Brian Brown: Obama Forgot the Right of Children to a Mom and Dad


Our president Brian Brown responds to President Obama's misunderstanding of civil rights:

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which has spearheaded votes banning gay marriage in many states, took exception to Obama linking the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City -- which launched the gay rights movement -- to the Selma voting rights march in the Civil Rights era.

“Same-sex marriage is not a civil right,” he told NBC News, noting that millions of Americans had voted to ban it. “To try and compare in any way the attempt to redefine marriage with the Civil Rights movement is simply false. I think that the president’s forgetting about the most important group affected by this and their civil rights, and that’s children having the civil right to have both a mom and a dad.” (NBC News)


  1. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Brian, thank you for your continued fight to preserve marriage.
    Thank you for challenging the misinformed beliefs of the Obama administration as well as the bobble-heads that follow him. Sheeple!

  2. Teri Simpkins
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Children have a civil right to a mom and a dad. Then let's make sure to take them away from all the single parents, regardless of why they're single, and give them to a mom and a dad. But wait, what about the words from all those who were adopted and wanted to know about their biological parents because they're missing something? Ah, to heck with them. At least they had a mom and a dad. But then again, they weren't a real family so...
    All this circular thinking has my head aching and my heart aching. Maybe Brian should rethink his words before some Republican politician takes him at his word and proposes regulations like that.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    The president's sense of history only goes back to the 60s. He refers to these folks as the founding fathers. The majority of voters are not educated enough to know the difference. Many of them are surprised to learn that we were at war with the British.

    Ironically, it's the wisdom of the real founding fathers that made these marches and riots possible.

  4. Melissa Johnson
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    It seems that Teri may be missing the point here. I don't want to put words in Brian's mouth, but I understood the point to be that children, which are the natural and biological result of the coupling of male and female human beings without choice of their own...again, a natural occurance, because they ARE such, have a civil right to both their mom and dad. This is anything but a circular argument and anything but simple when the consequences of "same-sex marriage"--especially where children are concerned--are taken to their fullest logical conclusions. Marriage isn't the only term/institution that has to be redefined in light of man's creation of "same-sex marriage. "Same-sex marriage" requires the redefination of husband, wife, father, mother, gender on the whole when applied to family situations. What constitutes a "father"...a "mother"? Who gets the children in the case of break-up? On what basis? Which definition of parentage has the greater rights? Again, this is anything but simple. Children do have the civil right to have both a mom and dad. People, in our selfishness, and our ever present LOUD DEMANDING REQUIREMENT for our perceived right to personal "happiness" as we alone are allowed to define according to our own heart and at whatever cost to whomever are at cause for so much pain and injustice, especially with regard to children. Ache for the children caught up in this quagmire, Teri. Your head is aching because your reasoning is illogical...closely examining the truth and fullness of the problem will get you steps closer to relief.

  5. Publius
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    All children are born with a biological father and a biological mother. Without due process the state has no right to reassign children from their biological parents. Biological families are thus grounded in a natural right that predates the state.

  6. Good News
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    But the leaders of this cultural change will not be happy at all with you for not talking about homosexuals. How there you change the subject...
    Keep at it! Keep at it.

  7. Hello
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Good for you, Brian! In a profession where I see children every day, I will tell you there is NOTHING that impacts a child's life more negatively than having the father and mother divorced or separated, besides death itself. Even worse to legislate to GUARANTEE that the child will never know a father or mother. It's narcissism at its worse.

  8. Jake Hanses
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    What if the boss fired someone for not supporting same-sex marriage because of his believes, it could happen.

  9. Melissa
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Brian for standing up and fighting for the sanctity of marriage. It's appalling that the president is displaying no concept of moral law. It is now ever so vital that that rest of us with a clue stand together and fight this tolerance and promotion of what is sin. God Bless

  10. Stefan
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    We were at war with the British? Seriously?

  11. Matthew
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    Teri, the reasoning isn't circular. That many marriages these days fail is true, and children of failed marriages are often raised by single parents. Some children are adopted, either because their parents gave them up for adoption or they were taken away by the courts or the parents died. But I don't think many people would argue that those cases are ideal, and that we should strive for children to be raised without one or more of their biological parents as a normative goal. The salient point is that in all those cases the possibility for the child or children to be reared by both biological parents existed, even if it didn't in fact happen for whatever reasons. Redefining marriage to allow for same sex couples on the other hand, will create a situation where, for the first time in our history, children will be FORCED BY LAW to be raised without one or more of their biological parents, since it is impossible for a same sex couple to conceive a child together. Of course, the law has had to make provisions for failed marriages, death, incarceration and other unfortunate circumstances for the good of children. The question is whether we want to ACTUALLY CREATE those kinds of imperfect scenarios as a matter of law. That's what the argument is about. Now you may not think it is such a big deal for kids to be raised without one or both of their biological parents, in which case you would likely reach a different conclusion than the one Brian Brown has reached. But the reasoning is perfectly sound on both sides. It really just depends on your first principles. Do you think it is important to strive for children to be raised by both their biological parents as a normative goal or not.

