FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 7, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)
"Vice President Joe Biden is declaring war on those 30 states in America that have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."—Brian Brown, NOM president—
Washington, D.C. — Following Vice President Joe Biden's remarks yesterday on NBC's "Meet The Press" regarding his views on same-sex marriage, Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, responded:
"It's always hard to know what Vice President Biden is doing whenever he speaks. He could be launching a trial balloon, or he could just be being Biden with his foot in his mouth again. Whether he realizes it or not, Biden is declaring war on those 30 states in America that have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is soon to be 31 states when North Carolina, the site of the Democratic convention this August, enacts a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage tomorrow. What Joe Biden wants—genderless marriage that kowtows to the demands of gay couples—cannot exist alongside traditional marriage. Only one definition of marriage can exist. Joe Biden just made gay marriage a major issue in the presidential contest in critical swing states whose voters have adopted marriage amendments—including Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Nevada. We will make sure that voters in these states, and others, know that if the Obama/Biden ticket is reelected, our marriage laws will be at grave risk."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann, ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).
41 Comments
Hyperbole alert!
Declaring war, LOL what a laugh riot. Sounds no different than when people talked about the war between the North and the South to be honest. I wonder what side NOM is on?
You guys have gone completely off the rails. War? OKay, then Mitt Romney has declared war on the majority of Americans since we all know that more than 50% support marriage equality.
Yup. It's war.
Culture war.
All the arguments have been made, all the claims examined.
The people have now got to demonstrate the will to enforce their sovereign decision over and against any arrogant, tyrannical "we know better than you" elitist social-engineering pseudo-royalty out their masquerading as politicians, or judges, or civil servants.
It starts tomorrow in NC.
No backing down now.
This is the year.
It's on for sure.
Prop 8 and a few DOMA cases are heading through the federal courts. And as we see, Rick, when you actually gave to back your words with evidence, your side falls woefully short. But then again, you can whine about judges. But we still know you have nothing.
*have to
For the opposition:
metaphor:
noun:
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”
You're welcome.
Pete:
It is true that marriage corruption can only win in courts, or legislatures.
It is completely demolished as a proposition capable of obtaining the consent of the governed.
Now I understand that your side is now reduced to fantasizing about the imposition of marriage corruption, over and against the will of the people, by a tyrant judiciary.
Go ahead and sell that one, Pete.
It has no more connection to reality, than does the notion that gender is irrelevant to marriage.
But at least it buys you a few more years to shake out donation money.
@Barb,
someday when you are able to take a step back and observe the bigger picture instead of looking at the picture you have painted for yourself, you will see that all you are doing is called projection.
elias:
Please remember that while you are engaging in remote psychoanalysis of Barb here, we are calling the voters who will preserve marriage in NC tomorrow.
Carry on......
Rick, when I get married, gender will be completely relevant. I will marry the man I love. We will gather friends and family together to celebrate and support that which everyone understands: marriage implies permanence.
You, on the other hand, will be doing everything in your power to ensure society sees same-gender relationships as fleeting/temporary. I do hope that you wake up one day and realize we gay men and women aren't corrupting anything. Instead, we are simply seeking full participation in society in ways that everyone recognizes and understands.
Deleting civil posts, NOM. And you're the first to cry out about freedom of speech.
Yeah. I feel as though my posts won't last very long on this forum.
Creighton (writes)
"Rick, when I get married, gender will be completely relevant. I will marry the man I love. We will gather friends and family together to celebrate and support that which everyone understands: marriage implies permanence."
I wish you could see how you look through the eyes of people (like Rick) who can see the forest for the tree's.
What you need to remember is that your part of something larger than yourself. The cultural left has not been and is not now concerned with "permanance" in marriage, they are not suddenly "in to" promoting monogomy or fidelity between any couples.
If so- where is the outcry about the divorce rate, or illegitamacy rate that effects so many more people.
