NOM Proud of Strong Record on Minority Partnerships


Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)

"We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage."—Brian Brown, president—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, concerning documents written in 2009 and provided by NOM to the state of Maine:

“The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was formed in 2007 and has worked extensively with supporters of traditional marriage from every color, creed and background. We have worked with prominent African-American and Hispanic leaders, including Dr. Alveda C. King, Bishop George McKinney of the COGIC Church, Bishop Harry Jackson and the New York State Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz Sr., all of whom share our concern about protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130),, or Anath Hartmann,, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).


  1. Randy E King
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink


    And what about age of consent laws, alcohol laws, state tax laws, divorce laws, environmental laws, etc. Should the sovereignty of the individual states be subordinate to the whims of whomever holds sway in neighboring states?

  2. Rebecca
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    @Zack - You could not be more wrong. As a resident of CA I can tell you that what you wrote is 100% wrong.

    Equality will not be achieved until we have the same Constitutional Rights and Protections as all citizens, especially those of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

  3. Andrew
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Rebecca, Zack is right, all the rights California has to give were already given to civil unions. The privileges of marriage are already the same, down to the last syllable.

    Rights isnt' the question in California. The title is the question.

  4. Andrew
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    "This obvious poin could only be flown over by a stupid nigger and a myopic chink really."

    David, calling names never increases your arguments-- or lack thereof, as the case may be.

  5. Posted March 28, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    As Diane once said to Carla on Cheers, "you're a bitter little person, aren't you?"

    Your true colors are showing, and they're not beautiful like a rainbow. They're ugly, divisive, and uninformed torrents of hate.

    Marriage is a civil right that cannot be taken away by mobs of voters or self-righteous leaders of fraudulent institutes.

    NOM is a con. You're here, you spread fear, and we're exposing it. FAKERS!

  6. Andrew
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Gary, have all the relationships you want, call them what you want, but there is only one marriage. If you want to get married, do it. If you don't, quit whining about it.

  7. Ash
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Andrew: "If you want to get married, do it. If you don't, quit whining about it."

    Nicely put.

  8. John Noe
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Poster#34: Your side does wish to attack the wonderfull institution of marriage as you are insisting that you the 2% of the population gets to call the shots.
    Marriage is a great institution as the union of one man and one woman. Your side wants to change it from husband and wife to PartyA and PartyB.
    NOM is the organization we are using to defend our institution from the relentless homosexual attacks.

    It does not make Jesus cry but fills his heart with joy as he validated the institution of marriage.

  9. BYE NOM
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    This is going to be the death oh NOM, which will be recognized as a full fledged hate group going forward.

    Good riddance.

  10. Patricia
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Sadly, you will all go down in history for standing behind such disgusting hatred and against people who are just trying to live their own lives. God loves everyone regardless of who they go to bed with. You all are the true demonstration of what God is against- fear driven by hatred. Waste your time and energy loving your families and your neighbors.

  11. Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Will the media accuse Huffington Post of "driving a wedge" between blacks and gays by posting a slideshow of "anti-LGBT" celebrities, 7 out of 15 of whom are black?

  12. Posted March 31, 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    @DAVIDKCMO/DKCMO and all opponents of traditional marriage
    I am putting all your comments in a lawsuit and am about to file it against you. There is a new law that makes it a crime to anonymously annoy, abuse, threaten, and/or harass the National Organization for Marriage itself and/or its members.

    If you continue to harass us pro-marriage people, then I will guarantee that you will be fined and/or get thrown into jail for hate speech.

    I have had enough. Either reveal your names immediately, or I shall proceed.

    --Victor Golf Charles

  13. FHC
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 4:53 am | Permalink

    Just as the Vote and Affirmative Action duped subjugated citizens into thinking that they could achieve equal rights and opportunities through legislation; the delusional fallacy of ‘gay marriage’ is not a civil right. (“Gay”, for the purpose of this text, means male homosexuality.)
    Firstly, sexual preference is a choice; similar to liking chocolate, or disliking broccoli. And it’s scientifically incorrect as well as morally offensive to equate it with either race or gender. Since the only love which may be conceived as innate is maternal.
    Second; children, the very reason for marriage, are denied even the basic of human rights: to know and enjoy without severance the love of their birth mother, to have and to hold their genetic heritage, and to be nurtured and supported by a society that values domestic husbandry. Because, when properly supported, a mother’s love is the greatest love of all, and no amount of cross-dressing or political declaration will ever change this, only to degrade it. As it is imperative that patriarchal tyrannies deny and belittle a child’s right to its mother in order to pervert this original love, and transfer it to political and religious institutions which capitalize on the systematic oppression of women.
    Thirdly, without rehashing the egotistical divorce, deadbeat dads, and parental irresponsibility of today’s current family relations: Who exactly benefits from ‘gay marriage’? Be assured it’s not the children of low-income families. On the contrary, those struggling to maintain basic medical and dental plans, designed specifically to provide coverage for parents holding low paying jobs, these families will suffer when rates become unaffordable. Because even though maternity and pediatric care (excluding preemie medicine) are not responsible for the high cost of health care, the treatment for chronic illness perpetuated by sodomy, reckless dirty sex, and drug practices are exorbitantly expensive. Therefore, if high maintenance boyfriends become wives, once again it’s the tax payer who really gets it in the rear, as the health care costs of State employees will soar, and private sector premiums sent sky-rocketing.

    So beware young families and mothers, straight or lesbian, with whom you make your bed. If your family can afford to give $100,000 to a political campaign, then any increase in health insurance is outweighed by the protection it provides a spouse’s assets, basically at the expense of others. Yet if you're a hardworking low maintenance couple, who doesn’t care to support indifferent men who raise your medical costs while adopting children even though they have no regard whatsoever for motherhood; before you sleep with these blatant male chauvinists pigs, “who are so attractive, intelligent, stylish, and gay…so incredibly perfect that they wouldn't have sex with a woman if they were the last humans on earth,” you might care to think, at least, of the children.

    Because ‘matrimony’, derived from the word ‘matron’-a woman with child- is an oath of husbandry to children and their families; if there’s no woman then there is no marriage. Moreover, sodomy must never be taught or exposed to children as anything other than a perversion. Where, although appliances can be safely inserted into the anus in order to stimulate the prostate gland, one must question why a man would desire such stimulation; as it is unnatural. And as more studies correlate sodomy with degrading prostate and rectal health, it is therefore also unhealthy. How, and at what age is this explained to children, and by whom? Also, what precautions and parameters should, or can be put in place to prevent inappropriate exposure? If natural parents can have their children taking away for various abuses, what abuses will gay parents be guilty of; how will they be prosecuted, how many kids will suffer, and at what cost?

    To conclude, the Federal Government and sound churches, temples, and mosques; black, white, yellow, and brown are right on this one, ‘gay marriage’ is against the law, and for good reason. But lesbianism and polygamy are not; as any amount of people, a whole community, the entire world can venerate mother and child. So by maternal families recognizing the ulterior motives of gays, and denying them access to children, they could yet secure the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their prosperity.

  14. Marcel Kincaid
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    The document says that the strategy is to drive a wedge between people. Driving a wedge between people is the opposite of uniting them. Whatever you think of NOM's agenda, the way they go about it shows that they are unethical.

One Trackback

  1. [...] bigoted, divisive and arrogant. They have leveled personal attacks against Executive Director Brian Brown and many of his colleagues. Here’s the bottom line: I am the author of the 2008-2009 Board Update [...]

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.