National Organization for Marriage Issues Statement Regarding Remarks by Dr. Robert Anderson, Pastor, Colonial Baptist Church


Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), issued the following statement concerning remarks made by Dr. Robert Anderson, pastor of Maryland’s Colonial Baptist Church:

National Organization for Marriage

"The statement by Dr. Anderson is being mischaracterized as implying that gays and lesbians are worthy of death. Dr. Anderson meant no such thing. But just to be clear, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) does not and has never tolerated any statement that the bible justifies any act of violence, intimidation or even incivility toward gay and lesbian individuals. NOM repudiates any statement that gays and lesbians should be subjected to any act or statement that violates their inherent human dignity as people created in the image of God. All Americans are entitled to love and respect and NOM rejects any act or statement to the contrary. NOM is also in agreement with the statement issued by Rev. Derek McCoy of the Maryland Marriage Alliance making clear that the "No on Question 6" campaign does not condone any acts or statements that violate the dignity of gays or lesbians or anyone’s human rights."


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Jen Campbell (x145), , or Elizabeth Ray (x130), , 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).


  1. Seaborn Roddenberry
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Hey, NOM stirred the pot and created this monster. Now you have to live with it.

    You riled up pastors in NC back in May and there are tons of audio clips to prove it. Now you're doing the same thing in MD.

    You own it.

  2. Alan E.
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    "Those that practice such things are deserving of death...For those who also approve of those who practice these things. If we don't vote against it, then we are approving these things that are worthy of death!"

    Direct quote.

  3. roger
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Just like the HRC owns Floyd Lee Corkins - the SSM Terrorist who shot up the Family Research Council?

  4. M. Jones
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Just goes to show, that SSM extremists will distort and misinterpret anything to justify their agenda to destroy natural marriage.

  5. M. Jones
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Alan, its an illustration, not advocacy. Re-defining marriage is a horrible thing for children and for society.

  6. Alan E.
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Illustrating that people should die because of it?

  7. OvercameSSA
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    "deserving of or worthy of death," is not saying that anyone should be killed. It just means that they wouldn't be sorry to see them go; I know some people I feel that way about.

    It's still a free country; he can say whatever he wants, at least until the thought police are put into action.

  8. Alan E.
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    So if someone decided to kill a gay person, this pastor would think that the gay person deserved it? How is that not an endorsement?

  9. Paul Mc
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Oh, Overcame, can you not see the depths to which you now stoop?

    "Those that practice such things are deserving of death...For those who also approve of those who practice these things. If we don't vote against it, then we are approving these things that are worthy of death!"

    So now, you are an apologist for someone who calls homosexuality worthy of death.

    In any circumstance, in any state, in any country, in any semblance of a place that calls itself civilized, such a thing is impossible. Yet you make light of it as if he was joking. Well, just watch it again - he meant it, he clearly meant.

    You need to dissociate yourself from this just as NOM have finally tried to do. Otherwise you are complicit in a terrible act of unChirstian hate.

  10. M. Jones
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    SSM Extremists try again to play the victim card.. [YAWN]

  11. Tribune
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    If anybody seen the video, he was just reading from the bible and the point of his reading is that the action of homosexuality is not a valid life style. The bible does not state that any man should take that particular course of action. It just stresses what God feels about that action. Gays ought to relax, nobody wants their blood.

  12. Duncan
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    What total BS: "But just to be clear, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) does not and has never tolerated any statement that the bible justifies any act of violence, intimidation or even incivility toward gay and lesbian individuals. NOM repudiates any statement that gays and lesbians should be subjected to any act or statement that violates their inherent human dignity as people created in the image of God. All Americans are entitled to love and respect "


    Neither of you treat any of us with dignity, respect or love. Hypocrites,

  13. John B.
    Posted October 26, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    That "worthy of death" stuff was quoted directly from the bible so that makes it all okay, right? And you're shocked, SHOCKED that gay people consider them fighting words.

    But truth is, there's a lot of funny stuff in the bible and I'm always amused by the hypocrisy of so-called "christians" who ignore the entire Old Testament and everything in it, except when they find a little nugget like this one and then it's the most truthful and valuable thing they've ever found in the entire bible. But tell me, how much credibility would you give to somebody claiming to be concerned about child welfare by quoting Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 over and over?

  14. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 12:01 am | Permalink

    Reading the entire chapter of Romans 1, a whole list of sins are catalogued, including covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, pride, deceit, malignity, gossip, backbiting, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents--all that as well as fornication and homosexuality. I don't note that any one sin is considered lesser or greater than any other.

    According to the laws of the land during the days of Paul, some of these sins were considered grave enough to warrant capital punishment. Paul was in no way calling out vigilantes to mete out justice.

    The book of Romans was written about A.D. 55 and 57. The book of Leviticus was written somewhere before 1095 B.C. Considering that the span of years between the two books of scripture is about 1000 years of history. That two (of many) ordained servants of God would sternly warn against being unchaste is consistent with, "Jesus Christ the asame yesterday, and to day, and for ever," (Heb.), and would provide reasonable evidence that God's opinion on sex outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman is still considered an abomination, even in these "modern" times.

    Interestingly enough, it is self control and chastity that bequeaths self-respect, respect from others, and dignity. Romans 1 indicates that mankind started out honorable, but chose corruption, and so (vs. 24) God gave them up to their uncleanness; ie., the only one who can take away our dignity, self-respect, and love, is ourselves.

