Bristol Palin: People Want Me To Die Over Gay Marriage Blog Post



Bristol Palin admittedly “stirred up a hornet’s nest” with her argument against gay marriage last week, drawing hate mail and death wishes that she addresses in a new blog post.

“People claim they’re just trying to protect the right of two people to love each other – a right I don’t contest, by the way – and then spew the worst words imaginable at someone they disagree with,” Palin, the eldest daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, writes. "If the agenda is love, why do you hate so intensely?”

Near the bottom of the post, Palin displays some of the worst feedback she’s received, including death wishes against her and her family.

"You all, including your son, deserve a slow, painful and miserable death," one commenter wrote. "Your backwards thinking is so sad because the world is moving forward and you will certainly be left behind. May death be upon you.”

Palin wonders why her remarks – in which she criticized President Obama for consulting his daughters about gay marriage – prompted such nasty backlash.


  1. Susan Rosenthal
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    You folks do criticize people for having babies out of wedlock, getting divorced, etc. However, I have yet to see NOM sponsor laws or constitutional amendments to prevent this type of behavior. I am also not aware of any efforts that NOM has made to prevent people who are clearly a risk to children, such as child molesters, from getting married. If you are going to make the argument that marriage should be protected because it the best way to foster the needs of children, then why wouldn't you be taking active steps to prevent child abusers from getting married. It seems to me that NOM should be taking very aggressive steps to prevent convicted child abusers from entering into a relationship whose primary purpose is supposed to be meeting the needs of children. I look forward to many years of healthy debate about this subject. I am sure that NOM will be sponsoring amendments and laws in all 50 states to prevent child abusers from getting married.

  2. MarkOH
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Back to Bristol Plain: you know, the abstinence only girl, who engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse out of wedlock, got pregnant, gave birth and then refused to marry the father of her child. The fact she has the NERVE to post that a child needs a mother and father. She is a walking fool, a hypocrite.

  3. bman
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Austin->If so, men who have had unfortunate accidents would be barred from marriage.

    Marriage legally implies that a bride and groom have given up the right to have sex with anyone other than one's partner.

    Thus, even if one partner was disabled, a sexual contract would still be implied under the law.

    Furthermore, if the woman did not know about the disability until after the marriage, most states would accept that as grounds for annulment, which again shows that marriage is a sexual contract at law.

    The public purpose of marriage as a sexual contract between a bride and groom is not redefined by the private circumstances of some couples.

    By analogy, if someone registered a non driveable car, the public purpose of a car registration would still entitle cars (plural) to drive on public roads.

    Although that particular car could not drive, the public purpose of a car registration would not be changed by that.

    In a similar way, the public purpose of marriage as a sexual contract with sexual rights and responsibilities, and the expectation of sexual fidelity, is not changed by the private circumstances of some couples.

  4. bman
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:00 am | Permalink

    A question to all: When has the majority ever voted to give rights to a minority?

    Didn't some states grant civil unions by way of popular vote?

    Also, where minorities are only defined by a behavioral trait the unethical nature of the behavior would be a valid reason for society to not sanction the behavior.

  5. bman
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Susan Rosenthal->You folks do criticize people for having babies out of wedlock, getting divorced, etc. However, I have yet to see NOM sponsor laws or constitutional amendments to prevent this type of behavior.

    The act of promoting monogamous bride groom marriage to society helps deter the social ills mentioned.

    Likewise, a federal marriage amendment would help deter the social ills mentioned by lifting up a clear marriage standard for all society.

  6. Fitz
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    Austin (writes)
    "Again, I applaud your legal research to find cases that are on point for your position"

    But each and every time you do absolutley nothing to refute the arguments presented...All you can say is "one day we will prevail" and then draw spurious anologies to past court precedents that (again) I present actuall arguments that show how strained and flawed such arguments are?

    Austin (writes)

    "When has the majority ever voted to give rights to a minority? Do you think it was wrong to vote for women to have the right to vote? - The thing about rights is that you dont get to vote on them."

