NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage: We Are Not Defeated in Our Fight for Traditional Marriage

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 7, 2012

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


"Americans remain strongly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman." —Brian Brown, NOM president—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), released the following statement today:

"Obviously we are very disappointed in losing four tough election battles by narrow margins. We knew long ago that we faced a difficult political landscape with the four marriage battles occurring in four of the deepest-blue states in America. As our opponents built a huge financial advantage, the odds became even steeper. We ran strong campaigns and nearly prevailed in a very difficult environment, significantly out-performing the GOP ticket in every state.

Despite the fact that NOM was able to contribute a record amount to the campaigns (over $5.5 million), we were still heavily outspent, by a margin of at least four-to-one. We were fighting the entirety of the political establishment in most of the states, including sitting governors in three of the states who campaigned heavily for gay marriage. Our opponents and some in the media will attempt to portray the election results as a changing point in how Americans view gay marriage, but that is not the case. Americans remain strongly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in these very liberal states.

Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it. Marriage is a true and just cause, and we will never abandon the field of battle just because we experienced a setback. There is much work to do, and we begin that process now."

###

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

80 Comments

  1. Bruce
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    I don't know how you can 'Spin' this Bri, but marriage just became more inclusive in 3 more states, and will be a future possibility in Minnesota as well.

    And California will soon be able to resume equal marriage rights as well. Marriage did not lose yesterday, it was just extended to people who have been discriminated against. Your organisation would do well to focus on strengthened the quality of existing marriages that so often end in acrimony and divorce, insteading of campaigning on the wrong side of history.

  2. coyote
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    It's nice to see that Americans are turning away from bigotry, despite the efforts of the Mormon and Catholic Churches to impose their beliefs on ALL Americans, regardless of faith.

  3. Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    "faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it." -BB
    I respect your stance of "religious marriage", but what is winning now is CIVIL marriage...Issued by the state governments. Please stop trying to interact the two...especially via referendum.

  4. Tribune
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Gay "marriage" will alway viewed upon as a lie. Deciding to vote against gay "marriage' is not bigotry. Same sex advcates can make up or change meaning of words, but gay "marriage" is not real.

  5. Joseph Lins
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Why would anyone want to design away someones Mom? "Marriage equality" will turn into "Child inequality"

  6. Phil
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    To NOM, thank you for finally saying something! Don't give up the fight, but it's still hard to spin these loses.

    To the NOM hating trolls,
    So I guess it's ok when "SSM" supporters want to impose their views of marriage on everyone, regardless of faith(some of which doe recognize your conception of marriage)? Be careful that your now-divorced-from-reality concept of "civil marriage" doesn't become so "inclusive" as to become meaningless. There are plenty of arrangements and relationships still discriminated against and aren't recognized as legal unions even under your definition. You are going to have to realize at some point that not all discrimination is bad, otherwise you should be fighting for the rights of blind people to drive(for example).

  7. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Tribune,

    Right now 100% of same sex couples can get married (if they travel to NY).

    The percentage of US citizens that are treated equally when applying for a civil marriage license went from 11% to 16% last night.

    If the USSC denies cert on Prop 8, that number will increase to 28%.

    I appreciate to you that same sex couples getting married is not "real marriage", but it is "real" to them and their friends and families - and that is all that really matters.

  8. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Phil,

    As to "meaningfulness" - it is meaningful in the eyes of their government, their friends and family.

    The fact that it is not "meaningful" in the eyes of your church is immaterial. Your church can go about its business today as it did yesterday.

  9. Sara R
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Many people still believe marriage is one man and one woman but times and attitudes truly are changing. A few years ago, the election likely would not have gone this way. I grew up in a conservative part of Maryland. Washington County voted against Question 6 but with less of a margin than I would have expected. I come from a conservative family. They all attend church regularly. Some voted against Quesion 6 but some that would have voted against it years ago, PROUDLY voted FOR Question 6. The younger adults in my family certainly did even if their parents did not. Some of the older adults in my family voted FOR question 6. Why? Because their hearts have changed. They are Christians and 90% of them Republican BUT they still voted for 6. People around them have opened up about their sexuality over the years: friends, family, coworkers. It was their greater understanding of those persons and their lives, love, and challenges that persuaded them to change their minds. Love prevailed. Times are changing.

  10. David in Houston
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    What a lie. No amount of money can force people to vote for something that they don't support or believe in. Your lies (demonizing gay Americans) no longer worked, and you failed. It's that simple. You will forever be remembered as the homophobic organization that didn't want gay Americans to be equal members of society. Future (and current) generations will not look kindly on you.

