NOM BLOG

Brian Brown Reacts to New Effort to Claim GOP Supports Gay Marriage

 

Our president Brian Brown is quoted in this article on NBCNews.com:

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party's platform in a move that one who had a change of heart on the issue said would “strengthen our nation as a whole.”

... The legal brief was dismissed by the National Organization for Marriage, which on Monday pledged $500,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers supporting any law to allow same-sex marriage inMinnesota, a state considering such legislation.

“None of these people are actively in politics. They are not running for office because they know … supporting same-sex marriage will end your career if you’re a Republican,” said Brian Brown, NOM's president. “There’s overwhelming support for traditional marriage in the Republican Party, that’s why it’s part of the party platform, and any attempt by the establishment to redefine marriage and redefine what it means to be a conservative will mean the death of the Republican party.”

27 Comments

  1. John Noe
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    It should be pointed out that they are traitors and are stabbing voters in the back. The voters made their feelings known. Marriage should not be legislated from the bench.

    I wonder how much bribe money they took for this.

  2. Zack
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    This is why the Republican lost the last two elections. None of them stand on any principles! At least with McCain...he owned up to his own moderate/liberal leanings but ultimately...he didn't stand a chance against the Democratic Machine. But Romney? The conservative base didn't trust him so they didn't turn out the way they did for McCain.

    These republicans who think the problem is that they have to change to fit the times...the Democrats never did that. They've been for bigger government and radical secularism since the days of Woodrow Wilson and have stayed that way. The GOP on the other hand has steadily followed suit thinking by moving to the left they would be more attractive. It's like a guy who acts like a chick to get more dates from women...no girl wants to date a guy who thinks he's no different than a chick....and that's what the GOP has become or is becoming.

  3. David Broadus
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    I'm a bit confused. As ALL recent polls show a majority of Americans support gay marriage, this would necessarily mean that this would include a fair number of republicans. How then, could supporting gay marriage mean a certainty of losing one's office? Unless you believe that republicans make up a very small portion of the population your statements make no sense. But, of course, do they ever?

  4. Flanoggin
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    No David....you are correct....it's all about the math----NOM does not live in an evidence based world....

  5. OldKingBlog
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Earth to David:

    Let me clue you in RE your statement that "ALL recent polls show a majority of Americans support gay marriage..:" there are NO such polls. What you are witnessing is an updated version of a trick the leftist media-academic complex used in the late 1960s and early 1970s to convince Americans to support their campaign to legalize abortion. They lined up poll after poll after poll that claimed most Americans wanted legal abortion.

    There was only one problem, and it came out many years after Roe v Wade: virually all of those polls were faked and some were simply never conducted. A similar dynamic is now in play. Capiche?

  6. zack
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    ©david

    Ditching the base of a grassroots movement never bodes well. just because the polls show the majority supporting gay marriage doesn't mean they will be more likely to support somebody who embraces it. It's all about principle. no GOP candidate can win without the conservative base... this is why tea party groups are targeting people they promoted in 2010. you turn your back on the base, you lose virtually your entire support system.

    and actually there isn't a "fair" number of Republicans that support redefining marraige

  7. John N
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    The only poll that really counts is the one where we vote at the ballot box.

  8. Robert
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Are you being serious, OldKingBlog? You seriously think there's a conspiracy to create polls that show that most Americans support equal legal rights for gay and lesbian people?

    Boy, NOM is getting desperate. Brian's six-figure income is slipping through his fingers. Oh well!

  9. David Broadus
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    One only needs to go out and speak with people to see that acceptance of gay people is now the norm. I've traveled the world and have met a great many people from all walks of life, and I can attest to the fact that it's very rare to find someone who may be considered a NOM supporter. And, of course, there was that little matter of gay marriage being voted into law recently, by the people, in 3 states. To say that the polls are lying simply doesn't jive with reality.

  10. Daniel Kelly
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    David, who's talking about "acceptance of gay people"? I have close family members and best friends who are in SS relationships, just because I don't think that marriage should be changed or that I acknowledge that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy doesn't mean I don't "accept them". I'm not perfect, and I certainly don't need other people to be perfect to love them and have them in my life. Also, you mention 3 states that voted in SSM, but leave out the fact that over *30 states* have rejected SSM. That is reality.

  11. Posted February 28, 2013 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    David, your comment above wins the Most Illogical Of The Week Award.

    Having insisted that the victory of the marriage destroyers in 3 states constitutes "evidence" that the polls are right, you ignore the fact that marriage defenders have prevailed in *32* states...which would certainly indicate the polls are *wrong* *as in fact they are, see California and North Carolina for specific details.

    Anyway, it's been fun, see you at SCOTUS.

  12. Robert
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    It's amazing, all these groups submitting briefs supporting marriage equality! It's like the catholics and their religio-homophobe allies versus everybody else!

  13. Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Robert:

    Six Catholics on SCOTUS there, big fella.

    Wonder if they appreciate being slandered sp egregiously :-)

  14. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    Don't you just love the way marriage corruption supporters believe (9) appointed Jurists value transitory emotions over a profession they spent a lifetime at.

  15. OldKingBlog
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Earth (yet again) to David : A comment RE your statemnett that "One only needs to go out and speak with people to see that acceptance of gay people is now the norm:' where? Among you and all two of your lefty buddies? Your statement is patently and manifestly a propaganda ploy

    Earth to Robert: Stop living in fantasyland and try normalthink -- it's healthier..

