NOM BLOG

"Gay Marriage has Backfired...", NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

NOM Marriage News

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"Gay marriage has backfired on the Democratic Party."

With those words one of my personal heroes, New York State Sen Rev. Rubén Díaz (a Democrat from the Bronx) opened his press release titled, "What you should know."

"You should know that since Governor Andrew Cuomo pushed for gay marriage in the State of New York and convinced the Democratic Party in the Assembly and the Senate to follow his lead to legalize gay marriage, the Democratic Party in New York City has not won a single victory.

"Starting with the defeat of David Weprin by Bob Turner for the Congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner, and most recently with the embarrassing defeat of Lew Fidler by David Storobin for the Senate seat vacated by Carl Kruger, the Democratic Party lost. In each special election, the Democratic candidate was expected to win handily given the composition of registered democrats in each district, and given the low turnout expected in special elections."

Gay marriage hurt Democrats in each of these races, he points out, and there is no way to spin it:

"For a time, the Democratic Party was key in New York City politics, and it was virtually impossible for a Republican to win a seat in the State legislature in New York City. That was before gay marriage. ...This has shown to be destructive for the Democratic Party and I hope that elected officials in other states are paying attention."

Of course the Democrats were not alone in bringing gay marriage to New York. Republican majority leader Dean Skelos volunteered to bring the bill up for a vote—he did not have to. And four Republicans provided the crucial margin of difference.

Sen Rev. Díaz goes on to point to the other side of the aisle:

"Now we can all wait and see what happens to the future of the four Republicans who supported gay marriage when it was forced to the floor of the Senate for a vote, because the way I see things, The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its Executive Director, Brian Brown has been active and instrumental in contributing and supporting with financial resources those individuals who run against gay marriage supporters. So far, Brian Brown has been very effective and it might happen, that the four Republicans, might lose their Senate seats solely because of their vote on gay marriage."

NOM is not a partisan organization or a stalking horse for either party. We are a movement of people of every race, creed, color—and party—willing to stand up for marriage.

Sen. Rev. Díaz happened to speak out the same week that the mainstream media decided to pick up on a story that the National Organization for Marriage is playing racial politics "dividing gays and blacks."

It's a media brouhaha based on language in a three-year-old in-house document that was released by the Maine courts describing a number of NOM projects for 2009 and 2010.

Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here's something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle—and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen. We did not cause it, nor can we claim credit for these men and women's courage in standing up in defense of our most fundamental institution: marriage.

To Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry I would say: This is your movement. You are its leaders. Only you can hope to change the vicious attacks being made on Black and Hispanic Democrats (or white Republicans for that matter!) who don't agree with you on gay marriage.

We had another small example of the kind of vituperation gay-marriage advocates are generating when a woman wrote a letter to her local newspaper in Syracuse politely supporting our DumpStarbucks.com campaign:

I have just learned that the Starbucks Corp. has begun a public campaign to rewrite our marriage laws and to recognize same-sex marriage. I was shocked to hear of a major corporation willing to alienate such a large portion of their constituents in favor of a political agenda.

I have decided that I will no longer buy my coffee at Starbucks—there are plenty of community coffeehouses that both support my values and need my business. ...

It's time to dump the Starbucks habit, at least for my family. And I invite others to join me by learning more at DumpStarbucks.com.

On the newspaper's website, an advocate of gay marriage threatened to go after her job as a result:

"As a gay man I actually have to question your ability to provide fair and balanced judgement and therefore treatment to gay people in your job as a nurse. For this reason I am sending a letter to Crouse Hospital detailing this and asking that they look into it."

Now you and I know he's probably just spinning hot air. But the NOM Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance was launched to give a voice to people who have actually lost their jobs because they oppose gay marriage.

But another blogger on the site noticed how unusual and ugly that kind of attack is:

"Someone is going to go to their employer and put their job at risk, because they have a belief that differs? Are we in second grade? Talk about hatred, discrimination and lack of respect for the feelings of others! If one can't have, or does not possess, the attributes they demand of others, what does that make, or say about, them? There are plenty of people, in life and on this site, that disagree, wholeheartedly, with many of the things I believe and post. ... Never, ever, have I dreamed of, or been tempted to, curtail their right to their opinion, their ability to state that opinion or 'go after' their employment, their families or any other personal aspect of their lives."

