NOM BLOG

Video: All the March for Marriage Speakers!

 

Did you miss the March for Marriage? Now you can watch the whole program of our rally on the National Mall!

This playlist plays the individual speakers one by one, as well as the introduction and closing remarks by our President Brian Brown:

What's the next step? Signing our citizens petition to the Supreme Court!

65 Comments

  1. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Breaking: 2 more senators who support gay marriage...Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Joe Donnelly (IA). We're now up to 53 and counting. Perhaps the SCOTUS hearings have something to do with this.

  2. Robert
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    It doesn't get much better than to watch the GOP suffocate as its extremist members have it by the throat. How on earth will the GOP escape self-destruction?

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Homosexual activists are putting the pressure on Democrats to favor SS"M" more than ever before. This is no doubt in preparation for the fallout that will occur when the SCOTUS rules against them.

  4. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    SoA, you know as well as the rest of the world that "the horse is out of the barn", "the genie is out of the bottle" and as TIME Inc. said, the battle is won. The high information voters know this is going to happen and SCOTUS will strike down DoMA and either strike Prop 8' due to standing or, perhaps, find that Prop 8' is unconstitutional and then the flood gates open. The low information voters will continue to scream that gay marriage doesn't exist and, meanwhile, gay couples will host wonderful marriage celebrations by the thousands, millions and say, "I do." and the government will join in and say, "We do, too."

  5. Zack
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Yet the GOP turns a blind eye and instead sells their souls for votes they'll never get and campaign money. These faux blue dogs have decided that money trumps principle and morality, let them wither and burn...we don't need to follow their lead.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    One thing is certain; Richard will be noticeably absent when the SCOTUS opinions are handed down in June.

  7. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Breaking (and wonderful) news: Former Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine comes out, today, in support of Gay Marriage. It just keeps getting better and more obvious...TIME Inc. was right.

  8. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Randy, of one thing you can be certain. I will not be absent. Hopefully we can all engage in reasoned and responsible discussion of the findings and the next steps forward. I will have no need to ditch this site.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Is it just me, or is Richard beginning to sound hysterically desperate?

  10. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    This is excellent hearing all these speeches back to back.

  11. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Breaking: the Rutgers hierarchy in basketball and leadership come tumbling down because of physical abuse to players and homophobic slurs. When will Randy learn his lesson?

  12. Zack
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    @Richard

    "Hopefully we can all engage in reasoned and responsible discussion of the findings and the next steps forward."

    This statement right here is in direct contradiction with a previous post you have made on this very article.

  13. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    "Richard" needs to be limited to two comments per thread, at most, even though I've trained my eyes to skip his comments.

  14. Robert
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Why is NOM's Ruth Institute reporting that the march included only 2,500 people?

  15. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Richard, there is no such thing as a genie anymore than there is such a thing a same sex marriage. And any horse can be caught and put back in the barn. Seriously, if homosexual activists were so sure that SCOTUS were going to rule in their favor, wouldn't it make more sense to hold off on a declaration of victory until then? Such a claim would certainly have more credibility with a couple of supreme court decisions favorable to their cause to back it up.

  16. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    "Why is NOM's Ruth Institute reporting that the march included only 2,500 people?"

    You might want to ask Thomas Burke that. He's the one who wrote the article.

  17. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Have I been cut off?

  18. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    Well, how interesting that my response to Barb was posted but then removed.
    Let's try this line of thought. To discuss the numbers who showed up for NOM's march is equivalent to fiddling while Rome burns. Consider this: Justice Kennedy, with respect to the constitutionality of Prop 8" addressed a concern that there are 40,000 children with gay parents in CA. Clearly the suggestion that these children might be denied family protections weighs heavily on him. Do any of you truly relieve he won't rule to grant them the protections they deserve either through lack of standing or outright unconstitutional finding?

  19. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Continued: it is quite clear that the 4 conservative justices voted to grant cert for Prop 8 and DoMA so that those who oppose gay marriage would have one last hearing before losing the battle. Kennedy and the other four must not have voted for cert because not one of them thinks the Prop 8 case warranted consideration. Scalia rebuked Kennedy and said (I paraphrase) "too bad, here it is". That comment will likely come back to haunt Scalia. He wanted the debate. He got it and Kennedy will no more deny the 40,000 children a family than four other justices will.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    You are arguing; you are not discussing.

    The theoretical children in question are being denied access to either their mother or their father; that blame rests with you and your ilk.

    You are using other peoples children as a shield; and that makes you disgusting.

