NOM BLOG

Brian Brown to The Atlantic: "The Fight Has Just Begun"

 

Eleanor Barkhorn of The Atlantic features several quotes from our president Brian Brown about the future of the marriage movement:

"...Marriage traditionalists had a range of reactions to last week's elections. On one end is Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage. "It's absurd to say the fight is over," he said in an interview. "The fight has just begun." He believes that the ballot initiatives succeeded simply because marriage-equality supporters poured so much money into the campaigns. "We could have won these fights with the right amount of money," Brown said.

... Whether optimistic or defeatist about the opinions of Americans as a whole, marriage traditionalists agree on one thing: Their own views on marriage are not changing. "Religious and social conservatives cannot abandon what we believe to be true," Dreher wrote. Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic policy studies for the Heritage Foundation, agreed: "Marriage is deeply linked to children's welfare and our social order," she said. "We are as committed as ever to explaining that relationship."

... Brown put the same sentiments a bit more bluntly. "I believe the idea of same-sex marriage is a profoundly flawed idea," he said. "We're not going to recognize these unions as marriages, ever."

26 Comments

  1. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Argument #1: man was made for woman and woman made for man. Nature clearly tells us that people are born with heterosexual equipment.
    Any discussion about calling a homosexual union a marriage is totally without merit because of the nature of the homosexual act.
    Null and void Mr or Mrs homosexual. Go have your civil unions and leave marriage ALONE!

  2. leviticus
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    What does cheating on a spouse have to do with natural law and biology?

  3. Fedele Razio
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    MarkOH #7

    In what sense "being gay is natural"? Just because something exists in nature it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

    Many other behaviours exists in nature which are not good things (I don't want to list here examples, you can figure them out by yourself).

    Saying "gay is natural" is just an oversimplification which doesn't help in understanding.

    The real questions are:

    - what is homophilia?

    - where does it come from?

    - which are the consequences of homophilia on the behaviour and life of the people experiencing it?

  4. M. jones
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    Latest social research shows the horrific child outcomes from exposure to same-sex relationships. Someone needs to care about the children.

  5. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    "being gay is natural"

    My male dog sometimes tries to "hump" other male dogs and gets a growl and a bite in exchange. Even dogs know that an exit is not to be used as an entrance.

    You'd think that men with same-sex attraction disorder would be able to control their strange sexual compulsions, but they prefer to be like the dogs. Tolerance of same-sex behavior represents a regression of civilized human society to animals.

  6. Posted November 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    SSA
    FYI...Dogs trying to "hump" each other are not being sexual. It's an act of showing dominance. Females do the same thing.

  7. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    "It's an act of showing dominance"

    Ok, Davey, if that makes you feel better, LOL.

    The point is that just because something occurs elsewhere in nature does not make it appropriate behavior for civilized society. Some animals eat their young. We also have cannibals in some primitive human societies, but civilized societies have shunned such behavior.

    Homosexual sexual behavior has no practical value for society; its primary effect on society is the spread of disease and increasing health care and research costs.

  8. FemEagle
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    "Brian let's not forget that it is the gay community that is fighting FOR marriage."

    My goddess, what a tangled web of lies you weave!

    The gay community is trying to PERVERT marriage. Got it now?

    And Davey, you are quite correct. Aberrant behavior does arise in nature from time to time. But the male-female bond is ABSOLUTE. It is one of the few absolutes in our universe. It is essential to the production of children, whereas homosexuality certainly is not. The only thing homosexual couples can do is adopt children created by natural couples and try to pretend to be parents. What a tragedy for the children involved.

  9. Posted November 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Zachary yes I have proof to support the non committal standards between homosexuals try a biblical point of view on homosexuality by Kerby Anderson.

  10. Forrest
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that cheapens and degrades the real thing. The counterfeit marriage crowd had their day on November 6th but the fight is far from over.
    Thank you, NOM.

  11. maggie gallagher
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Fascinated by the argument that NOM's failure to condemn Petraeus means. . .anything at all. The day we learned of his adultery the guy had to resign. The next few days we learned he may be criminally charged by the military.

    Wow. What do you think we could do by piling on?

    Its one man's sin, that appears to be being punished. Wow. You guys think everyione needs to pile on?