It would be wrong for anyone to try to generate that kind of hatred against good people who disagree on important moral issues like same-sex marriage Right, Joe? Right, Evan?

This is your movement, Human Rights Campaign. The ugliness it is generating is not consistent with the civil rights movement you claim to want to represent.

The underlying narrative of the MSM attacks on NOM generated by this document's release is absurd: The guts of the "Not a Civil Right Project" was to reach out across lines of race, creed and party to work with great heroes like Sen. Rev. Díaz, Bishop George McKinney and other pastors at the Church of God in Christ (the largest black Pentecostal denomination), Bishop Harry Jackson, and other leaders in the black and Hispanic churches.

Moreover, we at NOM are not the only people who have noticed this split over gay marriage in the Democratic Party. The Atlantic reports that Pres. Obama refuses to endorse gay marriage because of the strong opposition to gay marriage among African Americans:

"The conventional wisdom has been that supporting gay marriage would alienate blue-collar whites, and that's been the main reason he's [Pres. Obama has] been hesitant to come out in favor before the general election. But in this case, it's a crucial element of his own base that's preventing the president from taking bolder steps to advance a cause that he seems to believe in, but hasn't publicly embraced."

According to The Capitol Tonight, Albany political elites have reportedly responded to the political fallout of gay marriage vote by trying to limit the power of Orthodox Jews—by splitting up Ramapo Jews into multiple districts to dilute their influence, and taking black churches out of the Buffalo district of GOP marriage-betrayer Mark Grisanti:

The black churches that used to be represented by WNY Republican Sen. Mark Grisanti are none too pleased that they've been drawn out of his new district—a move seen as done in part to insulated him against backlash for his "yes" vote on same-sex marriage, and also to make his district less Democrat-dominated.

As for the kind of hatred directed against African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage? Don't believe us. Believe the Washington Post, which published a front page story on Feb. 23, "Black Pastors Take Heat for Not Viewing Same-Sex Marriage As a Civil Rights Matter."

"All of a sudden, they are bigots and haters—they who stood tall against discrimination. ...They are black men, successful ministers, leaders of their community. ...Sometimes, the pastors say, the name-calling and the anger sting."

This is your movement, guys, only you can change its tone.

Meanwhile, in just a few weeks people of every race, creed and color will come together to decide the future of marriage in North Carolina. If you want to know why we stand up to the attacks, it's because I know we are speaking for so many good people like you.

Here's a few of many voters in North Carolina, talking about why they will vote yes on the Marriage Amendment.

 

Last week we launched our Dump Starbucks campaign, and boy have you responded!

As I write this Thursday morning, 23,585 people have signed the petition, promising to dump Starbucks. (The neat thing about the website is that if you put in your zip code, it will pull up for you the number of the local Starbucks so you can also call and make your voice heard.)

If you haven't done so yet, can you please take just 30 seconds, go to DumpStarbucks.com, and add your name to the petition? My goal for this week is to get to 25,000 signatures. We are so close—can you help?

Rich white guys like Mayor Bloomberg, Tim Gill and Howard Schultz are determined to push gay marriage on us "whether we like or not!" Here's your chance to fight back!

We are in this for the long haul. We know the left is far more organized online. This is our chance to not only speak back to Starbucks but build the infrastructure we need to make sure your voice is heard.

Next week, and for weeks thereafter, we'll have important news on widening the reach of the Dump Starbucks protest campaign. Thanks to the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, CatholicVote.org, and every other group—and person!—who has promoted Dump Starbucks.com on their blogs or in their newsletter. Shane Vander Hart, an influential Iowa blogger at Caffeinated Thoughts, for example, wrote this:

...Starbucks has claimed to be "post politics and post partisan" nevertheless decided to jump into the political fray back in January in order as a corporation throw its support behind same sex marriage legislation in Washington State. They are obviously free to do that, and we are free to demonstrate our disapproval. It seems to be a odd business decision to make a decision that will alienate roughly half of your customer base.

And yet they did. Voluntarily and apparently enthusiastically. ...

If the CEO, Howard Schultz, decided to just personally get involved that's a completely different thing, but they decided as a corporation to get involved—shareholders, employees, and customers who believe differently be damned.

Until they shift back into a neutral position, while I'll miss my French Roast Coffee Beans and Café Americanos, I can get my coffee elsewhere.

Here's how Christian Broadcast News reported it.