  21. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Continued still: if Scalia and the other three t had not he cert, Prop 8 would have died a relatively quiet death, gay marriage would have returned to CA and the battle would continue state by state. What do we have now? Prop 8 is going down one way or another, DoMA, too and...here is the rub. Senators, congresspersons, notaries, John Q. Public, theologians, sports figures you name it, heard the arguments before SCOTUS and we all know how this will end. Some of you here will not be happy.

  22. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Justice Kennedy did ask that, to which Cooper replied:

    on that specific question, Your Honor, there simply is no data. In fact, their expert agreed there is no
    data, no study, even, that would examine whether or not there is any incremental beneficial effect from marriage over and above the domestic partnership laws that were enacted by the State of California to recognize, support, and honor same-sex relationships and their families. There is simply no data at all that would permit one to draw -- draw that conclusion.

  23. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Randy, you would deny reality. Those 40,000 kids are members of gay families. You nor I have any actual knowledge of the measure of their state of happiness and general welfare. The fact that Kennedy is concerned for their family well-being is what matters. When you make such generalized pronouncements of the methods by which those 40,000 children ended up with gay parents, you reveal a profound disregard for the real possibility these kids were rescued and are truly loved. I say your unwillingness to get beyond such a narrow perspective can be considered disgusting.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Heightened Scrutiny...Heightened Scrutiny...let's see:

    They can't claim politically powerless

    They can't claim impoverished

    They can't claim identifiable characteristics

    They can't claim history of abuse because they do not have an established ideology - 1st they were LG; then Queer; then LGB; then LGBT, then LGBTQ; now they are all "Gay."

    Gee; they do not meet a single standard for heightened scrutiny. I mean the Democrats even went so far as to replace "obedience to God" with "obedience to sexual promiscuity."

    The only chance they have now is if SCOTUS goes rogue. Which makes me wonder if the appointed attorney's sitting on the peoples highest court realize that treason is a capital offense?

  25. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Here's another question brought up by Roberts:

    "it seems to me that your position that you are supporting is somewhat internally inconsistent. We see the argument made that there is no problem with extending marriage to same-sex couples because children raised by same-sex couples are doing just fine and there is no evidence that they are being harmed. And the other argument is Proposition 8 harms children by not allowing same-sex couples to marriage. Which is it?"

    Well?

  26. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    The ESTIMATED number was somewhere around 36k; and Kennedy was lamenting on the lack of concern for said children when these pairings were first established.

    These pairings did not create these children Richard.

  27. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    "Randy, you would deny reality. Those 40,000 kids are members of gay families."

    You believe same-gender pairings create natural families and accuse me of denying reality...?

    You may want to rethink that drink little fella!

  28. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Randy, 36,000 or 40,000?
    SoA, do you really think Roberts will deny the 40,000 children the federal rights to full family because he thinks these kids "are doing just fine". That's like saying black kids don't need to have family civil rights because, heck, they're doing fine and their parents are providing for them. When Roberts made that statement most news outlets, pundits and constitutionalist thought it about the most lame argument for denying someone their civil rights that they had ever heard and not worthy of a justice on SCOTUS. I suspect even Roberts cringes when he thinks back to that statement.

  29. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, Richard. We all know how fair and unbiased the news media is on this subject. Especially when I think back on that TIME cover last week.

  30. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    And while we're on the subject, why shouldn't single parents get full federal rights to their family? Is it not possible to grant all adults raising children federal benefits without getting the government into the business of defining and redefining terms and telling people what to say and how to say it?

  31. Richard
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    SoA, you would love the media if they agreed with you, but, put simply, they know better. Send TIME a retort if you disagree. Your second comment raises some interesting questions. On the subject of defining and redefining terms, I contend that more often than not, humans are the instigators here and government usually comes into the debate after the fact. The term "gay marriage" was on the lips of humanity way before government got into the debate.

  32. Son of Adam
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    So the media knows better because they share your fanaticism. Right! They've been pumping out lies for ages and then have the gall to wonder why they are not trusted anymore.

    "The term "gay marriage" was on the lips of humanity way before government got into the debate."

    So's polygamy and bigamy, even bestiality. What's your point?

  33. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    @Richard,

    The children are not being denied anything that they have rights to. You are not fighting for the rights of children. You are fighting for special consideration for adults that want to change the meaning of words so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to their proclivity.

  34. Robert
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    "The children are not being denied anything that they have rights to."

    All children have a right to married parents. It has always been our social norm, to see kids raised inside of wedlock, not outside of it.

    I can hardly believe the religionists and conservatives are now arguing AGAINST marriage for the benefit of children!

  35. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    All children have a natural right to BIOLOGICAL parents; not faux parents.

    All systems of belief are religions; even yours.