  11. lonesomerhoades
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Homosexual acting out is aberrant behavior. It needs to be confronted.
    As regards calling a homosexual union a marriage, it is nothing more than a lie. Same-sex marriage is impossible regardless of changing laws or altering word meanings. Calling a rock a cookie does not confer upon the rock the essence of a cookie. Homosexual "marriage" is nonexistent.

  12. Anne
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Thank you as always Brian for your tireless efforts on behalf of marriage and family. We continue to stand with you in your valiant effort to protect marriage for the sake of children.

  13. Paul Cook-Giles
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    "Homosexual acting out"?? Good grief. Can't you just say 'gay sex'?

    And unlike rocks and cookies, civil marriage is a construct of laws. It is what the law says it is. Your opinion is just that: an opinion. It is protected by the First Amendment, and if you want to waste your time screaming on a street corner that marriages between two men or two women are invalid, go ahead. :)

  14. D
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Brian and NOM! The fight goes on, this changes NOTHING, but strengthens our resolve. The greater majority of Americans view supposed ssm as a deviant lifestyle contrary to, if nothing else, biological design necessary to maintain our pouplation. Also it is contrary to God's design for marriage. We march on in strength and resolve, with God's help!

  15. Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    NOM fought well, and lost catastrophically.

    America has been fundamentally transformed.

    Look out below.

  16. Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    "Protecting marriage" and "for the sake of the children" are Frank Luntzian twists on what NOM tries to do. My legal marriage is not a threat to marriage. Marriage is not some collective entity that can be injured. My marriage is not a threat to children. Allowing gay people to marry won't deprive any child of anything. Gay couples ALREADY have kids, and many do not. Having legal marriage equality doesn't change any of that. NOM's entire mission is fraudulent, and now is obsolete.

  17. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    This is probably a good time to remind the marriage supporters on this blog that we are being played...that this "battle" as it has unfolded was designed to thwart and overthrow the fundemnetal consititional right to marriage.

    The leadership at NOM understood from the begining that NO state is allowed to change the definition of marriage. This is the clear and obvious legal understanding.

    NOM has spent the last ten years trying to show SCOTUS how popular the real conception of marriage is...through the ballot box.

    None of this changes the facts of the law however... Those states that have same-sex "marriage" be it through the courts or popular vote have violated the United States constitution as well as international human rights law.

    Everything else is window dressing..

  18. Son of Adam
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Civil marriage and religious marriage are two parts of the same thing. You cannot alter one without affecting the other. If viewing marriage as being between a man and a woman is considered bigotry and hate by the government, then it will take an active role in penalizing and oppressing people of faith and their religious practices. Just watch the examples of that pile up in the coming months.

  19. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    James (writes)

    "My legal marriage is not a threat to marriage. Marriage is not some collective entity that can be injured."

    Yes it is...Marriage is what is called a social institution. Social institutions are ideas...that's what they are...that's all they are..

    Sophisticated people understand this at the level of philosophy and principle..

    Same-sex "marriage" is a completely different understanding than true marriage..

    James is highly ill-liberal and anti-intellectual.. The people behind this however are not. They know what same-sex "marriage" does to the institution

    James is what Lenin called a "useful idiot".

  20. Zack
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    In all honesty...they approved it by popular vote. Fine...that's the least of my problems. I've lost faith in this country. The resentment towards success and the American Dream along with government dependence have defeated everything our Founders fought to create. Are we down? Yes. Are we out? Not entirely but the political landscape won't go back to what it once was.

    2014...2016...sure but now we are just another European country....destined for failure and bankruptcy. The United States of America has unofficially been split into two separate nations...the final nail in the coffin comes when the disaster that is Obamacare comes into effect.

  21. Jacqueline Johnson
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Thank you NOM for your tireless work to uphold God's definition of marriage. This election is not the last word on this issue. I stand with you in your continued work to protect marriage between one man and one woman as God has intended. Thank you, again!

  22. Lardale Loud
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    The purpose of marriage—the very reason the state is involved in marriage—is to reduce the likelihood that men and women will have multiple children by more than one partner.

    If marriage is no longer about regulating procreation, then people—using their own discretion—will view marriage as a purely emotional union like ordinary friendships.

    And any union built primarily on emotions—like ordinary friendships—lack a compelling moral reason to honor norms or to warrant legal regulation.

    Many people's appreciation for marriage and its norms have largely deteriorated under the influence of certain social and legal developments.

    Cultural developments such as The Sexual Revolution ridiculed traditional norms of sexual conduct making it harder for spouses to abide by marriage's norms.

