Brian Brown: No Threat of SSM in Minnesota? Campaign Lie of Gay Marriage Advocates "Coming Home to Roost"


Brian Brown, President of NOM, spoke with Minnesota Public Radio:

In a week where a bill legalizing same-sex marriage is expected to be introduced at the state Capitol, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown said GOP lawmakers who support it will face electoral repercussions.

"We are committing a half a million dollars to the effort to support Democrats who support traditional marriage and to oppose Republicans who betray principle and their constituents," Brown said on MPR's Policast on Tuesday.

... NOM spent about $2 million trying to pass a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in Minnesota. Voters rejected the amendment in November.

Overall more than $18 million was spent on the amendment campaign. Opponents spent more than $12 million while supporters spent about half that.

"The campaign was won by simply telling lies," Brown said. "One of the lies was that there was no threat of same-sex marriage, that's now coming home to roost."

Brown said his group supports another push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in Minnesota.

"Clearly, Minnesota needs a constitutional amendment. The reality is that without it, judges could redefine marriage," Brown said. "In Minnesota, unfortunately, the amendment did not pass. But you still need an amendment; we will still push for it."


  1. Truth
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    No means NO.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Great job, Brian. It's always refreshing when the interviewer actually lets you talk. The MN legislature has been trying to foist pseudo-marriage on the people for years. The anti-amendment campaign was incredibly dishonest, and many good MN voters fell for it.

  3. John Noe
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    The vote shows the weakness of our democracy in that it shows that voters can be lied to and manipulated into voting into something that is wrong.

  4. Posted February 28, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    How is it that a particular State of the USA can have its laws or future laws lobbied for or against a cause by outside interests? I'm not saying it is illegal, but shouldn't a State be free to make its own decisions without worrying about outside lobbying?

    Small states (in territory) were more easily taken over by SSm lobbying, passing SSm or SS civil union laws they could later use to say: "It's increasing!" (duh,... it can't go negative, starting from zero. But, is it increasing monotonically, and at what rate?)

    Small States tend to be Democrat controlled, too, perhaps because they are easier targets for conversion to Liberalism (Liberalism = there are no absolutes). But I also think small States have a greater ratio of urban to provincial population, so they are more easily corrupted by the love of money.

    I am probably naive on this matter, but I really would like each State to be able to make up its mind, freely, about what marriage means, and how SSm destroys the foundations of civil marriage. If multi-millionaires from other States can 'buy' the imposition of SSm, whatever happened to democracy in each State?

    Could someone explain why to me, please? SSm advocates have something to gain, so, of course, they would have more money to spend in Minnesota.

    Self-professed 'Homosexuals' and 'Lesbians' generally do not engender the next generation, or raise children. Therefore, they have money left over, while those who engender and raise children do not. That is exactly why civil marriage was instituted, with benefits to opposite-sex married couples: to compensate for the sacrifice opposite-sex married couples naturally make for society. SSm takes away that purposeful compensation. It's really a bad idea.

    So, in a State, if lobbying from outside sources is permitted, we should all see that as unfair and inequitable. I wouldn't know how to remedy the problem, but at the very least a State could start by passing legislation freeing itself from outside sources of lobbying money. Only then is there State autonomy.

    Wow! I learn so much from the Nomblog. Thanks.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.