Im afraid your being used as the latest proletariate in the fight to reduce marriage to a pure relationship divorced from gender, childbearing and indeed "permanace" of any sort.
@Fitz#14,
Forest for the trees? Project much?
Our government has never been in the marriage business. That is why the Constitution doesn't mention it. It is not the place of the government. I agree that there should be an outcry against what heterosexuals have done to marriage and children for centuries and organizations such as NOM should be doing that and focus on what has happened and is happening and not being addressed much instead of something that they want you to think might happen and hasn't happened. Do you really think that just because there are laws in these areas that that is going to change how people are? Really?
"Im afraid your being used as the latest proletariate in the fight to reduce marriage to a pure relationship divorced from gender, childbearing and indeed "permanace" of any sort."
I am hardly being used at all. I am simply fighting for what I require to ensure that my household and my family requires to be most safe and secure. In America, that so happens to be civil marriage. This means fighting long enough and hard enough to ensure that when my partner and I go from state to state, we suddenly don't find ourselves being treated by the locals and the local government as nothing more than legal strangers or glorified roommates, but husbands - married - united together under a common bond that everyone understands.
I won't mention my own spiritual beliefs around the topic. Those beliefs are irrelevant as should any religious opinion on the matter.
"It is true that marriage corruption can only win in courts, or legislatures."
And it is also true that religionists need the homophobes and straight supremacists to vote with them against marriage equality. I wonder what Jesus thinks of harnessing hate to get your way????
Barb, We know what a metaphor is. And Brian's metaphor is absurd, intended to fire up the homo haters.
The marriage corruption movement is completely dependent upon the misapplication of language in defense of their demands for new rights. If these miscreants were to accept proper discriptives in reference to their depravity they know we would not even be having this conversation because hisorical fact does not speak well of their proclivity.
eliasasm (writes)
"Our government has never been in the marriage business. That is why the Constitution doesn't mention it."
This is simply wrong as a matter of fact. BOTH sides readily concede that marriage is a federally protected right under our constitution
These Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) & Baker v Nelson illustrate that widely excepted fact.
"Do you really think that just because there are laws in these areas that that is going to change how people are? Really?"
No - the laws are one very important aspect of what is required for an insitution like marriage to flourish., I can assure you that the people at NOM and people like myself have been working for years addressing everything from divorce to illigetamacy.
Before we can recognize the promise of intact married childbearing and rearing we need to defend the elemental definition inherint in the right to marriage.
We cant defend what we cant define.
The US Supreme Court and all major medical societies don't seem to think being gay is depraved, Randy. What do you know that they don't, and does your opinion really matter compared to theirs?
But please, by all means, keep expressing your animosity towards gays, so as to prove to the courts that those folks against same-sex marriage are motivated by animosity!
The U.S. Supreme Court; you are kidding right?
LGBT
(L)esbian = women that do women
(G)ay = men that do men
(B)i-sexual = people that do everything
(T)ransgender = confused
You reference "Gay" as though it where the mythical unicorn from antiquity.
None of your discriptives mean what you think they mean:
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.” Confucius
I count six "yes for marriage equality" on the US Supreme Court, including Scalia, who has already said that the Lawrence v. Texas decision requires equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. He'll bring his lap dog Thomas with him, plus the four non-religionist justices. That's six. We already know that the anti-gays have no capacity for arguing a rational, coherent case against equal marriage rights. See Prop 8 LOL.
Jim,
Scalia's was answered by Kennedy who stated in his majority opinion:
"This decision should in no way be viewed as an open door to Same Sex Marriage"
The only way this door gets opened is if the majority declares same-gender sex to be immutable in opposition to over two hundred and thirty-five years of SCOTUS precedence.
This is not 'Wonderland' and your name is not Alice; wake up.
Scalia is a vote for marriage corruption.
Yeah.
Right.
Anybody who buys that also probably believes in the idea that Moms are male and Dads are female.....oooops.....
