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."

76 Comments

  1. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Brian let's not forget that it is the gay community that is fighting FOR marriage. You are against marriage for "those" people. I find it offensive that you can't see your own bigotry. When someone says "I support traditional marriage" the implication is you oppose the civil rights of gays to marry. It would be like saying you support traditional (segregated) schools.

  2. leviticus
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    There is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

  3. Layne
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Brian:

    Two words: BRING. IT.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    Thanks, Brian. Pseudo-marriage extremists had a pack of lies and a blank check to drill those lies into the minds of voters. Like criminals, they preyed upon the goodness and fairness of American people.

    They won the votes but lost their souls.

  5. Fedele Razio
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Dan, put it simply, when you have a relationship of two people of the same sex you don't have a marriage. You can have something which share something with marriage, but it's not a marriage.

    By the way, what says the positive law in this issues doesn't matter; when you have a contrast between positive law and natural law, natural law is what is true, and positive law is what is untrue.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.“

    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    Changing the meaning of what constitutes a marriage so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to sexual depravity is unjust and immoral; according to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr - and the laws of nature and natures God as noted in the Declaration of Independence.

    "It is in the religion of ignorance where tyranny begins. Freedom is not a gift bestowed on us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and Nature."

    Benjamin Franklin

  7. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Fedele Razio, being gay is natural. It is as natural as a persons skin color or handedness. To deny this fact, is just being mean.

  8. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Pseudo-marriage advocate fallback rule #1: supporting marriage = animus.

  9. Jacy Topps
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    I find NOM and its supporters disgustingly clueless, and bigoted. For the last week David Petraeus and his infidelity has been in the news. Day after day and post after post you have talked about traditional marriage and fighting for marriage. Yet there has not been one mention of this story. The fact that we have a CIA director committing adultery and possibly breaching national security and NOM won't talk about it is appalling and very telling.

    NOM stands for National Organization for Marriage and you won't even condemn the actions of infidelity. This shows America that your TRUE purpose is bigotry and discrimination of gays not standing up for marriage. Homosexuals only make up 4% of the population, but infidelity is the second cause of divorce in this country. Seeing that the divorce rate is almost 50% and much higher in the south, I would think that at least one blog post would address this issue.

    I see people on here debating the definition of marriage, polls, and science, but no one is talking about the infidelity problem that marriage faces in this country.

    You no longer have credibility on this issue. Gay people wanting to get married is not the problem here. Or at least not the only problem and fact that you have organizations like NOM and others that are focused on gays and ignoring the REAL issues are whats wrong with marriage. Your hypocrisy has come to light and no matter how many press releases or blogs you publish on not giving up on marriage, you are now irrelevant.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    @Tracy,

    Pointing out the failings of others as your justification for why it is OK for you to destroy the intent of marriage is not the right way to go about it; IMHO.

    The marriage construct is set to support the natural family; not the faux family constructed so as to lend an appearance of respectability to sexual depravity.

  11. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    @Jacy

    "NOM stands for National Organization for Marriage and you won't even condemn the actions of infidelity"

    They do, but what good does it serve your message if you only focus on the negatives? The problem with infidelity comes from the fact that we no longer emphasize the importance of Marriage in our society.

    "Seeing that the divorce rate is almost 50% and much higher in the south, I would think that at least one blog post would address this issue. "

    There is no 50% divorce rate. Further research suggests that the real divorce rate is roughly 25-30%.

    "r at least not the only problem and fact that you have organizations like NOM and others that are focused on gays and ignoring the REAL issues are whats wrong with marriage."

    The culture war here in the United States is being fought on multiple fronts. Keeping Marriage defined between a man and a woman is one front, divorce and infidelity are two others. It took the progressive movement 100 years to bring this nation to it's knees. Reversing the damage they've done takes time.

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Take a pill, Jacy. If we freaked out like you every time one of our elected officials had an affair we'd talk about nothing else. I will say that the Petraeus scandal is a great distraction from President Osama's criminally negligent handling of Benghazi.

  13. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    @Barb

    Exactly.