    All the time. You contradict yourself when you bring up the 19th amendment.. Only men could vote at the time, yet the voted to give women the vote...

    Will you really be back or are you just running away?

    Are you now going to retire that silly "requirment" language..

    Every single right in our consitution was voted on and every amendment including the bill of rights.

    And not just my simple majorities but by supermajorities.. and then ratified by 3/4 of the states..

  7. Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
    I think gay and lesbian people should have the same legal rights as straight people, including the right to marry.

    NOM agrees, Jim, and thankfully, they do.

  8. Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    NOM agrees, Jim, and thankfully, they do.

  9. eliasasm
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:56 am | Permalink


    Where on Earth do you get the idea that any law is blurring any line. You simply cannot be thinking this through. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think that a mother and a father is the ideal situation. Come on. The problem is it ain't reality, never has been. And thinking that voting against one specific group of human beings is going to change that or anything isn't thinking at all. Seriously. And most important, this is a civil rights issues having nothing to do with marriage or religion. Civil. You cannot vote against anyone just because you do not like who they are. Appalling that anyone thinks so in the United States of America with a half Black president in the 21st Century. Scary ain't it? Please, Zack, think things through a little further.

  10. Zack
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink


    Marriage serves to draw the distinction between the two sexes. That's where the idea comes from. Any law that tries to redefine what Marriage is serves to blur the lines between the two sexes. You can look at it however you wish, but redefining Marriage is telling people that the two genders are interchangeable and provide nothing unique to children. It's basically saying children don't need a mother nor a father, that any combination of the two are equally good.

    Albeit this article references the Prop 8 trial back in 2010 but still a good read.

  11. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    Calling for violence is never acceptable, no matter at which side you stand in this or any other debate. I think I saw another comment on this side by someone who said that NOM promotes violence. While I disagree with NOMs views in many ways, I absosutely disagree with that poster's comment.

    That said, I often find discussions like the one in this post tend to be bitter and generalizing. As evidenced in this discussion, some NOM supporters generalize the opposition to their views as hatred that is shared by the whole gay community. Likewise, some NOM opponents (HRC is a bit like the NOM of the other side in my opinion) are way to easy in generalizing all Christians as bigots and homophobes. The discussions here often tend to attract the most vocal and outspoken people on the marriage issue. I think its fair to say that the vast majority of the gay community, Christians and those that belong to both want nothing more than a civil debate.

  12. Markus
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Jeremy Hooper over at "GoodAsYou(dot)org" has published a eye-opening reality about what the moderator allows and dis-allows here at NOMBlog. Check it out. Your comment could go "viral"!

  13. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    I love the 19th amendment for the simple fact that it was the minority voting to give the majority rights. Women have always been a 1-2% larger population than men in Western civilization. However, it must be noted that many states (New Jersey comes to mind) did vote on women's right to vote, and many states voted the measure down time and time again until the 19th amandment came along. Progress is not quick, it is not easy, and there will be set backs.

    The cases I use are not to show that the legal framework has been laid to show that an outcome is certain. I use them to show that civil rights issues often are judged in a particular way for decades before progess is made. How many times was seperate but equal upheld before Brown? How many interracial couples lost their case before Loving? History teaches that in order to make strides for equality, defeat is to be expected time and time again before true change can occur.

    As for marriage being a sexual contract, I laugh again at the "procreation" argument being used just by a different name. Honestly, every single justification for "traditional marriage" has been in the context of procreation or the protection of children. Come up with something new. If all marriage was illegal, the human race would survive. People would still have children. The conservative version of the ideal might be gone, but we dont legislate on individual freedoms and pursuits of happiness.

    Just as an aside, I came across and interesting article:

  14. Good News
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    @ Markus
    Thanks for the info! They just don't understand what a balanced debate is.
    Keep me informed. But don't make me fearful if you can help it.