Joe Biden would be the blueprint someone would use if you were going to build the perfect idiot. The best thing we all can do is just turn him off. Anything and everything that comes out of the mans mouth is ridiculous.
"Stand up and let everybody see you, Joe. God Love you, you're in a wheelchair"- Joe Biden
Sure Joe! Let's abort a few million more minority infants and use their resources to feather the economic nests of gays and lesbians pretending to be married with spousal marriage benefits! Makes perfect sense to progressives.
Randy E. King:
Scalia's was answered by Kennedy who stated in his majority opinion:
"This decision should in no way be viewed as an open door to Same Sex Marriage"
This is not correct. The direct quote you attribute to Kennedy in his Lawrence decision simply does not appear. It's correct that Scalia said in his dissent, "This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples." But I find nothing in Kennedy's decision which answers that charge in any way. Of course, Scalia wasn't happy about that state of events, and I don't think any serious court watcher thinks Scalia would uphold the Ninth Circuit regarding Prop 8, should that case reach the court.
Yes Biden and the liberal Dems are banking that bribe money being thrown at them and in their desire to get at the greedy cash they are throwing Americans under the bus.
Ever hear of the term seperation of state. It is time for a serperation of Obamma/Biden from state.
Creighton, I might add that just as your religious beliefs are irrevelant to marriage law, so is your sexual orientation. Sexual identity politics are a non-issue in marriage law, or in the legal definition of marriage. If that is not so, then please state why.
Randy
"The only way this door gets opened is if the majority declares same-gender sex to be immutable in opposition to over two hundred and thirty-five years of SCOTUS precedence."
Sigh, just like civil rights. The SCOTUS would NEVER have thought to overturn 235 yeas of precedence. Ha. SSM will be validated if not tomorrow than within the next 10 years. The younger generation understands what equality means.
DoE,
You already said that. About three times. In a previous comment on this thread, I did specifically state that my religious beliefs weren't going to be brought up because they are irrelevant to this discussion. Sexual orientation isn't a non-issue. It is very much an issue when it comes to LGB Americans and allies fighting for marriage equality.
I've made quite a few statements across these last few posts. Instead of repeating what you always say, why don't you try to respond to some of them.
RJ:
Why bother? You say religious beliefs are irrelevant to the question.
Bunk.
We live and vote our religious convictions.
It's called the First Amendment.
Nothing left to say, it seems to me.
See you in NC tomorrow.
RJ, please produce a coherent argument for neutering marriage, and I'll be happy to respond. Please affect how it will affect the core meaning of marriage, and family law, such as presumption of paternity, annullmenmt, divorce, inheritance, paternity rights, children's rights, etc. Please be specific. Stating simply that there will be no consequences is simplistic, and incorrect.
Go for it! Eagerly awaiting your thorough analysis.
"We live and vote our religious convictions."
And the courts reverse the mob powe of bigotry.
It's called the Constitution.
"RJ, please produce a coherent argument for neutering marriage, and I'll be happy to respond. "
We have, over and over, you just refuse to face reality. Read the prop 8 trial transcripts, we have much to say, you don't.
@Rick DeLano,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
Would you like to discuss those religious convictions?
"We have, over and over, you just refuse to face reality. Read the prop 8 trial transcripts, we have much to say, you don't."
Well, not really. The only argument I've heard is "it's our right."
What does "gay" have to do with marriage rights? What eligibility requirements would individuals have to secure a marriage, and based on what rationale? What of presumption of paternity, and family law? How does SSM affect maternal, paternal, and child rights? You've never spelled that out. Not once. How does SSM reflect the core meaning of marriage? Why should we-the-people license and regulate a same-sex relationship? What is the rationale?
Sure, Elias.
Always happy to discuss religious convictions.
What specifically would you like me to discuss?
@Rick DeLano#38,
I'd like to discuss the video.
@Daughter of Eve#37,
'The only argument I've heard is "it's our right."'
Correct, the only argument you have Heard.