  14. Daniel Birkholz
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Who cares if Brian Brown doesn't recognize our marriages! No one asked you.

  15. Jacy Topps
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    @Barb and Zack

    No you get a reality check! I am down right upset and disgusted and I'm not the only one. America is too. Even if you want continue with the crazy conspiracy theories about Obama, polls, or Benghazi, it doesn't take away from the fact that infidelity should be newsworthy to NOM and you people who claim to be "pro-marriage" He is a human being and we make mistakes, but the fact that NOM or you pseudo pro-marrige types haven't addressed the issue shows your hypocrisy.

    "If we freaked out like you every time one of our elected officials had an affair we'd talk about nothing else." Well Barb, THAT is this country's marriage problem. The fact that you are not outraged at the fact that politicians, celebrities, and sports figures are not called out on their marriage short-comings shows your blatant bigotry towards homosexuals. If you have a problem with gays getting married, that's fine. But please DO NOT try to act like you're pro-marriage if you won't even address the other factors that destroy the sanctity of marriage. These people are looked up to in society and they should be reminded about that from NOM. Instead NOM put out two press releases so far about their loses last week.

    So while you guys are ignoring and "not freaking out" about real marital issues in this country, debating definitions, debating pro-creation, question our sitting President's nationality, quoting bible scriptures, and ignore facts this country will be legalizing same-sex marriage. Have fun with that!

  16. Jacy Topps
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    @ Zack

    They DO NOT!!! There have been maybe 10 blog entries since the election and two press releases and not one as addressed the infidelity problem!!! It's not focusing on the negatives, it's focusing on the FACTS. Romney lost the election because they couldn't bring themselves to face the facts about the demographics in this country. How's that working out for your side??? Get a clue

    Oh and who cares is the divorce rate is only 25-30%, that number is higher than the population of homosexuals.

  17. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Pseudo-marriage advocate fallback rule #98: create a distraction.

    Pseudo-marriage advocate fallback rule #99: pretend you care.

  18. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    @Jacy

    "They DO NOT!!! There have been maybe 10 blog entries since the election and two press releases and not one as addressed the infidelity problem!!!"

    No need to get emotional. You clearly haven't been reading my post. I said there are multiple fronts being fought here, infidelity is a problem but isn't as rampant as you make it seem.

    "Romney lost the election because they couldn't bring themselves to face the facts about the demographics in this country. How's that working out for your side???"

    Romney lost by 2 million votes, an additional 3 million republicans didn't vote and another 1 million went to third party candidates. Government dependency and character assassination cost us the election, not our values. Please look at the numbers a little closer to better understand.

    "Oh and who cares is the divorce rate is only 25-30%, that number is higher than the population of homosexuals."

    You are 100% wrong on that one. The divorce rate among homosexual men is twice as high and the rate among females is three times that. All in all, homosexuals are 50% more likely to end their marriages than male/female couples.

  19. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    @Jacy

    "They DO NOT!!! There have been maybe 10 blog entries since the election and two press releases and not one as addressed the infidelity problem!!!"

    No need to get emotional. You clearly haven't been reading my post. I said there are multiple fronts being fought here, infidelity is a problem but isn't as rampant as you make it seem.

    "Romney lost the election because they couldn't bring themselves to face the facts about the demographics in this country. How's that working out for your side???"

    Romney lost by 2 million votes, an additional 3 million republicans didn't vote and another 1 million went to third party candidates. Government dependency and character assassination cost us the election, not our values. Please look at the numbers a little closer to better understand.

  20. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    @Jacy

    "They DO NOT!!! There have been maybe 10 blog entries since the election and two press releases and not one as addressed the infidelity problem!!!"

    No need to get emotional. You clearly haven't been reading my post. I said there are multiple fronts being fought here, infidelity is a problem but isn't as rampant as you make it seem.

    "Romney lost the election because they couldn't bring themselves to face the facts about the demographics in this country. How's that working out for your side???"

    Romney lost by 2 million votes, an additional 3 million republicans didn't vote and another 1 million went to third party candidates. Government dependency and character assassination cost us the election, not our values.

