NOM BLOG

NOM Proud of Strong Record on Minority Partnerships

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 27, 2012
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), [email protected], or Anath Hartmann, [email protected], 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).

63 Comments

  1. Skooter McGoo
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    I love to see peoplelike Brian & Maggie back peddling on what they really stand for, dividing America to try and create a Catholic only society. No wonder they fight so hard to keep things from being disclosed in multiple states when it comes to election contributions.

  2. Louis E.
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Skooter,I'm a non-religious abortion-rights zealot who's as opposed to public acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships as anyone in NOM.

  3. ResistSSA
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Oh, if only those mean ol' Catholics didn't preach against homosexual acts everyone would embrace homosexual sodomy as an activity equivalent to procreative relations between men and women!

  4. nova
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    “The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies ... Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots."

  5. Dgard
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Which black bloggers did you pay off?

    Anyone who is connected with this organization in any way has lost the moral authority (as if they ever had any) to say ANYTHING about "divisiveness".

    You're busted, race-baiters.

  6. wister
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Shameful. Without any measure of decency or conscience NOM's PR staff now lies about what has been revealed: that this is a political organization created to drive a wedge between black and gay Democrats.

  7. John Noe
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Posts# 1,3 and 4 are nothing but nonsense and the cry of sour grapes. We welcome all people regardless of skin color to join us in thwarting the homosexual attack on marriage.
    It is very refreshing to see folks of different religions and ethnic backgrounds coming together in this fight.
    If there is a wedge the homosexuals have no one but themselves to blame. They are the ones who caused the wedge and the rift. There are many people of color who resent a group of people engaging in sexual immorality hijacking the civil rights laws and using it to further their agenda.
    In the future it looks like more and more your vote will depend on this. We were all caught off guard when we assumed that our freedoms were intact in Americia. But now we see the light as we are witnessing the greatest threat to our civil rights and liberties being waged against us from within.
    The call is out to save marriage. If saving marriage causes rifts and divisions in the political arena than so be it. The defense of marriage is more important then worrying about political egos and alliances being shattered.

  8. Lefty
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Nova, I'm sure most of us have figured out by now that there are people who wish to use the marriage issue to help the Republican Party. That's old news.

    My question to you is: how can NOM, or anyone else, "create" a wedge within the Democratic Party when that wedge already exists anyway?

  9. Lefty
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    @ wister

    Oh, that's rich! If you want to know about the shamefulness of wedge politics, ask Mr "NoH8" himself -- the one and only Fred Willie Horton Karger, a man who gives hypocrisy a bad name.

  10. John Noe
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    I also would like to add the possibility of a new wedge to be used in the future. In past elections Evagelicals tended to vote Republican while Catholics and Jewish voters voted Democrat.
    There is now the frightening possibility of a future Evangelical-Catholic alliance as both sides are seeing their freedoms under attack by the left. A future alliance of Evangelicals and Catholics and Jews would be an alliance of over 50% of the voters. An alliance so large that the other side has an edge that they cannot overcome.

  11. Ash
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Exactly, Lefty. Once again, I am left yawning from another NOM "controversy."

  12. nova
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    recent polls from the WSJ/NBC put African-American support for SSM at 50% and 55% for Latinos.

    your kids already regard gay people as full and equal citizens.

  13. M. Jones
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    The new generation of blacks and latinos reject liberal elite same-sex marriage propaganda. The future is promising, they recognize and stand for traditional marriage values.

  14. nova
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    except it's not true. blacks and latinos grow ever more supportive of the equal dignity of gay people.

    it's quite heartening that NOMs strategy has not worked.

  15. John Colgan
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    @John Noe

    Far from being non-sense and sour grapes post #3 is a direct quote from NOM's internal documents!

  16. Posted March 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    NOM did not create a wedge between "same-sex marriage" activists and African Americans. That disconnect already existed. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.

  17. AM
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Lefty,
    I agree with your comment #6.

    I live in a district of Virginia that is heavily Democrat.
    Every election season our home receives robo calls from Democrat candidates running for office.(never Republicans)

    During the 2006 election, a marriage amendment was on the ballot. in VA. Our home received numerous robo calls to support the amendment-and that defining marriage was not a civil rights issue- from various pastors of the local African -American churches.

    There was no NOM in 2006.

