right not to be ruled."

    Your arguments against SSM have been tried in courts across this country and have been found -- over and over again -- to be based on pure bigotry and hatred... as evidenced by your derogatory labels and thinly veiled threats and war analogies.

  35. Randy E King
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    Nice attempt at revisionism Jame, but no cigar.

    This nation was founded in opposition to the tyranny of the King (aka the minority) that was being perpatrated on we the people (aka the majority.)

    Tyranny: a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler

    Once again we see the sociopaths that permiate the marriage corruption movement are intent on blaming their victims of the crimes they themselves are guilty of.

    You are not kept from marrying anyone of the opposite sex of your choice - as law allows. however; you do not have the right to redefine your depravity in order to make it appear more acceptable than it ever was.

    Tyranny is the suppression of many by the few. It appears that marrige corruptions supporters inability to dicern intent is not limited to the intended use of their reproductive organs.

  36. Posted February 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Kieran asks, "Why is same sex sexual activity "wrong", Louis E? Please explain."

    At the least, you'll be prohibited from donating blood, if you're a man who has had homosexual relations with another man (whether you claim to be "straight" or "gay"). I wonder why the CDC would make that decision? Hmmmmmm.

  37. John Noe
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Poster #34:

    The rights of a minority applied to people and not human behavior. There is no constitutional right to behave in a minority way and demand that it must be accepted.
    The double standard hypricritical sodoites demand a definition of minority that applies to their behavior only but to no one else.
    The Constitution and civil rights is consistent in this regard. Minority applies to people and not conduct.

    When we go up before fair judges who put the Constitution first we win fair and square. The sodomites have to rely on their own membors infiltrating the legal process to win in the courts.

  38. Caroline
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    May I also note that if Christie promised to defend marriage when he ran for governor, nominating a judge that thinks gay marriage is an important cause is BREAKING THAT PROMISE. I added the following to my letter:

    The marriage-supporters who voted for you in 2009 (I did not live in NJ at the time, but I will be in NJ for the 2013 election) applauded you last week for deciding to put same-sex marriage to a vote. You said you had to honor the promises you made to voters to support marriage. If you really hold by these convictions, you will not nominate Bruce Harris to the state Supreme Court because you will be giving power to someone who does not support marriage and who intends to use that power against marriage.

    If you nominate Bruce Harris to the state Supreme Court, you will be breaking the promises you made to voters in the last election.

    I WILL be a voter in the next election, and I will not be happy with a candidate who went back on his promise to defend marriage.

  39. Louis E.
    Posted February 1, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    Chris,criticizing foolish behavior and efforts to defend it and force others to act as if they approve of it is not "hate".

    Mike,we are taking whatever action necessary to deal with the problem constituted by your being here and queer.Your needs are not met by treating your desires for same-sex sexual activity as entitled to gratification,and you need to be taught to abandon them.This is for your own good,and what you want harms you.

    James,standards of conduct are NOT bigotry,and demanding that sexual relationships be between opposite-sex partners only is among the most important standards of conduct in human history.

  40. Little man
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    Mr Burt Trattner: You can vote for whoever you desire. So you are pro-choice. Pro-choice what? Pro-choice killing a fetus in which month of gestation? Most of us on this comment thread agree on abortion under certain circumstances. Because some couples do not know that civil marriage is for the protection of the mothers, they are easy prey for men and even teen-agers who get them pregnant and then see that they are not ready. It is similar to the insurance system. Civil marriage is a protection of the young women just in case. And it is very necessary because it shows them that, if they wish to be protected from potential poverty, they need to wait until they have a responsible father for their children. In a sense, marriage ties into abortion, and diminishes abortions and the abuse of young women who follow their instincts blindly without a clue of the consequences, once they get pregnant. Once pregnant, a young lady's body changes to that of a mature woman. There is no going back, even after an abortion. It's done. They'll never have, in general, their young-like figure.

  41. Thunderboltfan
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 12:53 am | Permalink

    NOM is shooting itself in the foot with this. Gay people will not be denied equality in the long run. Its unavoidable. Maybe NOM could turn their efforts to doing some real good in the world, like helping the poor or cleaning up litter along the highway.

  42. TC Matthews
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    Actually, I cleaned up litter along the highway last week.

  43. TC Matthews
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 1:24 am | Permalink

    I'm not picky where I serve, as long as it's for good. Supporting marriage and families is about as good as it gets.

  44. Diana
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Christie should never have appointed someone so inappropriate in the first place. At least he'll think twice before nominating radicals in the future.

  45. Pat
    Posted February 2, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    What about your extremist views equating Christianity to anti-gay hatred?
    As a Christian I am *quite* offended!

  46. Louis E.
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    Thunderboltfan,"Gay people" are wrong,in the long or short run,to claim any right to engage in same-sex sexual activity--deplorable for all people--with impunity."Equality" does not extend to right and wrong being equals,and protections of persons are not protections of conduct.And any effort to defeat the "gay" philosophy concerning homosexuality is worthwhile and correct.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.