And here's the head of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project, Jonathan Baker, in an interview with the Christian Post.

The debate over gay marriage in Great Britain, which is being promoted by the once-Conservative party there, has brought some interesting new voices into this fray.

Brendan O'Neill is a self-described libertarian and humanist who once wrote for a Marxist publication.

I want to leave you with this thought from his incredibly insightful essay, "Why Gay Marriage Is a Very Bad Idea":

"The reason the gay-marriage issue can feel like it came from nowhere, and is now everywhere, is because it is an entirely top-down, elite-driven thing. The true driving force behind it is not any real or publicly manifested hunger amongst homosexual couples to get wed, far less a broader public appetite for the reform of the institution of marriage; rather it is the need of the political and media class for an issue through which to signify its values and advertise its superiority. Gay marriage is not a real issue—it is a cultural signifier, like wearing a pink ribbon to show you care about breast cancer."

A new morality is being created and fobbed off on the American people, complete with "enforcers" to "stigmatize" good people who disagree. At the end of his press release, Sen. Rev Díaz said "Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, friends and foes: Fasten your seat belts, because I am afraid that it's going to be a very bumpy ride."

Thank you for being there with NOM, every step of the way.

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.

52 Comments

  1. HorseKnuckle
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    You people really are certifiable. Your divisive politics are somehow HRC's and Freedom to Marry's fault? In what world?

    This is just another attempt by NOM to drive a wedge between the LGBT community and people of color. The only "ugliness" being generated is coming from your camp and your continued efforts to deny LGBT people full equality under the law, all-the-while pitting minority groups against one another to achieve your social and religious ideals.

    Unbelievable. Shocking, really.

  2. Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    I am a African American and support NOM fully. Black folks are in favor of traditional marriage. These attacks are astro turf created by the well funded gay lobby.

  3. Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    "continued efforts to deny LGBT people full equality under the law,"

    Why do you continue to deny the facts? NOM has made no proposals to deny those who label themselves as "LGBT" with equal treatment under the law. NOM supports opposite-sexed marriage. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation. NOM proposes no laws that would require someone to publicly divulge their sexual orientation in order to qualify for a marriage license. They propose no laws that would discriminate from a "gay" person from entering into marriage. NOM merely proposes to maintain the universal definition of marriage as between a non-related man and woman, with no discrimination as to their individual sexual orientation.

    What is shocking is your continued denial of the facts. I suppose that's how identity politics works. But there's no logic in it.

  4. Charles J. Mueller
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Great "Damn the torpedos" speech, Brian.

    A pity that it does not fly!

  5. Garrett
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    "...the NOM Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance was launched to give a voice to people who have actually lost their jobs because they support gay marriage."

    I'm guessing this is a typo, but I would love to see you helping the many more people who have lost their jobs, or their homes, or their families because of being gay (or supporting gay marriage).

  6. Leo
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    GOOD JOB BRIAN< PREACH IT BROTHER< TELL IT LIKE IT IS!

  7. maggie gallagher
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Garrett, it is a typo, will be fixed, but if you have info on people who've lost their job because they support gay marriage would you let me know? This does concern me.

    Outside of the rights of religious organizations I mean to make sure the people who work for them support their views.

  8. Ron Lussier
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Maggie, I can definitely tell you that the religious liberties of my church are being threatened by those who want to keep the Unitarian Universalists from marrying loving couples. Will NOM step up to defend these religious liberties?

  9. maggie gallagher
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Ron, if marriage is a public status, it can't be all things to all people.

    Or else you would agree that Muslims and heretical LDSers should have their polygamous marriages recognized right? do you?

    My question was: if anyone has info that some one has lost their job because they publicly supported gay marriage---please let me know!

    I think that's enormously wrong!

  10. flanoggin2
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    Rich white guys??? um----but not racially divisive....hmmmmmm

  11. Mark Burridge
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    It's so cute that you think you can bail really fast to save your sinking tug boat.

    Trying to save your own reputations is about all you have left and that's pretty much a lost cause, too.

    Google Bob Green. See how he lived out his days. That's your future. Sorry, Maggie but when it comes to "enormous arrogance," you're soaking in it. You know this isn't going to end well and the end of NOM is pretty close.

    (and honestly.... how funny is it that both Brian and "rev" Diaz end their letters with a quote from a Bette Davis camp classic?