  18. ResistSSA
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    In Black urban areas, men treat procreation as a sign of virility, manhood.

    It's no wonder that Black men would be offended by effeminate, homosexual men, who represent the antithesis of procreation and AA perceptions of manhood, claiming to be the same as Blacks in any way.

  19. Charles J. Mueller
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

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

    Brian, how can you possibly make such a race-baiting, divisive statement like that with a straight face?

  20. GZeus
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    No RSSA, black men join gangs to prove manhood, dontcha know. What a self-loathing gay and racist you are.

  21. BillTheCat
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Oh look, ResistSSA the rascist bigot is back spewing his nonsense.

    You are going to lose. History cannot be held back, and the old people who are still living in the 1800s will be gone, and the young will make gay marraige a right nation wide.

    And there is not a god damn thing any of you can do about it.

  22. emma
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    "in Black urban areas men treat procreation as a sign of virility, manhood" I guess that explains why so many have gay sex on the DL

  23. maggie gallagher
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    The underlying question is: Is NOM racist for trying to find black and Hispanic leaders who oppose gay marriage?

    Its kind of absurd to say so. I think the language in this document is inapt because its arrogant to suggest NOm can get black or hispanic church leaders to say or do anything.

    The Democrats who've stood against gay marriage have taken enormous abuse for doing so from the Left.

    We didn't cause it and shouldn't attempt to take credit for it.

    The underlyiing political reality is what it is.

  24. Travis
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Maggie: Your spin and euphemisms can't get you out of this one. A true description of your strategy is now out there for all too see. One of the more damning excerpts is included right here by a previous commenter. You weren't, as you claim, simply "trying to find" people of color who share your views in marriage. The strategy that NOM explicitly laid out is a textbook example of race baiting. The fact that you're now using euphemistic language to characterize NOM's strategy rather than repeating the words in the internal doc speaks volumes.

  25. ResistSSA
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    I love when the BLTgers start name-calling. You know you hit a nerve.

    BTCat says: "and the young will make gay marraige a right nation wide"

    The only problem is that the young grow up and gain wisdom; how many of us hold the same liberal views we held in our college days? Have a few kids and see what you think of homosexuality being taught to school children,

  26. nova
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    @ Resist: keep posting. you're the best example i've ever seen of self-loathing, and your comments on "urban blacks" are HILARIOUS, and expose the bigoted heart of the anti-equality mindset.

    at least Maggie is honest. she's happy to exploit minority groups and pit them against one another.

  27. Mian Lee
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    ResistSSA don't pay attention to them, they're just trying to get you angry. Trolls.

  28. Mian Lee
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    As someone pointed out earlier, marriage is a UNIFYING theme, not a divisive one. We all believe in marriage.

  29. Andrew
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    I find it interesting that the people who get the most vitriolic attacks are those who, like ResistSSA have rejected the homosexual lifestyle, or who seem to have ethnic names.

    It doesn't matter either way, but it is interesting that gay activists were hurling racial epithets just two posts ago. Without remorse.

    Just sayin'

  30. Andrew
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Sing and dance all you want, marriage is what matters.

  31. Posted March 28, 2012 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    A marriage between a man and a woman is the most basic form of representative government, and societies where marriages flourish are less likely to come under the thumb of tyranny by the nanny state.

  32. DAVIDKCMO
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    Would it help your cause if the fagots, dykes, queens, homos and lesbos-DID I SAY LESBO?, whom you are citing as less than Betterosexuals, called you an uppity nigger, spade, porch monkey, Sambo or jigaboo? Do you think that would make it ok for you to villify homosexuals you don't know and will never meet?

    This obvious poin could only be flown over by a stupid nigger and a myopic chink really. OMG, the metaphorical illiteration is just pouring out of me tonight like oral diarrhea!!!! I haven't written stuff this good in eons.

  33. Beau
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Why does it feel weird to me as a homosexual that religious citizens feel like their freedoms are being attacked??? All I want to do is live my life with the person I love, get married and have a family. How does that affect your freedom? Your marriage? Your family? Or your religion? Let me live my life, and I will let you live yours.

  34. Rebecca
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    @John Noe you wrote, "We welcome all people regardless of skin color to join us in thwarting the homosexual attack on marriage."