  15. Louis E.
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Eliasasm,what's appalling is that anyone would call this a "civil rights issue" (or that you could seriously say that the definition of marriage "has nothing to do with marriage").
    We can't treat standards of conduct as critical to the well-being of humanity as the need to guarantee preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships as "unfair" to groups defined by desire to violate them.

    Austin,if you are attracted to the same sex,that imposes on you a responsibility not to have sex.

  16. Posted May 16, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    And homosexuals wonder why so many people hate them. =.=

    Homophobia. WHAT homophobia? It's mostly homo-hate-eeah

    Just because someone doesn't agree with you on homosexuality doesn't mean they need to be KILLED for it. My word. People are stupid.

  17. Don
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    We know that the vast majority of Americans are against SSM. It is about time for the right to get off their lazy butts and speak up. Put the weird minority back in their place. Even if that place is insane asylums. Forget about political correctness and do what is right.

  18. Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    In my opinion, homosexual "marriage" was never about love but about forcing society to accept homosexual acts as normal. No one objects to love. Most people object to the harmful and filthy act of sodomy.

  19. carol jordan
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Does it really matter what homosexuals think of us. You go girl, Bristol. Your mom raised you good, and you are right to stick up for Biblical and right values. Too many people give in to the social ills, to blend in. I look forward to voting for you for President in several got MOM's b_lls, girl, and you certainly will go far. Unwed mom or not, you are a great example of who young people, and all people should aspire to be.

  20. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Im not a Catholic Priest. I did not chastity. And just because your religion has misinterpreted its own teachings on homosexuality does not mean you get to impose religious beliefs and doctrine on a group that doesnt share in your belief.

    I find it ironic that being gay is seen as a choice by some, but religion is somehow immutable. Go figure.

  21. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    **** did not take a vow of chastity***

  22. Crysee61
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    im just so sick of hearing about much crying over something so insignificant....hasnt anyone noticed the muslims are invading our country and trying to turn our country into socialism..lord help us.
    and your whining cause you cant marry your lover....i dont care you will be the one answering to god about it not worried about my childrens future in this stupid country.

  23. Jess
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Just curious..How many "Death" comments where actually made? I willing to bet one. Albeit, an angry SSM supporter might have mad a comment but you all actually PREACH Violence and act on it!!

  24. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is unnatural.
    Homosexuality is immoral.
    Homosexuality is sin.
    The above are facts.
    It is time to push back against the hate and bigotry of these Homosexuals.

  25. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Whether or not you believe the bible on homosexuality being wrong, nobody can deny that our bodies are designed for a man and woman to have sex- not two of the same sex to. You can deny Christianity all you want but you can't deny how your body was made to function.

  26. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    You NOMer's make my point for me. Thanks!

    BTW, don't knock it til you try it 🙂

    Hate and bigorty of homosexuals? LMAO! That's right, I was just reading about the straight group that had to evacuate its office due to bomb threats. Wait......

  27. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Ummmmm.... the laws of our nation now stand that you dont get to make laws regarding the consensual acts of adults behind closed doors. So... are there anymore variations of the procreation theme you want to throw my way and make my poing for me?

  28. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Ummm, if the people get to vote they will vote however they feel is right. So yes we do get to help make laws based on how we want to vote. Whether that's based on our faith or our opinion of something. Your not going to tell people how they can vote. It won't work.

  29. AliceInWonderland
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I think the government has no place in marriage, at all. I understand why homosexuals want to be "married" for tax and other reasons. But I think the government should come up with a different term for it and get out of the marriage business all together.

    It is my plan to have a "civil union" take its place. Whereby any two people over 18 can be "unionized" Then they basically have the tax benefits and other stuff that the government has say in, just like they are married. But it is basically just a social contract between any two people to live together and share economic burden. Kind of like a company, but with only two people. It could be you and your roommate, you and your husband, you and your mom for all I care There doesn't even have to be a sexual relationship there. It is just a tax shelter, of sorts.