  12. Mark Burridge
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    By the way... as far as polygamy? Sure.

    Not my personal way of life and not something that I would ever do myself. But if that's the way their family structure is and it works for them... how does that really affect me? It doesn't.

    There are many people who live VERY different lives than I do. While I would never choose that life for myself, it's not really my life to choose, is it? I would like to think that I can co-exist with people who have different kinds of families. Even yours.

  13. james
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Is there any other way of emailing you details of gay people fired form their jobs, Maggie ? As comments here seem to be deleted ....

  14. M. Jones
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    re: Job Losses: It is very important to understand that every organization, religious or secular, has to determine where its boundaries begin and where they end. That being said, A BYU professor lost his job because he publicly supported same sex marriage. Also, a LDS musician was suspended from their Orchestra for a letter to the SL Tribune in support of same sex marriage.

  15. wendy J
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Al Fischer was fired from his job as a music teacher because he was going to get married to his future husband. Equally Ms Gallagher suggests that religious organizations should have the right to fire people, but LDS and Muslim polygamists should not have a right to marry multiple partners.. That is why we have secular laws.....

  16. Johnny
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    To compare the bomb that killed 4 little girls in an Alabama church, black men who were lynched in front of their families and people who had the flesh torn off of them by rabid dogs to two men having sex is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of! the gay's are trying to compare and co-op the homosexual movement with the civil rights movement so as to make their lifestyle appear to be healty and normal. The last time I checked, men having sex with men spreads AIDS, not to mention the 15 different cancers specific to gay men, and a suicide rate 5x higher than most groups. And when the doctors questioned a gay man who tried and failed to commit suicide, do you know what he said? He said because he felt trapped in the lifestyle, He knew something was wrong but everyone around him told him he was fine and that being gay is great and I believe this because i worked with a gay man who told me he was tired of the lifestyle and when some girls in the office found out that he said that, they turned against him and he became so distraught that he began to act "ultra gay" in order to regain their friendship.

  17. Alan E.
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    There was also the school teacher who was fired because he went to another state to get married to his partner of 20 years.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/al-fischer-fired-gay-catholic-music-teacher-wedding-_n_1337482.html

  18. wendy J
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Secular laws.. rather than having religious people defining who has what rights...

  19. anonimus
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    @Ron Lussier: "Maggie, I can definitely tell you that the religious liberties of my church are being threatened by those who want to keep the Unitarian Universalists from marrying loving couples. Will NOM step up to defend these religious liberties?"

    False. There is no law in any state preventing a church from performing a ceremony for two men or two women if they choose to do so.

  20. Lefty
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Brendan O'Neill most certainly is a Marxist. He's just not quite the kind of Marxist you're used to, perhaps.

  21. Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    " A BYU professor lost his job because he publicly supported same sex marriage"

    He wasn't fired. His contract simply wasn't renewed. His public opinions on many points of LDS doctrine challenge much more than the LDS church's stance on marriage. A private university has the right to hire those who comply with their standards. Those who choose not to do so may look for work elsewhere. Haven't those who've fired prop 8 supporters made the same claims for hiring and firing standards?

  22. Leviticus
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    That's a important difference, Between not having your contract renewed and being fired.

  23. Bev M.
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    Wow, the trolls are out tonight! They just can't deal with the fact that others *gasp* DISAGREE with their views. I'm not telling them they can't have their relationships, nor even that they can't have civil unions. However, my church should not be forced to ordain what you do. If you don't need my approval, stop trying to force me to give it.

  24. GZeus
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    Leviticus: You're correct, it's an important distinction, but NOM was happy to say Frank Turek (a consultant who's contract was not renewed due to his anti-gay remarks) was fired.

  25. Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    I am for traditional marriage, but do believe there is too much vitriol on both sides of the issue and we tend to speak past one another and not with one another

  26. GZeus
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Bev M: Churches already can deny performing marriages to whoever the want - and that will continue. What we want (and will get) is a Marriage License from City Hall.

  27. John Noe
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Yes this has backfired on the Democrats as they have gone far left as this former voter of Democrats knows.
    It is time for decent Democrats, moderates and others to leave the party. It is so bad that FDR and JFK would not even fit in today. Time to form a new centrist party.

  28. Andrew
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    "You should know that since Governor Andrew Cuomo pushed for gay marriage in the State of New York and convinced the Democratic Party in the Assembly and the Senate to follow his lead to legalize gay marriage, the Democratic Party in New York City has not won a single victory."