    While Radical Feminism undermined the male's role in the home, an easy exit under No-Fault Divorce and Abortion on Demand denigrated men and women's views of marriage and family life.

    The results agitated social ills of absentee fathers, teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, declining literacy and graduation rates among children, and overpopulated prisons.

    When a marriage culture declines all of society certainly suffers—primarily children and those in the poorest sectors of society.

  23. Jeff
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    the reality is that no matter what happens if gay marriage is approved in all 50 states, you people will never be normal. Normal is being having a family that contains one man / one woman & kids. you people will never ever fit that description, because you are abnormal & will always be that.

  24. Jeff
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Oh by the way - 32 states have banned your sick & perverted lifestyle.

  25. Ash
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    God bless you, Brian, for all of your valiant efforts. Thank you for reaffirming that NOM is not backing down in its quest to defend marriage. I am with you all the way.

  26. John
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Jeff, I pray you receive the courage and strength of the Holy Spirit and emerge from the closet the Adversary constructed around your heart in his vain attempt to keep you from knowing God's path for your life. In Jesus name we pray.

  27. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Jeff,

    I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think same sex couples care a fig about what you believe a marriage to be - or what you believe to be normal or abnormal sexual attraction / behavior.

    As soon as the US government treats all its citizens the same - the ability to exercise what the USSC called one of "mans most basic civil right" - the ability to license to the person of *their* choice regardless of race, religion or the gender of their spouse, same sex couples will live their lives according to what they "believe".

  28. Dan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    @Jeff, it seems that you have problems with reality. According to the APA, homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. You also seem to place great stock in feeling "normal", as if you weren't treated as normal in your childhood. I feel sorry that you need such acceptance from your peers. Incidentally, as a proud and legally married gay man , I don't give a damn what you think of me. Just keep your beliefs far away from my family. My lifestyle is marriage and if you think that marriage is sick and perverted, why are you supporting NOM? That's illogical Jeff.

  29. Dan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    To Son of Adam, you are quite wrong about civil and religious marriages being the same. In many countries of Europe religious marriages have no legal recognition and are meaningless exercises in superstition. The only marriages I recognize are governmentally licensed. We made a huge mistake to allow clergy to legally marry couples. There were no gods invited to my wedding. By the way, if you believe in religious freedoms, this means that denying Unitarians the right to legally marry couples violates the principle of freedom. Do you know what freedom means, Son of Adam? Apparently not....

  30. Paul Cook-Giles
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    "...ssm as a deviant lifestyle contrary to, if nothing else, biological design necessary to maintain our pouplation."

    Would all the straight people who plan to stop reproducing because gay people can get married please raise their hands?
    ...
    I didn't think so.

  31. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    CuriousGeorge (writes)

    "As soon as the US government treats all its citizens the same - the ability to exercise what the USSC called one of "mans most basic civil right" - "

    The quote your refrencing is from Skinner v Oklohoma and is again quoted in Loving vs Virginia.

    "Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

    ~Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942), United States Supreme Court.

    In that opinion as well as Loving and prior decisions as well as sunsequent precedents including Baker V Nelson were all talking about marriage as traditionally defined.

    Obviously same-sex coupling is not "fundamental to our (mankinds) very existence and survival"

    You can no more change the definition of marriage and say your protecting it or "expanding" it...than you can change the definition of "arms" to mean down pillows or "speech" to mean words and ideas that support the current statist regime, or "religion" to mean practicing Catholicism... and the like.

    This is not clever rehtoric your engaged in..it is open and obvious subterfuge of a fundemental consitutional right..

    Your lying to yourself.

  32. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    No matter what the laws say, a man and a woman who stay faithful to their marriage vows, love and serve each other, raise their children together and teach them virtue through word and deed, will reap the benefits, now, and through the generations of their posterity. Those who engage in extra-marital (meaning man/woman) sex, even if sanctioned by the law, bear children out of marriage between a man and a woman, and teach their children that their sex is irrelevant, that the special and unique roles of father and mother are irrelevant, and that sexual promiscuity, including homosexuality, is safe, healthy, and desireable, will reap the inescapable consequences, now, and through out the generations of whatever posterity they can hold on to. Some laws and their consequences are are not legislated, and can never be changed, such as the law of the harvest. You reap what you sow.

  33. David
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    I'm sure everyone knew the SSM advocates would be out in force on this blog to gloat over their victories. To be honest, we did lose fair and square. I do ask everyone who believes in one man-one woman marriage not to sink to the level of hate that the opposition has shown us over the course of this campaign. As long as we fight for what is just, we can hold our heads up high, even if SSM becomes law of the land. Look what Christianity did to change Rome. They were persecuted for many years, and the world marveled at their faith, even unto death. For everyone, even those who would deny God, He is still in control and whatever happens is part of His plan, whether to discipline us to bring us back to Him, or to bless us for standing firm. The battle has been lost, but the war is not over.