  16. David Broadus
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    OldKing, the anger in your responses is really startling. When I mentioned that many people I meet throughout my life are pro-gay marriage, you make a weird attack on me that I have two friends? Huh? Again, I must point out that I'm trying to have an adult conversation.

    True, votes against gay marriage have prevailed in lots more states than have voted gay marriage in, but I think the bigger picture is that acceptance of gay marriage is growing, which is consistently shown in polls. It's certainly not going the other way. One needs to look at when these votes took place, and what the trend is now.
    Daniel Kelly - it's great that you have gay friends and family that you accept. But, again, the words used on this site, and the anger shown toward anyone asking questions really shows something beyond just the gay marriage question. I don't think it's wrong to say that, based on what one reads here, many NOM supporters truly hate gay people. I trying to understand this.

  17. David Broadus
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    And one really needs to just look at the number of corporations and individuals who are willing to file briefs that are pro-gay in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, compared to those on the other side of the argument - basically just rightwing or religious organisations. One understands NOM supporters don't feel this is right - but one really can't say that acceptance of gay people and gay marriage isn't in the mainstream, and isn't on the rise. At this point it seems odd to even see someone who isn't a republican politician, or someone known already for their christian views speaking out against gay marriage. It doesn't happen very often.

  18. Chairm
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    David, please state the essential(s) of the type of relationship you have imind regarding the gay emphasis in your comments.

    What, if any, essential of that type relationship is a legal requirement where "gay marriage" is accepted?

    What distinguishes that type of relationship from other one-sex type relationships? Please explain why that, if anything, might justify a special status in the law. And please explain what, if anything, might justify lines of eligibility/ineligibility.

    What has "acceptance" of gay people got to do with marriage law?

  19. David Broadus
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    What might distinguish a gay marriage from any other type of same sex relationship? Um, romantic and sexual love. Which is exactly what distinguishes a straight marriage from any other type of opposite sex relationship. What eligibility requirements might there be? That they are adults and not related to each other, I suppose. Just like straight couples. Why should gay couples have the special status of marriage? I'm trying hard to think of a reason why they shouldn't, actually. All straight marriages are different - they all are afforded the same legal status, no? Please don't bring up kids! If two senior citizens want to get married kids don't figure onto the equation, so enough.

  20. zack
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Got a post in the queue, maybe a double by accident.

  21. Chairm
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 3:39 am | Permalink

    A fourth comment in the que.

  22. Chairm
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Another in the que.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    The eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room you keep ignoring David is that pesky old ability to procreate naturally; the rational basis for limiting marriage to one man one woman pairings.

    Just keep dismissing it and I will keep looking forward to you painful screams of disappear when this same rational is noted by seven of nine appointed public servants - seven of nine because two value their ideology over their oath.

  24. bman
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Chairm-> fourth comment in the que.

    Its been two days and those comments are still not showing here .

    The moderation protocol needs repair, I think.

    The system should generally allow posts from trusted posters without expressly saying who is trusted and who is not.

    That can be done by checking the email address submitted with each post against a list of trusted email addresses.

    If an imposter used the screen name of a trusted poster it would not get through unless the email address matched, for example.

  25. Chairm
    Posted March 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    David Broadus, neither romance nor love is a trump card for those ineligible to marry.

    Neither is a legal requirement for those who'd SSM, as you must know.

    But the bride-plus-groom requirement exists. You want to abolish it. That means you do not really believe in your own argument. You do not believe that legal requirements are decisive.

    Meanwhile, marriage requires both a man and a woman. It also requires consent to all that is entailed in marital status. That includes the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. That is the link to sexual love but it does not apply to the one-sex-short scenario. O participant in such a scenario can give that consent. And there are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible on that very basis.

    As for romance, well, we are told by the leading voices of the SSM campaign that tradition does not suffice: you cannot rely on the relatively modern tradiction of romance.

    As for polygamy, It is two-sexed. It is a series of man-woman relationships. The man forms a series of relationships but the women do not marry each other. While it is permitted in many places, it is false of you to claim that most people live polygamously. The vast majority of people live in the monogamous family of husband and wife -- even in places where polygamy is permit

    Polygamy is an inferior version of sex integration and responsible procreation. SSM on the other hand is a rejection of the core of marriage. It is a rejection of the marriage idea as etched in the anthropological and historical records. It is a conceptual mess, as demonstrated in your own attempted explanation of its supposed essentials.

  26. Chairm
    Posted March 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    David Broadus, plainly state the meaning of the last sentence in your last comment. An explanation or clarification is necessary becuase it looks like a superficial attempt to equate age to something else.

    For instance, please fill-in the blank: age is the moral, legal, and logical equivalent of -- what? -- the lack of the other sex? _________________________.

    Perhaps you mean to say that age is irrelevant to the SSM idea. So no age limitations can be fairly applied to eligibility. No upper age limit so no lower age limit?

    Perhaps you mean that children are irrelevant to the SSM idea. Or that age is proxy for consent -- but what is the content of the consent to SSM, do you think, if the only distinguisher is romance/sexual love which is not legally required for those who'd SSM? If not required, then, it is not the content of that to which consent is given, right? And, your meaning would take off the table any discussion of children who some few gay adults raise. You cannot put that back on the table unless you last sentence is also taken off the table.

    You are doing as the SSM campaign teaches: say stupid things and pretend you have said something of great and deep substance. The superficiality is so thin as to tear in your own hands, David Broadus.

  27. Chairm
    Posted March 7, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    David Broadus?