NOM BLOG

National Organization Stands With Marilyn Musgrave After New York Times Makes False Claim About Her Signing On To Anti Prop-8 Brief

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 28, 2013

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"This is the latest example of gay marriage advocates and the media desperately attempting to push the false claim that Republicans support gay marriage." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — After the New York Times was forced to retract its false claim that former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave had signed on to an Anti-Proposition 8 brief to the Supreme Court, Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage responded:

"Congresswoman Musgrave is a hero for marriage and was the lead sponsor of the original Federal Marriage Amendment in 2003. The fact that the New York Times would falsely claim that she now supports repealing a law to protect marriage without even checking with her shows the desperation of some in the media to push this absurd notion that Republicans support the repeal of laws passed by Americans to protect marriage."

Brown continued: "Just last week a Human Rights Campaign-led campaign was forced to remove a picture and quote of former First Lady Laura Bush after they used her reputation without permission to push the untrue idea that she supports the repeal of laws protecting marriage. This is the latest example of gay marriage advocates and the media desperately attempting to create the illusion that Republicans support gay marriage."

Brown went on to say, "Of the much-touted so-called 'Republicans' named in the New York Times article, only two are currently holding seats in Congress. These two lawmakers, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, may claim to be Republicans but they are certainly not conservatives — and NOM will be sure to let their constituents know that these two office holders have abandoned the Republican platform which is strongly pro-marriage."

Brown concluded: "If Republicans actually supported gay marriage — an absurd claim — the Human Rights Campaign would not have to spend millions of dollars claiming they do and the New York Times would not have to falsely claim the support of stalwart pro-marriage Republican figures such as Marilyn Musgrave."

Correction: A previous version of this press release claimed that the New York Times article about Marilyn Musgrave was "above the fold", but in reality the article never appeared in print. We apologize for the error.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

30 Comments

  1. CRSmith
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    I agree. Congresswoman Musgrave is a hero for her stand for decency and against gay marriage. I don't know why the gays want to smear her good reputation like this. Thank for bringing this to our attention.

  2. David Broadus
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Come on, now. Are you honestly saying that the New York Times purposely set out to deceive the general public, knowing (if it knew it's information was not correct) that it would immediately be forced to print a retraction? Really??? Let's have a little common sense here...

  3. Robert
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Geez, you religio-homophobes are ridiculous. It was Musgrave's chief of staff, not Musgrave, and the Times issued a retraction.

    Brian, start your job search. We can almost stick a fork in you!

  4. Donna
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Ahhhh I sense the butt-hurt from the SSMers already. Victory for marriage is near.

  5. Forrest
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    The NYT has been caught lying again??
    The shock of it all.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Lies are all SSM supporters have in defense of their demand for special consideration. Demands that are completely based on what they like to do, in the privacy of their own homes; which is nobody else's business.

  7. Ash
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    "This is the latest example of gay marriage advocates and the media desperately attempting to create the illusion that Republicans support gay marriage."

    A desperate attempt indeed. Every news outlet I've come across seems intent on pushing the narrative that Republicans now support ssm.

    I can't understand why SSMers are so frantic if they are supposedly on the "right side of history"!

  8. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    "I can't understand why SSMers are so frantic if they are supposedly on the "right side of history!"

    And now the sociopath-in-chief is chiming in on States rights by declaring to SCOTUS that traditional marriage is unconstitutional.

    They know they have one shot at this and this is the lightning round.

  9. zack
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    @David

    "Are you honestly saying that the New York Times purposely set out to deceive the general public, knowing (if it knew it's information was not correct) that it would immediately be forced to print a retraction? Really???"

    Right because the New York Times has never been known to do this right? The difference between them and the rest of the Mainstream Media is that the MSM will occasionally apologize for the drivel that flows from their networks, the NYT on the otherhand is more than happy to do the left's bidding even if they look like fools. When you have people like Paul Krugman saying that MORE spending and MORE government are the solutions to our economic woes despite history proving them wrong(facts are stubborn things to them), there is no hope.

  10. Clark
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    You NOMbies must be loving the news of yet another amicus brief in Prop 8 trial. Today from the Department of Justice. I imagine it's as searing as hearing a sitting president (Bush Jr.) call for a federal amendment to prevent you from marrying. That was my experience as a gay tax paying citizen back in the early 2000s.