  34. David
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    @Curious George - 'the ability to exercise what the USSC called one of "mans most basic civil right" - "

    Um, that was male-female marriage, not SSM.

  35. Northerner
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Keep up the good fight and continue telling the truth NOM!!!

  36. Ken
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    "Traditional marriage" in the US changed to allow black people to marry, then to forbid polygamy, then to permit marriages between people of different races. The Mormon Church alone redefined marriage three times in 90 years. The form of traditional marriage that we've had in the United States since 1968 is not in danger. Marriage between a man and a woman is still legal in all US jurisdictions. It is still legal to marry for the sole purpose of procreation. The only change is that gay people are included, so that we have more marriages and more families than before. This is also a victory for religious freedom, because 16% of the US population lives in an area where marriage is no longer an illegal religious rite (as it is in Virginia).

    Eventually people will see that NOM's message makes absolutely no sense at all. We do not need NOM to rescue us from a danger that does not exist.

  37. Son of Adam
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    "We made a huge mistake to allow clergy to legally marry couples."

    That's revisionist history, Dan. The state did not invent marriage. It simply recognized it for the way it had already been defined over thousands of years of cultural development. When it becomes big enough to claim ownership of marriage and redefine it to please wealthy and influential special interest groups, then we have strayed away from the principles that have made this country great.

    "By the way, if you believe in religious freedoms, this means that denying Unitarians the right to legally marry couples violates the principle of freedom."

    By that reasoning, that also means that denying Fundamentalist Mormons the right to legally marry polyamorous groups violates the principle of freedom. But I guess freedom only applies only to those your own personal bias favors.

  38. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Paul Cook-Giles (writes)

    "Would all the straight people who plan to stop reproducing because gay people can get married please raise their hands?"

    This is a unsophisticated and anti-intellectual take on your advesaries arguments..

    As I say above "Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

    ~Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942), United States Supreme Court.

    Under the regime of the "pure relationship theory" of marriage... a concept born of the sexual revolution and one that same-sex "marriage" further reinforces and locks in formally as a matter of law... Countries & peoples that promote this understanding fall into a death spiral..

    Marriage no longer has the cultural authority to channel people into long term commited relationships were childbearing and rearing are the central and culturally understood purpose.

    They end up with miniscule and dwindiling populations well below replacment level..

    http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html

    The wages of sin it would seem really is death.

  39. Gorio
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    NOM & Maggie:
    Your "Organization" which is akin to a hate group, is unAmerican and hateful! Why do you deny the pursiut of happiness for civil marriage?? You are on the wrong side of history, like GEORGE WALLACE. You guys need to move to a theocracy overseas.

  40. lonesomerhoades
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Except for the rare birth defect, we are born with heterosexual equipment...for a reason. Man was made for woman and woman for man. Choosing to act out one's homosexual desires is by definition, perversion.
    Having an urge an "orientation" a desire to do something does not impart some justification for acting upon it. Going naked in the summer is about as natural as it gets yet society has placed restrictions upon doing so.
    Homosexuals are trying to desensitize America and unfortunately they have done a pretty good job. Time for America to stand up to this militant movement!

  41. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Ken (writes)

    "Traditional marriage" in the US changed to allow black people to marry, then to forbid polygamy, then to permit marriages between people of different races......"

    These "changes" never effected marriages basic understanding definition and social purpose.. Same-sex "marriage" does fundementally change the concept itself..

    Discusing the 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)

    The New York Superior Court said this in support of the traditional definition of marriage...

    “To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”

    –Hernadez v Robles; New York Superior Court (J. Graffeo concurring)

    Ken (writes)

    "Eventually people will see that NOM's message makes absolutely no sense at all. We do not need NOM to rescue us from a danger that does not exist."

    It would seem that NOM is the none with the clear understanding of marriage & the law... And the danger you believe " does not exist" is manifest in 50% divorce rates, 40 percent illigetamacy rates and collapsing marriage rates and resulting demographic uupheavels

  42. Markoh
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    "Civil marriage and religious marriage are two parts of the same thing. "

    Ah, a new tune to an outdated song. Was wondering how NOM would start to spin their new efforts to DENY equality to all Americans. People have been able to obtain a civil marriage for years WITHOUT a religious ceremony.