  21. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    @Jacy

    "They DO NOT!!! There have been maybe 10 blog entries since the election and two press releases and not one as addressed the infidelity problem!!!"

    No need to yell. I said there are multiple fronts being fought here, infidelity is a problem but isn't as rampant as you make it seem.

  22. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    "Romney lost the election because they couldn't bring themselves to face the facts about the demographics in this country. How's that working out for your side???"

    Romney lost by 2 million votes, an additional 3 million republicans didn't vote and another 1 million went to third party candidates. Government dependency and character assassination cost us the election, not our values.

  23. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    "Romney lost the election because they couldn't bring themselves to face the facts about the demographics in this country. How's that working out for your side???"

    Romney lost by 2 million votes, an additional 3 million republicans didn't vote and another 1 million went to third party candidates.

  24. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    "Oh and who cares is the divorce rate is only 25-30%, that number is higher than the population of homosexuals."

    You are 100% wrong on that one. The divorce rate among homosexual men is twice as high and the rate among females is three times that. All in all, homosexuals are 50% more likely to end their marriages than male/female couples.

  25. SC Guy
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    I'm glad NOM isn't allowing the wind to go out of their sails on the marriage issue. Don't forget that the pro-homosexual victories in this election were in deep blue states, showing that there is a divide. That said, the margins were still very narrows (52%-48% or 53%-47%), meaning that such initiatives would likely have failed in most of America which have more traditional views on marriage. Don't forget North Carolina's vote about 6 months ago.

  26. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Barb " If we freaked out like you every time one of our elected officials had an affair we'd talk about nothing else. "

    HYPOCRITE. Even those bigots of the 700 Club are saying the same thing. This is ADULTERY, one of the BIG things against marriage. And you guys laugh it off? Just further proof that the NOM posters are not so much interested in protecting marriage so much as hatred against gays.

  27. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Jacy -

    Infidelity does not threaten marriage; it undermines it somewhat, but it does not change its essence: the institution whereby moms and dads are united with the offspring that they create, assigning responsibility for offspring to the parents and helping assure that children have both their mom and dad.

    So-called same-sex "marriage" destroys the essence of marriage, because it allows for the combination of sexes that can never procreate. SS marriage severs the link between marriage and children. It makes marriage meaningless to children and society, defining it as a mere agreement between any two people who decide that they want the marriage label and government benefits. This ultimately

    Yes, marriage needs to be strengthened, but first we have to stop it from being destroyed by same-sex marriage.

  28. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Jacy -

    Infidelity does not threaten marriage; it undermines it, but it does not change its essence: the institution whereby moms and dads are united with the offspring that they create, assigning responsibility for offspring to the parents and helping assure that children have both their mom and dad.

  29. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Jacy -

    I've a post waiting to appear. Shortened version: infidelity does not destroy marriage; same-sex "marriage," redefines and thwarts the purpose of marriage.

  30. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Zack, any peer reviewed data to support your claims about homosexual divorce?

  31. Fitz
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    It show the depth of the depravity on the same-sex "marriage" side that they cant even make the distinction between holding to a principle and failing in that principle.

    The divorce rates for gay couples is much higher than for straight couples. If a gay couple has an affair it is not the same as saying gays or society dont understand what sexual fidelity is.

    Likewise Pertraus having as adulterous afair is not the same as saying that adultery is ok.

    If petreaus was out advocating that all marriages should be considered "open marriages"- then NOM should comment.

    Since such actions are not being faught for politically and are yet another simple instance of falling short of a principel (as opposed to same-sex "marriaeg" that seeks to refine the insitutuion itself) rather than upending the principle...NOM has no reason to comment.

    Have a little philisophical sophistication people.

  32. Jacy Topps
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Zach once again the facts elude you. Obama won the popular vote by almost 4 million and they are still counting votes. Second, we don't elect presidents in this country by the popular vote. We elect them by the electoral college, which he won by a landslide. Third, 3 million Republicans did stay home that day but Obama was down 10 million votes from 08. Fourth, had Romney pulled his head out the sand about the demographic numbers, he would have won. Lastly, you're arguing semantics. Obama won!!!

