NOM Promises Pro-Marriage Americans Will Defeat Obama This November For Abandoning Marriage


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

"President Obama has made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states... and we intend to win this marriage debate this November."—Brian Brown, NOM president—

National Organization for Marriage

WASHINGTON, D.C. — National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown responded today to the announcement by President Obama in support of redefining traditional marriage.

"President Obama has now made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada. Voters in all these states, and over two dozen more, have adopted state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. President Obama says that although he personally supports gay marriage, he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. However, that is completely disingenuous. His administration is already trying to dismantle the nation's marriage laws by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. All the state marriage amendments and laws are at risk under a president who actively wants to change the definition of marriage. NOM will work ceaselessly in these swing states and across the nation to preserve traditional marriage because it is profoundly in the public good to do so. God is the author of marriage, and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama who is beholden to gay marriage activists for campaign financing to turn marriage into something political that can be redefined according to presidential whim. The definition of marriage was already headed for the ballot in four states this fall; now it will be one of the defining issues of the presidential election. No state in this country has ever voted for gay marriage. Just yesterday North Carolina voters sent a clear message that America wants to preserve marriage. We intend to win the marriage debate this November."


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 ยง 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).


  1. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm (writes)

    "No, but it is there predominity because of religion."

    Thats like saying that laws against theft exist "predominity because of religion", just because "thou shalt not steal" is in scripture.

    The fact of the matter is that marriage as traditionally defined is part and parcel of our culture, law and religion just as many things are.

    You reveal yourself not to be so much inacurate - but rather nieve.

  2. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    B73 (writes)

    "your claim is as arrogant as it is ignorant. How could you possibly claim to understand being gay better than those who are gay themselves?"

    Maybe they personaly know multiple people in their lives who identified as gay for a period of time in their youth but eventually came to identify as straight.

    Contrary to your claims about "treatment" these individuals sought no outside help but found their way to heteronormativity outside medicine or religion.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink


    You reference these miscreants as if they were the proverbial Unicorn from antiquity. There is no such thing as a "Gay People."

  4. MarkOH
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    "Maybe they personaly know multiple people in their lives who identified as gay for a period of time in their youth but eventually came to identify as straight.

    Contrary to your claims about "treatment" these individuals sought no outside help but found their way to heteronormativity outside medicine or religion."

    Anecdotal examples aside, any scientific proof??? And what do you mean by "identifying as straight"?

  5. eliasasm
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink


    No, that's like stateing the obvious, that for some reason you all are in denial of.
    This is a predominitly a religious issue. People want to believe because of their religion that we are somehow not as good as you so you are not going to let us play the game. You are ignorant to the point that religion should not be used in this country as a reason to do what it is that you want to do. That has never gone over very well in human history. You are ignorant to the fact that being a tradition means nothing more than it is a tradition. Not enough of an argument to use to do what it is that you want to do. We will start a new tradition, how's that? Do you have a problem with that, too?
    You are also ignorant to the fact that marriage and cultures and laws and religions have always changed. That's how life works. You can either jump on the train and join in on the ride or you can stay where you are and keep fighting something that can't be stopped, Life moving forward.
    It's ignorant to think that I or anyone should not be allowed just because of what you are choosing to believe of us and it is ignorant to think that everyone has to go along with something a religion says if they are not of that club. And if you think so, you are missing a very big important point.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink


    You are a living testiment of why religion is afforded Hightened Scrutiny protection; whereas sexual depravity does not even rank an honorable mention.

    Marriage, in our culture, has not changed in over five thousand years; sans the four years in Rome where Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

    You cannot find a single reference in antiquity testifying to the merits of your proclivity, only condemnation for the harm it has done to societies that were stupid enough to tolerate it.

  7. MarkOH
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    Randy E King
    Hm, and perhaps religion shouldn't have such a standing. After all, religion is a CHOICE whereas sexual orientation is as inborn as eye color or handedness.

    Remember, Rome fell AFTER it became a Christian nation. Think about it.

  8. Louis E.
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    since the only usefulness of marriage to society is as a means of securing "rights,benefits,protections",etc. exclusively to opposite-sex relationships in recognition of their enormously important characteristic of opposite-sex,extending them to same-sex couples is like abolishing all requirements to get a driver's license.

    Since identification as "gay" is a form of lying about oneself,knowing more about "gays" than "gays" do is extremely common.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    Engaging in sexual activity with a person of the same sex is a WRONG CHOICE for which homosexual orientation,regardless of its cause,is NO defense.(Legal or illegal,the existence of two sexes in the species makes it deplorable and indefensible).

    To "be gay" is to refuse to understand one's homosexuality.Anyone "anti-gay" has a better understanding of homosexuality than any "gay".

  10. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    Albert C. Kliwer, do you want us all dead (but won't admit it)?

    Come on. Take it down a notch or two.

  11. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Albert: "I will set myself on fire in protest at the White House gates, and, yes, you all have the right to cheer."

    Just promise to eat humble pie.

    No need for the BBQ drama voguing stuff here.

  12. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Albert C. Kliwer, do you believe that Obama does not have capaitalistic policies?

    Okay. Go with that.

  13. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    If Obama is defeated his will be an example of the cost of an incumbent kowtowing to gay identity politics.

    Now, sure, there is some good achieved in identity politics, but it is minimal. Mostly it is a cultural thing that gets hugely distorted when entrenched into governance; at that point it corrupts far and wide.

    But identity politics is a recurring problem for human civilizations. Even at that, marriage's universal core has remained across the millennia even though there are many variables in how societies have responded to that core.

    The core meaning of marriage cuts across the religious, political, and cultural divides of humankind. It is the ultimate pluralistic idea that has withstood all kinds of bizarre abuses -- among the most extreme being the pressing of identity politics (the white supremacist variety) onto marriage law during the days of the anti-miscegnation system. Marriage's core meaning is under attack by the SSM campaign and it is vulnerable to abuses by statist political movements, however, its strength is intrinsic to the nature of human civilization, I think, and will remain even when the storm of gay identity politics has passed onto the trash heap of history.

    The core meaning of marriage: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

    Note that point 3 is not a mere restatement of points 1 and 2. Coherency is what radicals, and deconstructionists, attack when they seek to destroy a social institution.

  14. Richie Rich
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    religion is not a good argument as to why gays should not get married. Use pure scirnce and biology instaed, One a male and female can consumate in every animal species. the union of the reproductive organ os man and woman can consumate. pure and simple.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.