  36. bman
    Posted April 5, 2013 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Richard->do you really think Roberts will deny the 40,000 children the federal rights to full family because he thinks these kids "are doing just fine".

    That is like legalizing polygamy so the small percentage of children in those families can have federal benefits.

    The long term statistical harm that legalized polygamy would likely pose to children for generations to come argues against legalization.

    Likewise, the short term benefits obtained by the small percentage of children in SS households today, are outweighed by long term statistical harms that legalized SSM would likely pose for children collectively across future generations.

  37. Mikhail
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    I was there, I had to take a day off work. I didnt tell my boss that I was going to the M4M. I just said I had "family matters" to deal with

    Robert: "Why is NOM's Ruth Institute reporting that the march included only 2,500 people?"

    I thought u guys claimed that same-gender unions were a "civil right" and therefore it didnt matter whether it was popular or not? Now u are claiming it should be allowed because u (supposedly) have the majority on your side? Hypocrite! What about the civil rights of children?

  38. Chairm
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    Richard lacks sound argumentation for what he demands of society.

    Meanwhile the presentations at the March are very good.

    Quite the contrast. Readers might focus best on the presentations and comment on their content.

  39. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    My question was why NOM and its "project" the Ruth Institution can't coordinate their lies better. One says the march was 10,000; the other says it was 2,500. Regardless, these are paltry numbers, when you consider that 2.5 million people changed their Facebook avatar to the gay-friendly "=" sign.

    Can you say "sinking ship"?

  40. Son of Adam
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    LOL Robert! There are approximately 1 billion users on Facebook. That means only .25% changed their Facebook avatar to the "=" sign. Even if you narrow the Facebook users to only Americans, it's still less than 1%. This goes to show how leftist spin makes their causes seem more potent than they actually are.

  41. Son of Adam
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    As for how many people were at the march, that's like trying to determine by sight alone how many coins or jellybeans are in a large jar. There are many differing opinions - each one a guess, not a lie.

  42. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    I guess marriage discrimination is running out of steam, if you can only get either 2,500 or 10,000 people to march to support it. Compare that to the millions who support marriage equality!

  43. Randy E King
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Robert,

    Your new = symbol was bastardized out of "Go Pink" and "Go Red" for women. You parasites are completely dependent upon the bastardization of righteous philanthropy; you even stole the Rainbow for the Christians.

  44. Son of Adam
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    "I guess marriage discrimination is running out of steam, if you can only get either 2,500 or 10,000 people to march to support it. Compare that to the millions who support marriage equality!"

    Then why weren't those millions there in counter protest?

  45. Chairm
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    A more significant statistic is the low participation rate in SSM wherever it has been imposed. And, across the USA, there is a very low participation rate in same-sex householding -- a much more inclusive category than SSM, civil union, domestic partnership combined. Less than 10% of the adult homosexual population lives in such households. It is a marginal practice within the target population that SSMers claim to be fighting for.

    On the other hand, as the March demonstrated, more democrats and independents, combined, support the marriage idea than republicans, in absolute numbers. And more liberals and moderates, combined, support the marriage idea than conservatives, in absolute numbers. The pro-marriage side is diverse and deep and far-reaching. And, more importantly, we have the better arguments.

  46. Mikhail
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    "when you consider that 2.5 million people changed their Facebook avatar to the gay-friendly "=" sign."

    Yeah, or like the 1 million people in secular, liberal France and 200,000+ people in Puerto Rico who were standing up for true marriage!

  47. Mikhail
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Randy E King, well feminists love gays and vice versa. They are united in their utter hatred for the church and for sexual restraint

  48. bman
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Robert->I can hardly believe the religionists and conservatives are now arguing AGAINST marriage for the benefit of children!

    A slanted argument.

    Its like saying opposition to polygamy is against children having the benefit of married parents.

    Your argument uses SSM instead of polygamy, but its the same slant.

    There is a fundamental right to marriage, but that means a fundamental right to monogamous bride-groom marriage, not polygamy or SSM.

    Thus, any time "the benefits of marriage" are mentioned, it means "the benefits of monogamous bride-groom marriage," and not "the benefits of polygamy or SSM" called marriage.

    Denying formal recognition of marriage to polygamy or same sex relationships does not deny the benefits of marriage to children in those environments.

    What actually denies children the benefits of marriage in such cases is the prior decision of those parent(s) to enter a maladaptive sexual relationship that negatively affects their children.

    Marriage benefits depend on the parents being in a monogamous bride-groom marriage.

    When a gay parent enters a same sex sexual relationship the gay parent is responsible for the child not having the benefit of married parents, not society.