  12. Confused
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    To put the situation in very simple terms,
    imagine there are 3 children in perfectly healthy heterosexual families and 2 abandoned children in foster care.

    Scenario 1:
    Gay people are allowed to marry and adopts the 2 children in foster care, and provides a home for them, even if it's less idea than if a straight couple adopts them. (Again, they don't run around kidnapping the 3 children with perfectly healthy families already).

    Scenario 2:
    Gay people can't marry and don't have kids.
    We end up with still, 3 children in perfectly healthy families, but this time, the 2 abandoned children are still in foster care...

    Brian argues scenario 2 is better than scenario 1 simply because "children need a mom and a dad"

    I disagree.
    I would say, even if facts/statistics prove that straight couples are better at raising kids than gay couples are, the fact remains that having gay couples raising kids is better than NO ONE raising them. I think we can at least agree on that point.

  13. Chairm
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    Once again, Teri, your rhetoric depends on non-marital trends as the basis upon which you'd hope to make the imposition of SSM appear more plausible.

    Each of us, as human beings, is born equal -- of a man and a woman. Each child has a birthright to know and to be known by her mom and dad -- barring dire circumstances or tragedy.

    Matthew's remarks are spot-on: "Of course, the law has had to make provisions for failed marriages, death, incarceration and other unfortunate circumstances for the good of children."

    Hear. Hear. Hear.

    The child's birthright is a matter of procreative justice. How best to achieve justice? Well, it is not about taking children from their single moms or from their single dads; it is not about putting an end to adoption which is a social institution for helping to make-up for a shortfall experienced by the child whose birthright has been denied by circumstances over which that child has no control.

    Society -- or at least the reasonable and responsible citizen -- is morally obligated to speak up for the child who does not have a voice of her own.

    It is really tragic that the SSM campaign, through rhetoric and sloppy thinking such as Teri's, teaches a false version of rights. The child's birthright is not a welfare entitlement that Government creates and owns and distributes to human beings. But neither is that birthright something that Government may unjustly deny.

    This birthright is not something that is created by ideology nor by rhetorical and intellectual inventiveness. No, it is discerned through reason. We use reason, because that is the nature of human beings, to discern the moral truth about procreative justice.

    And, contrary to SSMers, marriage is not the creation of bumperstickers, hyper-emotionalism, nor identity politics. As with the birthright, we use reason to figure out the marriage idea, to support it, to give it prominence as best we can. When SSMers turn their intellect and their rhetoric and the hyper-emotionalism to the task of obscuring -- yes, rejecting -- the core meaning of marriage, well, their activism provokes the moral obligation to stand agains their SSM idea and in favor of the marriage idea.

    SSMers are very reluctant to defend their SSM idea. They are much more happy to attack the marriage idea. Obama will be one of the biggest examples of this very thing, for he has proven himself to be the Obfuscator-in-Chief.

  14. Publius
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Every child ever born had a biological mother and a biological father. The state has no right to take a child away from its biological parents without due process, just as the state has no right to take away life or liberty without due process. The natural biological family has a natural right that predates the state.

    The state should not only protect the rights of the natural family, the state should promote natural families and the foundation of society. The Supreme Court has warmly endorsed “…the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” (Murphy v. Ramsey)

  15. Randy E King
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Kudos to Chairm for the thoughtful and well articulated rebuttal.

    Well stated!

  16. Chairm
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Randy.

    Publius, I'll add another quote from the US Supreme Court:

    "Reproduction and the sexual dynamic surrounding it are central to the life process itself." [Bragen v. Abbott]

    Infertility is a Disability says US Supreme Court.

  17. Chairm
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    The point of the additional Supreme Court quote is twofold:

    1. The unitive aspect of the marital relationship is part of the coherent whole that includes provision for responsible procreation. We ought to be mindful of not treating these two central aspects as entirely seperate; the coherency of the marriage idea depends on integration of the sexes and not on responsible procreation as a standalone. One makes sense of the other when combined in this social institution.

    2. The concept of disability, and its reality, entails moral truth. Infertility is no exception on that score. In this way we can see the deep connection between the birthright of every child and how the core meaning of marriage embraces the infertile couple.

    No one-sexed scenario is infertile; all of the range of the one-sexed scenario is nonfertile for it lacks the ability -- i.e. fertility -- and so features a definitive inability rather than a disability. No one-sexed scenario can unite motherhood and fatherhood. None can do what the marital type of relationship can do, usually does, and is oriented to do.

    Hence SSM is intrinsically non-procreative in kind both on the level of its sex-segregative aspect and in terms of its absolute disconnect with responsible procreation. It is foreign to the marriage idea. Indeed, the core meaning of marriage is foreign to the SSM idea, as SSMers repeatedly tell us with great certitude. We all -- on all sides -- might agree on that much.