  12. John B.
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Ms. Gallagher, I think the issue is that the National Organization "for" Marriage has defined itself entirely as an organization AGAINST marriage. Nothing whatsoever about "supporting" or "defending" or "protecting" marriage or married couples at all, there's nothing "for" in NOM, just a purely negative campaign against the same-sex couples who want and need legal recognition and protection of our relationships.

    NOM was out-spent because there are millions of gay Americans, and millions more who know and care about the gay people in their lives, who really are FOR something because they're directly affected by this issue, or personally know somebody who is, whereas the overwhelming majority of the opponents of same-sex marriage will never be affected by it in the least. And now it comes out that 75% of the millions NOM raised last year came from just two donors. After NOM's stunning defeats in this year's elections, good luck convincing them or anybody else that it was money well spent and that they should keep that gravy train going for you.

  13. reader America
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 12:39 am | Permalink

    We are not "traditionalists" and they are NOT for "equality." We are for "equality" and they are for "inequality." They want to split men and women apart, we want to keep them together. History has not always been kind to the one man and one women concept. The best has been in the last 1500 or so years, before then there was a substantial variety, most of which was not creating equality between men and women. We want to keep our advancement, as this concept has been intact through the creation of modern democracy, America, and the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. We want to keep this advanced concept.

  14. reader America
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    OK people need to stop comparing one man and one woman marriage and SSM to adultery, ect. They don't relate. One man and one woman is for gender equality and SSM is for division of genders. Adultery doesn't have anything to do with gender roles really or concepts of equality except it can be detrimental for both people involved

  15. Zack
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    @John B

    "After NOM's stunning defeats in this year's elections, good luck convincing them or anybody else that it was money well spent and that they should keep that gravy train going for you."

    By that logic, professional teams, athletes, race car drivers and the like should re-frame from ever competing or accepting sponsors after losing their first competition.

  16. Marc Paul
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    Zack, just as perennially losing teams find themselves in a liral of falling revenues and losing matches, then John B is just saying, 'good luck' in persuading donors that NOM are up to the job anymore.

    However since 75 % of donations only from two big donors, this is not at like sport. The analogy is not good. Singular backers with deep pockets can change things.

    Exactly much should the Catholic Church be giving away from parishioner donations to the lost cause? I don't know. The Vatican has deep pockets.

    But out-financed in these four State battles. And as long as things proceed on state by state basis, then that is more than likely to continue and indeed funds will come to those with the momentum and clear lead in general polls. (Pleae don't quote the single poll result this week. As Nate Silver has shown, a single poll is meaningless).

  17. Marc Paul
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    FemEagle etc.

    For the record, gay men and lesbians are as fecund as straight people. They can and do have children of their own, in many different ways, although of course not with their partner. And they do bring them up well despite the lies spread about the Regnerus paper ( the author speicifically stated that the paper could not conclude anything about whether lesbians and gay people were good parents or not ).

    The one thing that can help improve child outcomes is access to equal marriage

  18. Posted November 17, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    @SSA

    So penis to anus is "unnatural"? It's a normal part of making love between two loving people. It's also very erotic and produces an intense orgasm. Sorry if that bothers you (the graphic truth). The point is, for many, sex is for pleasure AND an expression of closeness and love, not just procreation. BTW...Gay men DO NOT have the monopoly on this.

  19. Stephen
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    So now we discover that Brian Brown earned $226,000 in 2011 for his work for NOM and Gallagher $160,000.

    Two secret funders provided %75 of their budget.

    The same five or six people post here, endlessly venting their weird obsessions about their gay fellow-citizens, most of which are founded on a complete lack of knowledge.

    All you self-appointed guardians of the morals of others think of all the millions of dollars wasted by NOM in the last election. Think of all the money we had to raise and spend to try to counter the filth they spread about.

    You think of that and I and my husband of 44 years will go to the farmers' market. It's the last of the year.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    So now we discover supporters of marriage corruption are raking in ten times the dollars supporters of the true intent of marriage are; that marriage corruption supporters are not the unrepresented downtrodden peasants they portray themselves to be.

    Remember; Hitler claimed victimhood as his rational for victimizing those opposed to his tyranny as well.

  21. Chairm
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul,

    Same-sex twosomes are not fecund. Fact.

    It does not matter of such a twosome is gay or not. The lack of the other sex precludes fecundity.