    Then, those who want to can be married by their given religious affiliation, or stay unmarried, for all I care. People shouldn't look for acceptance for their beliefs from others, if they believe something to be right or wrong, it is their business. But the government shouldn't be used to force one set of beliefs on anyone.

    Honestly, I don't know a single person who hates gays, and I live in the Bible belt. The thing people hate is their freedom being taken away. The problem religious people have with the gay agenda is that part of it is to force their belief on religious organizations. They have shut down adoption agencies for not adopting out to gay couples, gotten churches in trouble for not marrying them, and corporations in trouble for not hiring them.

    Seek equality from the government all you want, but don't try to get them to force others to go against their beliefs. Private Entities should have the ability to do whatever they want, It is like this thing with forcing Catholic institutions to give free birth control. The government needs to stay out of religion. Religious organizations should be able to marry who they want to, and adopt to who they see fit, and not give BC because it is against their beliefs. It isn't like there aren't secular organizations who don't serve the same purpose. We have courthouses, adoption agencies, and public universities. They aren't out of luck for not believing. However, when they try to force their lifestyle and their beliefs on others, it is no wonder they get "discriminated" against.

  30. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Chelsea, gay people being murdered for thousands of years in every country on earth with any law and order looking the other way (USA) or encouraging such actions (most african and middle eastern cultures) sounds encouraged by the majority of "traditional marriage" supporters with few on that side opposed to such practice. I think we all can agree on what's at the heart of this issue.

  31. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Lonesome, too bad we're in a free country like the US and not a religion based government like Pakistan and Iran. Maybe if you want your religion to be law of the land, you should really think about immigrating. 🙂

  32. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    I don't happen to think it's discrimination. Everyone follows the same laws now. People in other types of relationships don't get their type recognized by the government either. I think marriage should stay the way it is and that people shouldn't be able to change it for any definition they want.

  33. Dave
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    I am so proud of Bristol Palin for using her celebrity to shine the truth onto this issue.

  34. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Nanette, out of curiousity.... Same-sex relationships exist, there is no denying that. With that in mind, how much rights should those couples have? Should couples that have been together for many years be able to make life-and-death decisions? Should they have inheritence rights? Hospital visitation rights? Or how about rights related to parenting? Which rights should they have and more interestingly, which should they not have?

  35. Jane
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    God knows that I don't care for Bristol or her mother, but this is the one time that she got it right. Chin up Bristol. The LGBT clowns are scared that you may actually make a difference and judging from their reactions, you obviously have. None of them will dare to harm a hair on your or any member of your family's heads, no matter what vile, empty threats they may direct towards you. If their evil, perverted ways don't kill them, their blatant self-hatred will rot their hearts out. Keep being a truth teller. It's forcing everyone to see who these "harmless" citizens truly are-ugly, cowardly, perverted and afraid.

  36. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Jane certainly demonstrates the very thing I first noted in this post: generalizing a whole community based on the awful behavior of some. In all fairness, it is rather absurd to think that the majority of the gay community would approve of any threats or call for violence agains Bristol or anyone else.

  37. AD
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    So NOM supports teen mother Bristol, who didn't want to marry her baby's father.
    Yet NOM is against millions of gay people who DO want to get married.
    Interesting. National Organization Against Marriage would be a more accurate name, honestly.

  38. Good News
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    @ Johan de Vries #80
    Now there are some real questions Johan! Bravo!
    To bad I think everyone has left the room. But ask them again some day. Good for you; you've got guts, and a heart.

  39. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Why not let everyone marry anyone or more than one person except of course children?

  40. AW
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Johan de Vries: The "hospital visitation rights" issue was recently resolved when the Obama administration induced hospitals to allow patients to decide who they are allowed to see. There is no need for "gay marriage" to allow hospital visitation rights. As for "inheritance rights", all you need to do is draw up a legal Last Will and Testament and you can will your property to whomever you choose, married or not. These issues are red herrings.

  41. grandmaliberty
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    what I have observed is that homosexuals do not want tolerance from christians... they want acceptance and approval for their lifestyle..It's not going to happen...