    Next, this groups name is not The National Organization against Homosexuals. It's called the National Organization for Marriage. Any rational person would expect to see a wide range of topics coming from them. But we don't. There aren' t any ballot initiatives on any other marriage issues but the gay ones. If they wanted to be a one issue group, that's fine. They should say so. But don't go around spewing rhetoric about the culture wars, when there is only gay marriage that matters to them.

    @ OvercameSSA

    "infidelity does not destroy marriage; same-sex "marriage," redefines and thwarts the purpose of marriage.

    41% of marriages experience infidelity
    31% of marriages have ended because of infidelity
    Adultery is rampant this country! Those are the facts

    You guys can keep debating "facts" and definitions. The progressives in this country will be working the facts to their advantage, electing progressive judges, community organizing, and winning over the hearts of Americans.

  33. Good News
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    “Its absurd to say the fight is over. The fight has just begun.” - Brian Brown

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Our lives will never, and can never, begin to end. And so the truth of the man-woman union and the fight for its acknowledgment will never end.

    God bless you Brian and all who fight for truth and dignity in a hard fought, long and blood battle; that of life!
    You are all loved, for your fight.

  34. Good News
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    “Its absurd to say the fight is over. The fight has just begun.” - Brian Brown

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Our lives will never, and can never, begin to end. And so the truth of the man-woman union and the fight for its acknowledgment will never end.

    God bless you Brian and all who fight for truth and dignity in a hard fought, long and bloody battle; that of life!
    You are all loved, for your fight.

  35. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    typo: Scratch the line "100% wrong on that one"

  36. Donna
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    I wish they'd stop using "marriage-equality" to describe sexual immorality. Every person has the right to marry, yes EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO MARRY. However, there are restrictions...you cannot marry your cat, dog, horse...you cannot marry your car, sofa, television...and you cannot marry somebody of the same gender. That is sexual impurity and immorality at its highest and should not be allowed and promoted as a permissible way of life.

  37. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Jacy drank the Obama Kool-Aid. I hope she has a good secure job, because tough times are coming for those who don't.

    Dems voted against the candidate that had the best shot at turning the country's deteriorating economic condition around and providing prosperity to those who are suffering. Now, the same people will continue to suffer, but hey, who cares as long as boys can marry boys in some states and the working people continue to pay to support casual sex. Stupid people, voting based on fake issues.

  38. Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Dan in case you haven't noticed this whole site is about traditional marriage.You have your views and we have ours if that makes us bigots then you are one as well because you disagree with our views. Tor are right Brian the fight has just begun.

  39. Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Donna according to God it is improper and immoral for members of the same sex to marry so no everybody doesn't have the right to marry there are rules for everything.Teens can also not marry in certain States and I don't see them complaining and no one should marry within their own family.Some things just shouldn't be.The divorce rate and cheating are higher amongst homosexuals as well.Then some faiths reject marriage to one of another faith That is just the way life is sometimes but Christians have a right to stand up for their convictions because they are following God not man.

  40. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH

    "any peer reviewed data to support your claims about homosexual divorce?

    I thought you would never ask:

    http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-fak/fisoz/conference/papers/p_andersson.pdf

  41. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Donna can anything of those things give consent? Because two men can, just one man and one woman, so they can legally marry.

  42. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    "Zach once again the facts elude you. Obama won the popular vote by almost 4 million and they are still counting votes. Second, we don't elect presidents in this country by the popular vote. We elect them by the electoral college, which he won by a landslide"

    You just proved my point. 3 million republicans didn't vote plus the 1 million people who voted third party. Of course we don't elect them by popular vote, but look at the states that Romney should have won. Ohio, Colorado, Florida and Virginia. It stands to reason that these 3 million non voters combined with the third party candidates(4 million total) if they had gone to Romney, he would have won this election.