    When you point at Children you point outside of the same-sex scenario -- outside the full range of types of relationships that lack the other sex.

    Less than 10% of the adult homosexual population resides in same-sex households (census term that assumes the two adults are in a homosexual relationship). That includes SSM, civil union, or unlicensed cohabitation. Of the adult homosexual population, less than 3% reside in such households with children.

    Of those children, the vast majority moved from the previously procreative relationships of mom-dad duos (usually married). Maybe 4% of children in same-sex households were attained by adoption; and a tiny fraction of 1% were attained through the use of "donor" ART/IVF.

    That is the virtual inverse of children raised by married mom-dad duos. Fecundity is extrinsic to the type of sexualized relationship you might have in mind.

    But perhaps you can do what no SSMer has managed to do thusfar.Please provide the social-scientific narrative whereby same-sex sexual attraction or behavior might be a structural feature that merits further study of child-raising and outcomes for children.

    The stable sexualized same-sex scenario is very rare and so is very difficult to reaearch through longitudinal studies of large randomized samples. What merits the cost and the effort to study something that is marginal even within the adult homosexual population?

    Gay identity politics would be a very poor reason but if that is your answer please provide the narrative..

  22. Chairm
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Davey @ 68, none of that same-sex sexual stuff is mandatory for those who'd SSM. So none of that is a legitimate basis for lawmaking a special status nor limitations on eligibility for such a status.

    But your gay emphasis is noted. Some of your fellow SSMers might call it your obsession.

    Meanwhile that behavior is no loving for it is immoral, always, regardless of sexual gratification.

    If you disagree, then, make the sound moral argument in the affirmative of the moral assumption that sexual gratification makes same-sex sexual behavior moral, ever. That moral assumption is a pretty clear implication of your comment. Please clarify your intended meaning.

    And explain if and how that is essential to the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind. If it is not essential, then, why the gay emphasis?

  23. Chairm
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Davey, penis-in-anus has never been the sexual basis for consummation of marriage because it is not the sexual basis for procreation as in the marital presumption (cultural and legally enforced) that the husband will father the children born to he and his wife during their marriage. The sexual basis for annument provisions (in culture and in law) is not the lack of penis-in-anus behavior nor is it sexual gratification. Do you propose that stuff is the new basis for the marital presumption of paternity? For sexual consummation of marriage? If, yes, then, whatabout the female-only scenario you'd consider eligible to SSM? But more basically, what is so special about that stuff that it would mert special status (in culture and in law) on par with marital status. Where is the societal significance and societal interest? That stuff, we've often heard from SSMers, is nobody else's business.

    You used the word, unnatural, in quotation marks. But did you read what Overcame actually wrote or are you reacting to what you think you read between the lines? Maybe you really think that "natural" means "moral". If so, you need to make the sound moral argument for that thought. If not, what did you mean?

  24. Posted November 19, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Jesus, Chairm!
    All I was doing was being a "Dr. Ruth". My quotation marks around Overcame's moral opinionated "unnatural" was to shoot that down. There's no such word if it's something that happens naturally. It is of my opinion that anal sex IS part of many relationships, straight and gay. I don't give a darn if you think it's immoral.
    If you think that we use our sex lives to validate our marriages, I believe you've got serious mental problems.

  25. Chairm
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    Why the profanity, Davey?

    Okay, so according to you, SSM is not public validation of same-sex sexual behavior.

    On what basis might related people be banned from such a nonsexual type of arrangement? Or threesomes and moresomes?

    I think you have a serious problem backing up the SSM idea.

    I pointed out the sexual basis for consummation and so forth. It has zilch to do with penis in anus etc. If you think that the sexual basis for marriage is merely validation of private sexual behavior, then,you haven't a clue about the nature of marriage, lawmaking, and moral reasoning.

    Thanks for attempted to insult. It missed the mark and boomeranged. Cheerio.

  26. Chairm
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Same-sex sexual is moral, you, Davey, have claimed. Do you now retreat to moral neutrality? Or you just don't care whether or not is ever is moral?

    The comment to which I had responded earlier used the notion of natural ... you own it by having so emphatically used it ...as the basis for it being moral. Moral, immoral, or morally neutral? If you rely on "natural" then you empty the term of its content and replace it with shrug.

    There ya go.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.