  11. Clark
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    You NOMbies must be loving the news of yet another amicus brief in Prop 8 trial. Today from the Department of Justice. I imagine it's as searing as hearing a sitting president (Bush Jr.) call for a federal amendment to prevent you from marrying. That was my experience as a gay tax paying citizen back in the early 2000s.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    You keep repeating yourself Clark!

    What's the matter; are you finding it harder and harder to find credibility in the arguments being used in defense of your decadence?

  13. Robert
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    I think the NOMsters are crying in their beer right about now! Boo hoo....I don't want the gays to marry! It's not fair!

  14. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    Are you trying to get the irrational exuberance out of your system before the big cry?

    You know you don't have five votes on that bench dontcha?

  15. Flanoggin
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    I appreciate NOMs support of a=marriage, but the anti-gay animus of their supporters comments make it clear that they are hardly pro-marriage, just anti-gay. Please shot louder and prouder---it only harms your supposed cause.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    @Flanoggin,

    You reference sexual deviants as though they were the mythical Unicorn from antiquity.

    Are you ashamed...?

  17. Robert
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    "You know you don't have five votes on that bench dontcha?"

    Yeah, it's six or seven. How 'bout all these amicus briefs supporting marriage equality?! Looks like the religionists are going down in flames!

  18. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    If you can't get to five you certainly can't get to six, or seven. What is it about you and your aversion to the facts of life anyway?

  19. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Also in the news:

    Starbucks, Hallmark, Levis, and JCP all report dramatic drops in profitability...?

    Oh SNAP!

  20. john
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    so let's see, the "NYT" got one name out of 130 wrong. that really negates the point that there is a growing consensus in favor of marriage equality, even among prominent republicans. the desperation on the part of nom's posts to it's blog, not to mention the follow up posts on this site, tear right through nom's attempt to portray itself as "not anti-gay." please.

  21. Bobby
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    Randy - Starbucks (SBUX) last reported quarterly earnings on Jan 24 of a record 57 cents/share - up from 46 cents/share in the previous quarter and 50 cents/share in the prior year's same quarter.

  22. Bobby
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    Randy - Are you unable to read the business pages or follow financial news? Or has your self hatred turned you into a pathological liar as well?

  23. M. jones
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    Its the lies, SS"m"ers will stoop to any low to get what they want. Shame on them.

  24. Robert
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    Well I'm just worried about what Brian Brown is going to do for a living once NOM collapses. He's got 8 kids to feed and he certainly can't make $250K/year anyplace else!

  25. Chairm
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Robert you need not worry. NOM is winning and Brian has shown the talent and resilience of a father who can well take care of all challenges. His family is a source of strength and not the beast of burden you fantasize about.

  26. Chairm
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Got 2 comments in the que.

  27. FemEagle
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Starbuck's revenue actually did fall short, Bobby:

    "Starbucks says its profit rose in its fiscal first quarter as customers stepped up spending at its cafes in the U.S. and Asia, but revenue fell short of expectations." http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/24/starbucks-earnings/1862455/

    That's what it gets for supporting gay "marriage", not to mention charging 5 bucks for a cup of coffee!

    Yeah, and of course Obama is supporting the farce of SSM. It's just another flip-flop of his, a feat he performs effortlessly since he basically has no principles. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will remind that arrogant fool that he doesn't rule America, and that he has no business trying to stomp all over states' rights. We'll see what happens.

  28. Robert
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, as usual, you miss the point. I didn't say his kids were a burden. I said Brian is unlikely to earn an income anywhere near what he makes at NOM once NOM folds. The catholics are pretty tight with there money; they aren't likely to fund a failing venture for long. Let's see what the SCOTUS does in June, shall we?

  29. Randy E King
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    @Robert,

    Are you trying to threaten Mr. Brown and his family; are you suggesting that if your tyranny is permitted to go forward supporters of traditional marriage are to be denied access to public commerce?

  30. Chairm
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Robert your insults missed the mark. You also misread my comment re "burden". Your errors, both small and large, have been piling up. There is not much substance, if any, in youur comments.

    SSMers too often blurt out the very reasons that the SSM idea is a conceptual mess and a moral quagmire. You have served that purpose very well.