    And no one is forcing same sex marriage on anyone. If you don't believe in SSM, don't marry your same sex partner, simple. But to prevent anyone else from doing it is just discrimination, pure and simple.

  43. Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    No, Fitz, it is you who are the idiot, useful or not. I've been married to my husband for over four years, legally. We've been together for almost 15 years. It is a marriage, legally recognized, and a marriage to us privately. It doesn't matter one jot or tittle that YOU don't like it. I do not share your religion, and am not beholden to your "god." I have a civil marriage. Keep your holy matrimony.

  44. Agnes
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Thank you NOM. We stand behind you 100%.

  45. Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Jeff: "Oh by the way - 32 states have banned your sick & perverted lifestyle."

    First: it's a life not a "lifestyle." Second, no state has "banned" anyone's life or style. Lastly, there's nothing sick and perverted about being part of a monogmous, loving couple. Mind your own business, keep your nose, and your religion out of other people's lives.

  46. D
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Dan acording to my Bible homosexuality is wrong. God destroyed an entire nation because of their disobedience to His Word. AND I don't care if you, or anyone else desn't beleive the Bible....your opinion means NOTHING. God's Word trumps your sinful opinion EVERYTIME...whether you believe Him or not! Every excuse that you or any deviant can think of counts as rubbish. God's plan WILL prevail and you will have no excuse when you stand before Him. I'm still praying that people, like you , will know the truth of Salvation through Jesus Christ that can pull you out of the cesspool that you are mired in!

  47. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    James L. Greenlee

    I did not mention my religion or even that I may or may not believe in God. This is you revealing your own prejudice as to the "real" motives of your advesaries.

    Its not about my opinion or that you believe "It doesn't matter one jot or tittle that YOU don't like it"

    It is about our fundemental rights and international human rights... Its not about our feeling about homosexuals...its about our understanding about the importance and purpose of marriage..

    You want to redifine it...and we know the effects that will have...and we also know its unconsitutional to do so.

    Read my other posts above and perhaps you can rid yourself of this anti-intellectual approach to the social institution of marriage..

    This may also help inform you about your advesaries mindset...

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

  48. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    The path for marriage supporters is clear to me. We must now show that wins for redefining marriage can be reversed. We must pick a state -- where homosexual so-called "marriage" was imposed on the People by politicians, or by judicial fiat -- and try very hard to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

    If not, the rhetoric that redefining marriage is inevitable will become a reality.

    The time when the homosexual special rights movement can be ignored has long since passed. Unfortunately, people didn't realize that in 2004. It wasn't until four years later that we got NOM.

    Also, our focus needs to broaden.

    Homosexual special rights activists are in the schools, indoctrinating kids.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/08/opinion/la-ed-textbook-20110408

    We're not.

    Homosexual journalists are leading this revolution, deliberately spinning things -- through clever choices of words, selective inclusion and omission of facts, and ubiquitous selection of photographs or other images that convey support for homosexual so-called "marriage".
    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/us/gay-journalists-leading-a-revolution.html

    Why isn't this extreme bias being analyzed? Where is our side? Why can't journalists -- that believe that the union of a man and a woman is a uniquely special event, that should be preserved, be more influential -- or are homosexual topics for homosexual journalists (experts on the topics). The newspapers would do something if they saw that we were methodically exposing their shameful, embarrassing, disgraceful bias.

    Do we even *have* any lobbyists?

    NOM collects money and distributes it to state campaigns. Its leaders debate SSM advocates. The media calls on them to make statements. It maintains this blog.

    It needs to expand.

    Homosexual special rights lobbyists are getting "sexual orientation" into hate speech and bullying laws, in lists of race, national origin, and gender -- as if sexual preference was also an immutable characteristic -- facilitated by politicians that are paid to serve as their handmaidens (or at least to keep their opposition suppressed).

  49. Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, YOU may not have a religious reason for your opposition to marriage equality, but if so you would be in the extreme minority of NOM folks. Right here on this one comments page you will find plenty o' god and religion. And in point of fact, religion is only a part of civil marriage if the participants want it there.

    So, you're telling me that your reasoning isn't religion-based, but you're still fervently anti-gay marriage? Then why is this an important issue to you. The paragraph you listed doesn't give me an answer. Unless semantics are really that important.

    And quit calling me anti-intellectual. Saying that doesn't make you an intellect, or even correct.

  50. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    James L. Greenlee

    Laws against theft are in the Bible. Laws against theft are in our civil laws. Some people argue against theft based on Biblical principles. Some argue against theft based on civic principles..

    The arguments often overlap. Likewise for arguments for preserving the definition of marriage. Just because many people who support marriage are motivated by religious beliefs dosent make there arguments religious or the public policy behind the laws simply a matter of sectarian belief.