  42. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    AW, these are not red herrings. For example, a long-term same sex couple needs to spent substantially more money and time to draw up legal contracts to get an approximation of what a opposite couple has even after being married for say a week. And even then it may be much, much more difficult to have things worked out if one of the partners pass away.

    That said, I am not so much interested in what is legally possible through constructs like these, but more what you and Nanette for example think from a personal view. Not saying that it goes for you two, but in my perception that are some people against marriage equallity, but for civil unions where the partners have the same rights as opposite couples. That begs the question: if a civil union walks like a duck (marriage), and it quacks like a duck from a civilian point of view, why isn't it a duck?

  43. AW
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Johan de Vries: Take a look at the following article by a lesbian who says she never felt she was at a legal or practical disadvantage for not being able to marry her lover :
    But show me any evidence that gay couples are spending more money on legal arrangements due to the lack of "gay marriage".

  44. AW
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    AD: No one here supports out-of-wedlock birth, as you know perfectly well. The article was supportive of Bristol Palin's comments about gay marriage and her admission (elsewhere) that she shouldn't have had pre-marital sex, not her previous actions.

  45. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    It doesn't matter if anyone thinks from a personal view. That's our opinion and we have a right to it. I still say people can't just decide they want a different type of marriage and have the government back it.

  46. Chairm
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    SSMer said:

    "100% of children of same sex couples had biological parent(s) who either (1) are dead; (2) have been declared unfit as parents; (3) or willfully signed about their parental rights."

    This bizarre remark by an SSMer upthread is noted here simply for readers to contemplate the sort of thinking that produced that remark.

    And to note that the remark is false. The percentage is far from 100%.

    By far, most of the children living in same-sex households (a census term denoting a presumptively homosexual relationship between the head of household and another adult of the same sex in residence), -- better than 95% -- migrated from the previously procreative relationship of mom and dad (usually married or at least cohabitating) to that same-sex household with either mom or dad.

    Yet the bizarre remark does concede the fact that for two persons of the same sex to attain parental status as co-parents over a child, the child's parent of the other sex must relinquish parental status (or die) first. The second pre-requisite is that the government intervenes to assign substitute for the child's parent.

    However, even then the "biological" parent remains that child's parent for purposes of marriage law, intestate law, and other instances such as regarding incest and so forth.

    Generally, that is not so for the same-sex parenting scenario in which the second person who attains co-parental status did so through adoption. It is not so to a high degree -- closer to the 100% figure that the above bizarre remark invoked falsely.

  47. Mohana
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    I would like to start by saying that death threats are never justified, by either side, regardless of how heated an argument gets. Neither Bristol nor her family (or anyone else for that matter) deserve that.

    Second, thank you to Austin and a few others for interjecting their opinions in the affirmative for some sort of union being made available for homosexual couples.

    I myself am lesbian. And I can tell you that it was not something I chose. The fact that I am attracted to females took me a long time to come to terms with (for societal reasons, not personal ones). For a long time, I did the 'natural' thing and went on dates with males. If I could have made myself like them, believe me I would have. But, I am emotionally (and yes, sexually) attracted to those of the feminine persuasion. And I'm happier and healthier (emotionally) for having accepted this fact about myself. As Austin said ... it isn't an easy life and no one in their right mind (my words, not his) would CHOOSE it.

    For a long time now, I have believed that the religious institutions should not be made to perform marriages that were against their beliefs. To me, it is the same as my community feels is being done to them; in that something is being forced on them that is unfair. I do however feel that the government could and should put something in place for me and my significant other that would provide the same rights that heterosexual couples have. I don't want special treatment, just equal treatment.

    Again, there are fanatics on both sides of the fence. Hateful comments and death threats aren't right regardless of who says them.

    My best wishes go out to Ms. Palin and her family.

  48. AW
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Mohana: No one chooses their temptations, but you can choose whether or not you act on them. This is common sense.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.