  49. Ash
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    "When a gay parent enters a same sex sexual relationship the gay parent is responsible for the child not having the benefit of married parents, not society."

    Exactly! Great point.

    And, on another note, Bishop Jackson's speech was excellent. :)

  50. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    "Its like saying opposition to polygamy is against children having the benefit of married parents."

    Except it's not. There's no evidence that a child benefits by having more than two married parents. There is substantial evidence that a child benefits by having two married parents. Denying children the right to have married parents harms the least among us. I'm sure God isn't too pleased with this!

  51. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    "Did you miss the March for Marriage?"

    Yeah, I blinked.

    Hey, could you guys let the Ruth Institute know that there was a whopping 10,000 people at the march? They think it was only 2,500! It's like they believe the lame-stream media or something!

  52. Son of Adam
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    "There is substantial evidence that a child benefits by having two married parents."

    That's because those two married parents consist of a mother and a father.

  53. Son of Adam
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    "They think it was only 2,500! It's like they believe the lame-stream media or something!"

    The lame stream media reported dozens.

  54. bman
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Robert->Except it's not. There's no evidence that a child benefits by having more than two married parents.

    Although SSM may eventually lead to "having more than two married parents" that had nothing to do
    with my comment.

    You jumped track on that one.

    Here is the point you missed. A man who has children by many different women can marry only one of those women. The children he has by other women could not have married parents because polygamy is illegal.

    You said opposing SSM is to oppose children having married parents.

    Do you also apply that same logic to opposing polygamy?

  55. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    "You said opposing SSM is to oppose children having married parents.

    Do you also apply that same logic to opposing polygamy?"

    No, because polygamy doesn't permit the focused commitment that is the essence of marriage. You can't be committed to more than one person in the way you are committed to just one. But I think you've finally hit at the heart of what marriage is: commitment.

  56. Son of Adam
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 4:51 am | Permalink

    If you can't be committed to more than one person, then how can you possibly be committed to more than one child? - Or a spouse and a child?

    This rationalization is nothing more than a front to promote homosexual identity politics.

  57. Robert
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Son, go back and reread what I wrote. I didn't say you can't be committed to more than one person, but rather, you can't be committed to more than one person THE SAME WAY YOU CAN COMMIT TO ONE person. Plus there are other downsides to polygamy, such as it's religionist origins.

  58. Son of Adam
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    So please explain to me, Robert, how it is possible to commit to the raising of more than one child, who by all accounts is a person too? And there are downsides to homosexuality as well, such as promiscuity, domestic abuse, STDs, pedophilia, etc. You just won't see past the wealth and political influence of the homosexual lobby to appreciate them.

  59. Randy E King
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    "go back and reread what I wrote. I didn't say you can't be committed to more than one person,"

    I'll bite:

    "No, because polygamy doesn't permit the focused commitment that is the essence of marriage."

    The old "who are you going to believe; me, or your own damn lying eyes." routine you are dependent on is not the winning arguments you seem to believe it is.

    You believe because we are tolerant we are weak; your arrogance offends me.

  60. Robert
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Son, you're creeping me out: children are not adults. Raising a child is not the same as having an adult, sexual relationship! Are you a pedophile??? If so, get help!

    In fact, the high divorce rate shows that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of kids. But heck, make up whatever reality fits your prejudices!

  61. Randy E King
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    "But heck, make up whatever reality fits your prejudices!"

    Like the way you convinced yourself that your proclivity turns you into a subspecies of man, or the way you convinced yourself that the last tow-thousand-years of recorded human history never really happened; that the laws of nature and natures God were fabricated so as to exclude the species of "Gay" from decent society?

  62. Son of Adam
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    The high divorce rate started with the legalization of no fault divorce under the misconception that marriage is only about promoting the sexuality of adults, not the best interests of children. Once divorce became easier to obtain, more and more children were forced to see their families ripped apart and forced to be raised in broken homes. So don't tell me that putting the sexualities of adults above the needs and upbringing of children doesn't damage marriage. Forty years of history proves that it does. And our kids have paid the price!

  63. bman
    Posted April 8, 2013 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    Robert->No, because polygamy doesn't permit the focused commitment that is the essence of marriage. You can't be committed to more than one person in the way you are committed to just one. But I think you've finally hit at the heart of what marriage is: commitment.

    Are you saying that if polygamy was legalized and the man married all the other women with whom he had children, that it would not be marriage "in essence?"

  64. Chairm
    Posted April 9, 2013 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Commitment to sodomy is not a marital commitment.

  65. leehawks
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    And marriage is not consummated by sodomy.