    And this is noty about semantics. Semantics is using different words for the same thing. This is a argument over the substantive meaning of a social insitution. Not over what we call it but rather what it means.

    This is what I mean by anti-intellectual.. You dont seem to have any grasp of your opponents thinking.. Yet you are dead set on changing the definition of marriage.

    This new marriage understanding is different than the one that nwas declared a fundemental consitutional right..

    Again read my posts above and do some of your own research..

    Until you can engage in substantive debate that centers in on the profound change your advocating, it seems rather pointless because a true debate or argument cannot be had. Instead it becomes incumbent on me to explain what you should already understand.

  51. Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    And Fitz, by the way: marriage has nothing to do with procreation. People have kids without getting married. People get married without having children. I have zero kids, and plan on it staying that way. I'm married, legally. What harm am I doing, and by what right do you think you can take that from me? What would your response be if I dreamed up a reason to invalidate your marriage?

  52. Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    " by the way: marriage has nothing to do with procreation"

    >> Behold.

    Fundamental transformation.

  53. Fitz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    gay or genderless marriage as you have redefined it has nothing to do with procreation.

    On the otherhand marriage as traditionally understood and defined is insurmountably linked directly with procreation.

    It is made up of the one and only coupling in society capable of procreation - the male/female union.

    While any member of the class of male/female maynot or even cannot have children...the class itself (male/female) is the one and only coupling capable of procreation.

    Male/male & female/female couplings on the other hand are always and everywhere encapable of procreation.

    So when you say - "marriage has nothing to do with procreation" your simply wrong as a matter of open and obvious fact.

    And when you say "People have kids without getting married." - you stumble across one of the key reasons for preserving the definition of marriage. Opposite sex couplings have children routinly. Hence the movement to encourage those couplings to get married before they have children...or mary once a child is conceived.

    Something that will be even more difficult once the definition is changed and the concept that natural Fathers & Mothers are essential to a childs proper upbringing is dealt another large blow by the acceptance of same-sex parenting inherant in same-sex "marriage" is now recognized as the law of the land.

  54. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Re: "marriage has nothing to do with procreation"

    Don't try to tell the family court judge that.

    Once that marriage ends, it's all about the best interests of the child(ren).

    How come?

    You got married.

  55. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    NOM = National Organisation for Marriage.

    SSM = Specious Substitution for Marriage.

    The hasty comments of SSMers here illustrate the conflict that their SSM idea sets against the marriage idea. SSM does not expand marriage out it is an outright rejection of marriage and of much else. The imposition of SSM, by whatever means, is arbitrary and ham-handedly sets the Government aparatus against civil society.

    SSM is specious down to its superficial roots. And it is morally and culturally hazardous. No matter, SSMers favor the supremacy of gay identity politics over and above all other considerations.

  56. Zack
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    @James L Greenlee

    "YOU may not have a religious reason for your opposition to marriage equality, but if so you would be in the extreme minority of NOM folks."

    Actually most arguments in favor of traditional Marriage are secular. Though religious arguments are equally as valid because religion itself serves as a moral guidance for most people.

    I can direct you to several articles made by prominent conservatives and liberals and even libertarians explaining why the male/female definition of Marriage should be upheld.

  57. John B.
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    When the issue of same-sex marriage first came up in Washington, DC I sat through several hours of public hearings with testimony from both sides. I was amazed that 99.99 % of the opponents of same-sex marriage based their opposition explicitly on their personal religious beliefs, and that they saw nothing whatsoever wrong with writing their religious beliefs into law to compel those who don't share them to abide by them.

  58. Dave
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    What I still don't understand is how something that was considered illegal has become acceptable, and then that group turns around and says that other illegal acts should still be illegal. Why shouldn't we now accept multiple marriages? Why should marrying a close relative be illegal? If that relationship should result in a child we now can do tests and see if there are any abnormalities and choose abortion if we don't like the results. What is the rational behind accepting one and rejecting the others. It's just a very vocal small minority persuading a non-confrontational majority.

    Seems I recall a small vocal minority in a country called Germany doing the same thing and almost taking over the world. Another small country was similarly doing the same thing in the Pacific. It took a day that went down in infamy to wake us up. Out of these victories emerged another vocal minority that said communism was the best. Equality for everyone of with the exception of a chosen select few. A brave President challenged them to "Tear down that wall" and it finally happened.

    I'm not saying that homosexuality should be compared to Hitler, Imperial Japan, nor Communist Russia, but history has shown that homosexuality and other reduction in morals accompany the collapse of an empire.