    Wow. Powerful stuff.

  29. Andrew
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    "This is your movement, guys, only you can change its tone. We are a movement of people of every race, creed, color—and party—willing to stand up for marriage."

    "To Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry I would say: This is your movement. You are its leaders. Only you can hope to change the vicious attacks being made on Black and Hispanic Democrats (or white Republicans for that matter!) who don't agree with you on gay marriage."

    Marriage is an issue we should all be able to discuss without the needless epithets.

  30. Dean
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    NO...I do not respect your religious beliefs.

    I respect your right to HAVE them.
    I respect your right to EXPRESS them.

    I respect YOU so long as you respect ME.

    I do not respect your "right" to tell me I'm an evil person.

    I do not respect your "right" to tell me I'm going to hell.

    I do not respect your "right" to impose YOUR beliefs on ME.

    I do not respect ignorance.
    I do not respect brainwashing.
    I do not respect cults.
    I do not respect hatred, bigotry, misogyny, sexism, or tyranny.

    I do not respect your religion. And I don't have to.

  31. Reformed
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 1:27 am | Permalink

    Daniel Zamudio, a 24-year-old Chilean man, has died after almost a month in the hospital after a vicious attack he suffered at the hands of a group of suspected neo-Nazis, the Associated Press reports.

    The attackers beat Zamudio in a Santiago park with bottles and rocks, cut off part of his ear, and carved swastikas into his skin. Investigators say they believe Zamudio was targeted because he was gay.

    The death has prompted a national outcry in Chile, where efforts to pass anti-discrimination laws have been shut down by evangelical Christian groups.

    Your feigned victomhood and "threat to religious liberty" invention, attempts to "link" gays to "side issues", "drive wedges between gays and various minorities", and "fan the flames of hostility", enable this.

    Will you now stop this campaign and gay people and their families?

  32. Leo
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    I have great idea, why don't we give the gays Massachusetts, and tell them to leave the rest of us alone...?

  33. M. Jones
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 3:11 am | Permalink

    Reformed, I know of no one that supports violence as a means to end sin and depravity.

  34. Michael
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    I would rather we lose every election we are in because we stand for the rights and freedoms of the LGBTQA community than win elections by assuming the positions of our enemies.

  35. Little man
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Reformed: You need to reform again... One person is assaulted and you conclude it was (only) because he was {gay}. Notice you don't say "because he said he was gay". You assume that a person is {gay}, and there's no way out, and cannot keep it a secret when needed. I don't share your premise. So, then, how many people are assaulted, and perhaps killed, each year, whether they say they are {gay} or not. And therefore, what does your case study prove? Could those who say they are {gay}, or imply it through their body motions, be ALSO doing something which brings about the treatment, just like many other people who also get beaten up? I mean, aside from hanging out where it is dangerous. Yeah, a car killed a guy, and didn't even ask him about sexual orientation. Perhaps that would have changed the outcome? Here on a comment blog people can put down someone else, and ridicule him/her. But you try it in public, and it is not the same thing. So, every time a so-called {gay} is beaten or mistreated, it is because he says he is? In the real world, you use free speech, and may pay a high price (though it is free). Jumping to conclusions?

  36. Ash
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    It's crazy that some SSMers really believe that a person is not suitable to be a nurse because they wrote a letter to the editor opposing ssm and Starbuck's endorsement of it.

    Bryan is giving the benefit of the doubt to the commenter, claiming that he was probably blowing off steam. But I do think some SSmers really believe that their opponents should be driven from every sector non-religious employment.

  37. Randy E King
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    Reformed,

    (6) billion people on the planet and you can find one argument in defense of your position. That happens to be the very definition of an extreme fringe issue.

  38. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    There is no such thing as "gay marriage". First of all, the use of the word "gay" to describe same-sex unions is a misuse of the word. The correct word to use is "homosexual". Secondly, "homosexual marriage" is an impossibility as two men cannot marry, nor can two women. Marriage can only exist between opposite-sex couples.

  39. Posted March 30, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    "Will you now stop this campaign and gay people and their families?"

    There is no campaign against "gay" people, and their families. Those who call themselves "gay" are under the same obligations as those who don't call themselves "gay" to obey the laws of the land, which includes marriage law. Marriage laws don't discriminate according to sexual orientation, and to insist the marriage issue is about "gay" and "straight" is to cater to sexual identity politics, which is antithetical to equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Marriage between a man and a woman hasn't existed universally for thousands of years, just to discriminate against those with a same-sex attraction.