    Attack on marriage? Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the support of loving couples who wish to marry. It is the support of family and the protection and love of our children that drives the marriage equality movement.

    The only attack on marriage is coming from NOM and others of their ilk. NOM is violently attacking marriage because they do not want all Americans to enjoy equality and the 1,138 rights associated with that equality that comes with marriage. NOM's relentless attack on marriage is leaving millions of loving families and children helpless and hopeless.

    NOM's work makes Jesus cry.

  35. Ash
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    I find it ironic that the people who regularly try to portray their opponents as the moral equivalent of racists (merely for opposing the redefinition of marriage) are now complaining about race-baiting!

    http://cdn1.diggstatic.com/story/ignorance_now_available_in_color/o.png

  36. Little man
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    nova: That's what we are saying: 'your kids already regard gay people as full and equal citizens'. They are - they have all the rights i have, and we are gay too (happy about it). By the way, not all polls were created equal.. Get real, or i'll invent 7 polls contrary to yours.

  37. Little man
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Charles J. Mueller: "How can you possibly make such a race-baiting, divisive statement like that with a straight face?" Who cares? We don't see your face.

  38. ResistSSA
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Nothing angers homosexual activists as much as people like me who have given up homosexuality, married a person of the opposite sex, have conceived children, and are faithful to our spouses. I'm like an ex-smoker: it's hard to quit, but my life is so much better afterward, and I want others to share in that feeling of fulfillment that you experience.

    Can't quit smoking because you were born with an addictive personality? Get over it! None of my business? I don't want my kids to get the idea that smoking is ok by seeing you smoke. Your dangerous lifestyle of smoking costs me in increased healthcare costs and research dollars to cure lung cancer.

  39. Mike
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    I'm sorry, but that is just shameful.

  40. John Noe
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    You are going to lose. History cannot be held back, and the old people who are still living in the 1800s will be gone, and the young will make gay marraige a right nation wide.

    And there is not a god damn thing any of you can do about it.

    We will fight this worthy cause to the end. Because our Creator the Lord Yahwah can do something about it. As far as being damned, woe to those marriage corruption supportors when they have to answer to the same God. They will learn that it is they who were damned.

  41. nova
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    apparently, notions of "traditional marriage" aren't terribly unifying, or else NOM wouldn't have devised a strategy to "drive a wedge" between gays and blacks.

    but people like Resist clearly have their fingers on the pulse of black America, so keep on with it!

  42. GZeus
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Partnering with the thrice divorced King and the divorced Reverend Diaz is sending a great message on how seriously NOM takes "traditional" marriage. Keep it up.

  43. nova
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Coretta Scott King is fully supportive of equal marriage rights.

  44. TC Matthews
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    There are many people on either side of the marriage debate. It is possibly one of the greatest debates being had in our time.

  45. Zack
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    @Rebecca

    In states like Washington and New Jersey and California, same-sex couples are afforded all the same rights/benefits that come with marriage. Just not the legal title. But the left continues to fight to redefine the legal title. Why? They have all the same rights but still pushing to redefine marriage. It's obvious "civil rights" isn't the reason for it.

  46. Zack
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Typo: Omit that very last line. I forgot to delete it.

  47. ResistSSA
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    RE: Black men and masculinity. From a Black writer in thenewblackmagazine.com:

    "At the time I was like so many black men, who viewed the process of getting a women pregnant as an affirmation of our masculinity—think of how many black men describe their kids as their seeds—particularly in a society that has historically denied us the fullest expression of our masculinity. Thus the idea that I couldn’t produce “seed”, somehow meant that something was wrong with me—that I was less than a man. As long as we didn’t adopt, I could always say that our childlessness was a “lifestyle choice.”

  48. xander
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    @Zack: The reason for that push is because rights recognised in one state are not necessarily recognised in another. Cross state lines ans voila, you're no longer 'married.' Add to that issues of federal tax law which doesn't allow joint filing by same-sex couples.

  49. Mian Lee
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Marriage between a man and a woman is supported by all nationalities, races and creeds. Your "diarrhea of the mouth" serves you not well, David.

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

    Xander,

    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?

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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!

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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?

    http://www.homegriddle.com/2012/03/is-huffington-post-driving-wedge.html

  61. 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

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] NOM’s response is here. [...]

  2. [...] 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 [...]