    I'm asking what is your rationale? Whether you believe in the Bible or not, man has always killed. He has always tried to dominant another for survival. A set of laws were written in the Bible, becoming the basis for our laws today. Our country was founded on these principals.

    "What God has joined let no man put aside", not what man has joined together. I will continue to try and pursue my happiness, and you may pursue yours, but don't let your pursuit force me to give up mine and force me to accept yours.

    You want to marry, and it's now legal in your state, fine. Find a church or government agency that will do it, but don't force those that oppose it to do it or surfer any consequences. Even a private business should have the right to state a belief and not be forced to do something against their moral belief. We had those that fought for their right to object to fighting. Thank you Ali, but a same-sex couple can sue a reception hall that had already stated that they do not provide their services for this because of their religious and moral beliefs. Where is the rationale in that?

    You seek to be considered normal and be treated equally, but you also expect others to only accept your way or pay a penalty. We have a God given right, you have your selfishness desires.

  59. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    John B., in those hearings did you come away with the meaning of marriage such that it merited special status in our culture and in our laws?

    Did you learn from SSMers the essential(s) of the same-sex type of relationship you have in mind such that it is the same as the husband-wife relationship but at the same time distinguishable from the rest of the types of relationships that populate non-marriage and non-SSM?

    By your comment you posed as one well-informed so you might have a substantive answer?

    In those hearings, the SSMers did not provide such an answer. And what they did emphasize amounted to a blatant assertion that gay identity politics is supreme to all other considerations. Without that, the imposition of SSM had no basis in governmental policy, much less cultural significance.

    But you pose as one who knows better as a firsthand witness to the hearings. So you might readily answer the query on-point.

    Or you might stomp your foot and runaway from that query which arises directly from those hearings.

  60. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    "And no one is forcing same sex marriage on anyone. If you don't believe in SSM, don't marry your same sex partner, simple. But to prevent anyone else from doing it is just discrimination, pure and simple."

    Tell that to those who have been fired and sued for believing in natural marriage, Markoh. The redefinition of marriage is more about promoting gay identity politics than gays marrying each other. And woe be to those who stand in the way!

  61. Indorri
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Ah, and so the degeneracy has finally gotten its first inoculation, and here it is writhing and screaming as it it takes effect.

    To all you perverts interested in my private life, I hope you all take to heart what happened yesterday. It was a day of reckoning.

  62. Markoh
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Son of adam, you say people have been fired and sued for believing in "natural marriage" (whatever that means). Can you show some proof? All the cases I am aware of involve cases of clear discriminatory action (such as not selling a home to blacks), not just belief.

  63. Markoh
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    I am sure that my postings will soon disappear as do most who disagree with NOM but, I need to respond to you Chairm. I agree, SSM is not an appropriate term. I prefer marriage equality. Any couple who legally marries, is married, be they an opposite sex or same sex couple. To deny a same sex couple who marry in Maine their legal rights is no different than those who denied the rights of interracial couples in the 1950's. It is a denial of the law, whether you agree with it or not.

  64. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Marriage "equality" is a misleading term, Markoh. All it means is that marriage is redefined for gays while all other sexual practices are continued to be discriminated against like polyamory and incest. Homosexuality is given moral and political superiority in that it is the only sexual preference one can favor and defend without being a bigot or a pariah.

    And anyone who has been reading this blog for any length of time knows that SS"M" has resulted in job losses and trouble with the courts.

    Just ask Cynthia Gifford, who owns a NY Christian farm with her husband, who had a human rights complaint filed against them because they declined to host a gay wedding on their property.

    Also ask Dr. Angela McCaskill, a chief diversity officer who was put on leave because she signed the petition that put Maryland's same-sex marriage law on the ballot. Now that SS"M" has passed, I wouldn't be surprised if she were coerced into resigning.

    And what about the O'Reilly family, Christian innkeepers in Vermont who had to pay $30,000 for their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers?

    SS"M" attacks our civil rights like religious liberties in the interests of advancing gay identity politics for wealthy and influential special interest groups. Brace yourself for more religious liberty compromises that can definitely be found on this blog in the coming months!

  65. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Markoh (writes)

    "To deny a same sex couple who marry in Maine their legal rights is no different than those who denied the rights of interracial couples in the 1950's. It is a denial of the law, whether you agree with it or not."

    This is simply false as a matter of fact. When a black man & white woman marries it is still a union of a man & woman.

    When two men or two woman "marry" it requires the very definition of marriage be changed for everyone.

    Maintaining the definition of marriage is not unjust discrimination or a violation of the 14th amendment.