  40. Posted March 30, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Furthermore, it is to be remembered that neutering marriage to favor those with same-sex attraction won't lower rates of violence to those who call themselves "gay." The highest percentage of domestic violence to "gay" is between them and their partners, far higher statistics than between married men and women. Neutering marriage affects all marriages, severs the natural legal ties between all parents and their offspring, strips all women of the protection of presumption of paternity, and makes obsolete natural legal paternity rights of all men. It vastly grows government intrusion into the private lives of all American citizens, and introduces sex segregation into our most important national institution.

    We might ask those who claim to be "gay" to end their assault on the natural family, and the institution of marriage.

  41. Reformed
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Little man, Daughter of Eve

    Your motivations are only yours to know, but your words are those of hate crimes deniers. I will let them speak for themselves.

    Perhaps he was killed because he exhibited "gay" bodily motions. Perhaps she was raped because of what she was wearing. Perhaps he was killed because he was wearing a hoodie.

    You always have to depend on cues to determine which person deserves to be . .

  42. John N.
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Leo: If they all our given Massachusetts does that mean that the state is no longer known as the Bay State but is now the Gay State?

  43. wemustdissent
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Gay marriage has backfired and now Santorum is everywhere!

  44. TC Matthews
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Reformed, your assertions are offensive. No one said anyone should be killed for any reason. Keep to the topic or move along.

  45. maggie gallagher
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    If a man was killed for being gay in Chile that's outrageous and wrong and I condemn it.

    I don't think NOM has anything to do with it. Your attempt to conflate support for vigilante violence against gay people and support for marriage as the union of husband and wife is just strange and outrageous.

    I'm used to it, but its still outrageous.

  46. Alan E.
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    LonesomeRhoades

    You are using the word to define itself, and is a blatant logical error.

  47. Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    " I will let them speak for themselves."

    I'm content to let my own words speak for themselves, since I never advocate for violence against anyone, and I fully support a person who self-labels as "gay" the right to get married. Frankly, someone else's sexual orientation isn't my concern, and I don't it make my cause.

    YOu might choose to do a little research into the rates of domestic violence between "gay" couples. You might be surprised.

  48. Michael C
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Hi Ms. Gallagher, I think Reformed might be trying to illustrate that when a person is vilified, they end up being treated like a villain. I know you have love and compassion in your heart but gays and lesbians are being demonized and that leads to violence.

  49. Little man
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Violence to {gays} is not different than violence to anyone. It is unfortunate in every case, but humanity is (unwisely) accustomed to solving its problems through violence. Some homosexuals use threats, spit in your face and try to get you fired - that is violence too. And i do support violence of a kind: war is violent, and we are doing it to people where we are at war. Otherwise, why have a military? Remember, people of all types are subjects to violence every day. And sometimes it is provoked.

  50. maggie gallagher
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    I don't know the situation in Chile so I can't really speak.

    Here, I know that if you simply stand up and say "Marriage is the union of husband and wife because children need a mom and dad" and also say "gay people are my friends, neighbors and fellow citizens, I agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others"--you will be treated witness on this site as if you were demonizing gay people.

    i wish that were not true, because it slanders a great number of good people, and it divides our society in new ways.

    But I don't have the power to change the truth about where we are.

    The attempt to conflate horrendous and wrong violence towards gay people with support for marriage is not coming from our side. I think it's wrong but it is your movement you would have to change that part.

    Blessings,

    M

  51. Posted April 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    I've been supporting NAMBLA for almost 15 yrs now!

  52. Posted April 2, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    We are HUGE supporters of NAMBLA! I don't see anything wrong with it!

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] National Organization for Marriage’s president, Brian Brown, has responded today specifically to the race-baiting scandal which has engulfed the organization: “Let me [...]

  2. [...] Making Marriage Meaningless March 30, 2012, 3:10 pm Do we hear wedding bells? A new morality is being created and fobbed off on the American people, complete with “enforcers” to “stigmatize” good people who disagree. At the end of his press release, Sen. Rev Díaz said: “Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, friends and foes: Fasten your seat belts, because I am afraid that it’s going to be a very bumpy ride.” – National Organization for Marriage [...]