    It wasn't a "landslide" in any sense of the word

  43. Zack
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    "But don't go around spewing rhetoric about the culture wars, when there is only gay marriage that matters to them."

    Gay marriage is apart of the culture war.

  44. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Dan wrote, "When someone says 'I support traditional marriage' the implication is you oppose the civil rights of gays to marry. It would be like saying you support traditional (segregated) schools."

    There is no such "civil right."

    Homosexuals may cross the bridge, they do not have to sit in the back of the bus, there are no "Heterosexual Only" drinking fountains, and the schools are not segregated according to sexual preference.

    The issue in question is whether any kind of a pairing of homosexuals can be a "marriage". I believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (and should stay that way), so I don't believe there can be "civil rights of gays to marry."

    I do love the way you weave so many same-sex "marriage" talking points/ soundbites together. You really are quite adept at spinning the propaganda.

  45. Herb
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage is deeply linked to children's welfare and our social order," I would think you'd be rushing to let gays and lesbians marry to give their children all the "benefits of marriage". You said its all about the children......right?

  46. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    Barb Chamberlan wrote, "Pseudo-marriage advocate fallback rule #1: supporting marriage = animus."

    Reminds me of part of the Prop 8 dissenting opinion:

    "Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012)."

  47. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Biased article makes slip up:

    "Thursday, November 15, 2012

    The 2012 election spread hope among supporters of same-sex marriage supporters: For the first time, voters in three states approved ballot measures barring discrimination in marriage on the basis of sexual preference."
    . . . .
    http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/poll-rising-national-support-for-gay-marriage-but-texas-remains-strongly-opposed/

    A "preference" is obviously a choice. That's why homosexual special rights lobbyists have begun calling it "sexual orientation" to try to further the lie that sexual preference is immutable.

  48. Brian Also
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Brian,

    From now on schedule all marriage ballot initiatives for the MIDTERM elections! Liberals can't get anyone out to vote during the midterms, but patriotic Americans will go and vote for marriage.

    And in fact, liberals can't get anyone out for a John Kerry type, either. Luckily they have celebrity Obama to get the fans out to the polls. But this is the messiah's last term.

  49. Dan (the marriage supporter)
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Recommended reading:
    http://massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12d/ssm_analysis_111312/index.html

    Note especially points #3 and #4. We've got to change our strategy, folks. It's clear we can't be afraid or ashamed of speaking the truth - the whole truth - if we really expect to win the marriage battles that are coming. As to point #6, are we including images like the one shown of a church vandalized for support of true marriage in our campaigns?

    Another thing organizations like NOM need to do is take a page from the gay pride playbook....those activists have been been marching their cause in the streets for 40 years and continue to do so because they've seen it works, folks! We need more than a local march now and then. We've got to be marching regularly, in numbers so large the media has to report it. This will show everyone in the nation, especially the Millennials, that this is too important to just sit behind our computers and "preach to the choir". When they see so many of us actually have some skin in the game, they'll take notice and reconsider their position. But we need large numbers to commit to this....churches around the nation are going to need to get involved and bus in their marchers. We need to organize these marches for marriage in DC like the Italians did in Rome for "Family Day" where an estimated 1.5 million marched to proclaim the true meaning of family:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/may/07051401
    http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/05/family-speaks-contro-dico.html

    Marches like this will help encourage marriage supporters in other nations to stay strong as well when they see their American bothers finally marching in huge numbers for marriage. We all need to get out there and invest our time supporting true family, and not become part of the problem by being entertained by what Hollywood tells us is the "Modern Family". We need to make a statement as to what natural law dictates will always be the real normal if we're going to overcome Hollywood's propaganda machine about some "New Normal". I'm always so saddened when I hear some professing Christian reveal they watch these shows. How far we've fallen!

  50. Faye
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

    What does cheating on a spouse, or marital breakup because the marriage didn't work out, have to do with the definition of what marriage is?

  51. 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!

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

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

  53. 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?

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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?

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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

  65. 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.

  66. 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).

  67. 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

  68. 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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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..

  72. 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?

  73. 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?

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.