    I imagine the reaction to Paul's words then was much the same then as now--those who prize virtue welcome those words, and those who don't, well, let's say nothing's changed. However, then, as now, Paul was simply the messenger. He wasn't the originator of the doctrine, and neither is Dr. Anderson. Shooting the messenger doesn't take away accountability for one's own choices. These doctrines were given as a warning (again, not an invitation to vigilantes, but an opportunity to get one's life in order)--a chance to repent before it's too late. If someone really had it out for us sinners, they'd keep mum and watch them go over the spiritual cliff, as it were. Almost all the apostles were martyred for their beliefs. Any one of them could have tossed in the towel and lived a quiet life, and let everyone just wander off the straight and narrow. The fact that they were willing to die for the cause of Christ ought to be a reason to pause and ponder. Remember, not everyone who tells us only that which we want to hear is our friends, and not everyone who disagrees with us is an enemy. A real enemy keeps their mouth shut and watches us walk right into a trap.

  15. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 12:31 am | Permalink

    DoE, thanks for your excellent comment.

  16. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 12:36 am | Permalink

    You are welcome, Barb. 🙂

  17. Chairm
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 2:55 am | Permalink

    Duncan, what of same-sex sexual behavior do you claim that society must respect? On what moral basis do you command respect for such behavior?

    It is a real question that gets at the pith of your asserted moralism.


    Seaboran, in principle the progay bigotry of the SSM campaign is analogous with the identity politics pushed to the most extreme by the Nationalist Social Arty under Hitler. If you disagree, state why your bigotry is superior.

    If you claim that your bigotry is more benign, fine, but that would be a matter of degree rather than a difference of kind.

    See Donny's threat and denounce it without denouncing your progay favoritism, if you can.


    Alan, read Daughter of Eve's comment and recalibrate your understanding. Rop the distortions or your credibility will be sunk.

    See Seaborn's monster remark and Paul Mc's unChristian (his word) remark and think about the meaning of distortion. You might also look to the history of the National Socialist Party's distortions of Christianity and Judaism and learn more about the matter.


    The passage from Scripture is about behavior. Not sexual appetite but behavior. If the SSMers here claim to be enslaved to their sexual appetites, then, they have missed the moral point of the passage they'd dispute.

    The challenge to them remains unmet: What is your moral argumentation that would backup the asserted moral assumption that same-sex sexual behavior is ever moral?

    Your comments here raise this query to the fore, Duncan, Paul Mc, Alan E, Seaborn, John B. The onus is on you.

    Most SSMers assert moralism but do not have the sound moral argumentation to support it forthrightly and so they retreat to moral neutrality. But that is a big problem for their biggest moral assumption on same-sex sexual behavior (or practicing such things as the Rev put it).

    The marriage issue is an entirely different matter but SSMers feel compelled to conflate their progay moralism with the conflict of ideas on marriage that the SSM campaign has pushed onto society. The marriage idea is a far better idea than the conceptual mess that is the SSM idea. But when SSMers are confronted forthrightly about their moralism on same-sex sex behavior -- a separate issue -- they show how much their moralism is superficial basis for their SSM idea. By discussing both issues, at the open insistence of SSMers, the truth is revealed.

    Progay bigotry is a very poor excuse for their attack on the marriage idea.

  18. Son of Adam
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    "Gays ought to relax, nobody wants their blood."

    I wish I could say the same about pro marriage advocates. (See posts 16 & 17)

  19. M. Jones
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    I don't see much respect coming from the pro "SSM" side for natural law and biology. Yet, they are first to demand respect for their enslavement to lust and desire.

  20. John B.
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Daughter of Eve is quite correct that Romans 1 lists quite a litany of things that are "worthy of death" but oddly enough this phrase comes up in political discourage almost exclusively with respect to gay rights. Now why is that? And if this is really all about "supporting" or "defending" marriage, why does your side so rarely refer to the direct and explicit instructions of Jesus himself against divorcing and remarrying, even though so many of your own political and religious leaders have done exactly this?

  21. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 27, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Probably, John B., because pro-gay bigotry is the main impetus behind neutering marriage.

  22. Chairm
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    It is tiresome that SSMers throw up a blizzard of pro-SSM moralism but consistently fail --- utterly fail -- to back it up with sound moral argumentation.

    Indeed, SSMers routinely react by running away from the very challenge that their own asserted moralism brings to the fore. They typically do not even bother to attempt to make a moral argument, much less provide sound moral arguments, but just pop back up a little to repeat the pro-SSM moralism as if they had never contemplated a solid response to the challenge that I happened to express here as an open-ended query.

    They demand to be heard but their silence makes clear that they have zilch to say on this gaping hole in their rhetoric and in their thinking. That tells the story.

    Readers will note that this is a pronounced pattern in the pro-SSM comments by SSMers who show-up here in the comment sections of the NM Blog. They supposedly seek public discourse on a matter of great importance to them. On a matter for which their certitude is well made clear.This belies an arrogance that cheapens public discourse and corrupts the conflict between their SSM idea and the marriage idea.

    The onus is on the SSMers -- specifically including the following who commented here:

    Paul Mc
    Alan E
    John B

    Readers would do well to press for a forthright response from these and other SSMers they might encounter.

    I would add to the list another who switched sides precisely because of the pro-SSM moralism His prominence places a bigger burden on him than on the run-of-the-mill SSM commenter.

    His name is David Blankenhorn. He has asserted that homosexual love has equal dignity, for example, without providing clarification of what he means to assert and without providing the sound moral argumentation that supposedly had convinced him of his moral assumption. He made the asserted moralism in the exact context, provided by his own words in a NY Time op-ed, of his self-righteous moral experience. So he is on the hook to answer the query forthrightly but he has not done so.

    Of course, among SSMers Blankenhorn is not alone on this profound problem in the pro-SSM rhetoric and thinking. It is a gaping hole that the SSM campaign pretends is not there even though they draw attention to it themselves.

    Ordinarily I would call that moral cowardice, but must (and happily) give Blankenhorn the benefit of the doubt, given his pro-marriage book, "The Future of Marriage".

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.