    Read my post above and you will at least have a handle on your opponents understanding.

  66. Linda
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Blessings to you, Brian! I continue to support your cause for righteousness. Even if one does not believe in God and the Biblical definition marriage, it is still the truth. It is God's divine design and since He is the Creator, in the end righteousness will prevail. We will all stand before the Creator one day to give an account. That is what counts in the end.

  67. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, if you acknowledged that the SSM idea is a specious sbistitute for the marriage idea, then, we would be in agreement.

    I expect you disagree and would instead rely on the label rather than the idea. The superficiality of that approach ought to trouble you but you probably imagined it would trouble me.

    In this conflict of ideas, I do not need to be right for you to be wrong. You are at odds with your own argumentation. It is true that my argument is sound but that is because the marriage idea is sound. You have no such advantage in arguing for the conceptual mess that is the SSM idea.

    Fitz is kindly helping you to understand better if only you were motivated by a desire to understand that which you oppose.

    Unfortunately, it would be premature to agree to disagree, because you do not comprehend that which you oppose. Fitz has more patience than I and I commend him for that.

    Fitz, your efforts may be met with relentless disdain but the substance must be engaged forthrightly if the SSMer is to grapple with the actual disagreement. We can only lead the horse to water but we cannot make it drink. Cheers.

  68. Markoh
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, I assume that your definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Is that all marriage is to you? If it is, thats OK. But then, like in the Prop 8 case, you need to be able to justify why it should be limited to one man and one woman. Otherwise, it's discrimination.

  69. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    @Markoh

    "Son of adam, you say people have been fired and sued for believing in "natural marriage" (whatever that means). Can you show some proof?"

    I refer you to the blog archives that talk about people who have in fact been sued for adhering to their beliefs. I refer to Massachusetts where catholic adoption agencies were forced to close their doors because they wouldn't adopt to anyone other than a mother and a father.

    Isn't that not proof? Or do you think it's justified to have the first amendment rights of others trampled to make yourself feel better?

  70. Byrd
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony
    Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such moral objection to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.

  71. MarkOH
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, I have already written that SSM is not an appropriate term, why do you insist that I make a further judgement on it?

    You are free to believe whatever you will. However, when you force others to live by your beliefs, that is discrimination. Would you expect people to hold you to religious ideals other than the ones you believe in?

  72. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, yours is a superficial judgement, as I (and you) noted, and I asked no further judgement from you on that.

    Under the man-woman basis of marriage law, you are free to believe what you feel is best. But you would impose your SSM idea on all of society. There is no point in your feigning neutrality. Be an adult and own your bias. A bias you have left unjustified. A bias that is at odds with your own line of argumentation against the marriage law.

    You ask of yourself so very little that it must be astonishing to be queried about your bias and your advocacy of a conceptual mess -- the SSM idea. Your comments are on the record and illustrate the weakness of the pro-SSM view. Than you for that contribution here.

  73. MarkOH
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    Oh, Chairm, your claiming I have a bias does not make it fact. But, if I have a bias against allowing only opposite sex couples to marry, than you are a bigot to DENY same sex couples the right to marry. You must own that.

  74. Chairm
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Markoh, your comments and your failure to justify imposition of the SSM idea -- that -- demonstrates your bias.

    Despite your gay emphasis you conceded that is not a requirement for those who'd SSM. You disavowed the sexual basis for the complaint you repeat against the marriage law. Yet your bias hangs there with no visible means of support.

    I do not deny "same-sex couples" (as you arbitrarily put it) marriage. But those who choose such a nonmarital option choose something other than marriage. They own that and, in so doing, exercise a liberty and are denied no right.

    Again, you fled the query but have returned to make an unjustified demand anyway. That is on the record.

  75. MarkOH
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Sigh, I remember such circular arguments on the Ruth institute before they prohibited comments. As I asked in another posting, please, for once, define "marriage" - precisely and simply.

  76. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Already done, Markoh.

    Meanwhile your dodging is done. You are stuck on the same merry-go-round you fabricated in some years ago. Move on.

  77. Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    If I can't define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman, why do you get to define it as 1 man, 1 man; 1 woman, 1 woman; 1 man, 1 woman?

  78. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Sigh, same old garbage Chairm. You fail to answer even a simple question. or is it because you are unable to answer it?

  79. Chairm
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Okay you are an unserious and insincere participation in this discussion. Got it.

    Lame.

  80. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    LOL, Chairm your argument is "Marriage is between one man and one woman because marriage is one man and one woman." If you cannot see how ridiculous this type of explanation is, you are even more clueless than I thought. Pathetic.