The National Organization for Marriage has joined other anti-gay conservatives in condemning the Boy Scouts of America for voting to allow gay Scouts. The statement from Brian Brown notably does not mention the word marriage — despite the group’s mission — and also reveals how NOM buys into hackneyed stereotypes about gay people and people of faith:

BROWN: Today is a sad day for the Boy Scouts of America. They have succumbed to political pressure and abandoned their historic roots in what will prove to be a failed attempt to appease gay activists and corporate donors. Unfortunately, what they have done is said to the world that their oath no longer means much. Their decision to admit openly gay scouts will end up sexualizing the organization.

I am certain that having changed their policy on homosexuality, it’s only a matter of time before courts order them to admit homosexual scout leaders. Meanwhile, countless thousands of churches will very likely pull their sponsorship rather than endorse homosexuality, and the entire organization will begin to collapse. All of this is happening not because of a true grassroots demand of gay youth to be part of the organization but by an orchestrated political effort by gay activists who want to punish any group or organization that does not embrace homosexuality. It’s the beginning of the end for what once was one of America’s noblest organizations.

The Boy Scouts’ former policy, which remains in place for adult leaders, was such that Scouts were kicked out not for engaging in sexual activity with the same sex, but for even admitting that they are gay. NOM’s claim that ending this discrimination will “end up sexualizing the organization” reinforces the narrow views that being gay is only defined by sexual behavior and that gay men are, in fact, obsessed with sex.

Furthermore, the implication that “thousands of churches” will pull their sponsorship of Boy Scout troops suggests that those churches only supported the organization because it was anti-gay. It reduces Christianity to a one-belief religion, and that beliefs, “No gays allowed.” Such preposterous predictions are an insult to all churches who work with the Scouts, whether they supported the discriminatory policy or not, and ignores the other noncontroversial values the Scouts espouse.

NOM’s decision to engage in an issue outside their mission merely because involved the inclusion of the gay community further reflects how the group works against LGBT people, not for marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown sat down with USA Today to talk about their loss in Rhode Island, but despite the advance of equality, Brown continued to reiterate his false belief that a majority oppose same-sex marriage — they don’t. During the interview, Susan Page asked him about the Republican Party’s attempt to be more inclusive of people who support marriage equality, even if the party’s platform doesn’t change, but he was resolute that straying from this one position will be the demise of the entire party:

PAGE: Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman, said the party needed to be inclusive on this issue — needed to keep the party platform but welcome people who support same-sex marriage as good Republicans. Should the party be inclusive?

BROWN: Does “inclusive” mean that you get rid of your founding principles? Are party platforms supposed to mean anything? If the party does that, the party’s done. The party is done if the Republican Party abandons traditional marriage. It would mean that it has turned its back again on not only its base, but on the overwhelming majority of folks who identify as Republicans.

Watch the full interview at USA Today.

Despite the fact NOM is non-partisan, Brown has a significant investment in the Republican party. In addition to leading NOM, Brown heads up ActRight, an online fundraising tool for conservative candidates, including “all federal Republican candidates.” He has used ActRight’s tool to fundraise in the state same-sex marriage fights to prove its worth to Republican operatives. Thus, he likely wants the party staying committed to opposing same-sex marriage so they stay interested in using ActRight.

Incidentally, NOM’s own vindictive campaigns against Republicans who support marriage equality have backfired against the party. Of the four Republican seats NOM challenged in the New York Senate, they only replaced one with an opponent of marriage equality, but lost two of them to Democrats. If all Republicans obeyed Brian Brown’s wishes, it would help his personal cause greatly, but it would continue to hurt the party in a country increasingly embracing equal marriage rights for all couples.

At the end of every week, the National Organization for Marriage’s president, Brian Brown, sends out a weekly newsletter summing up the week’s events. Though many thought last week was a rough week because of the Boston Marathon bombings and West, Texas explosion, it was this week that Brown described as “a tough week” because of the many victories for marriage equality. This week’s letter remarkably crams most of NOM’s talking points all into one post, so here is a reminder of NOM’s various claims about the consequences of same-sex couples marrying:

Marriage Equality Discriminates Against Christians (Because They Want To Discriminate)

NOM is still upset that Rhode Island passed marriage equality this week. Rather than repeat his own claim that same-sex marriage is worse than divorce or death, Brown emphasized that marriage equality “redefines marriage for all people” by imposing upon Christian businesses who don’t wish to serve same-sex couples. Earlier this week, NOM admitted its desire to blatantly “refuse service” to gays and lesbians.

Marriage Equality Harms Children

As always, NOM ignores that many same-sex couples are already raising children, so Brown instead claims that “the rights of adults to marry any person they love trump a child’s right to a loving mom and dad.” He once again obsessed over a New York middle school that taught students about the diversity within the LGBT community, as if learning about the world was somehow harmful.

NOM Effectively Targets Republicans Who Support Marriage Equality

Referencing how the Republicans in the Rhode Island Senate unanimously supported marriage equality, Brown committed to challenging their re-election, boasting NOM’s success doing that in New York. The only problem is that NOM was only successful at flipping one of the four seats they challenged in New York; two of them were lost to Democrats because of NOM’s too-conservative primary challengers.

Being Gay Is A “Preference”

With the exception of Jennifer Roback Morse, NOM generally tries to avoid openly endorsing ex-gay therapy, but it finds subtle ways to condone the harmful practice. Brown used the email to champion Rhode Island Sen. Harold Metts (D), who offered a 12-minute religious condemnation of homosexuality during Wednesday’s floor debate. Among his claims, as quoted in NOM’s newsletter: “I can change my sexual preference tonight if I want to, but I can’t change my color.”

Read more

NOM's Brian Brown crying after New York passed marriage equality in 2011.

The National Organization for Marriage is not happy that marriage equality has successfully advanced in Rhode Island, a sentiment probably enhanced by NOM’s unique dedication of specific resources in that state. Reacting to Wednesday’s Senate vote, Brian Brown made a bold new comparison, suggesting that same-sex couples do more to destroy marriage than divorce or death:

BROWN: The Senate has abandoned society’s most important institution and put their constituents on a collision course with the law. Lawmakers have allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking they have protected people of faith when in fact they have put those who believe in true marriage in the crosshairs of the law and gay ‘marriage’ activists. It won’t be long before the repercussions begin to be felt.

For the first time, the state of Rhode Island is saying to its children they do not deserve both a mother and a father, and are backing a law that is designed to intentionally deprive some kids of either a mom or a dad. It’s bad enough when families break down through divorce or death, but it’s unconscionable when a state encourages this through policies that deprive children of the love of both a mother and a father. This is a very sad day for Rhode Island.

With every loss, NOM’s true colors become more revealed. Once again disregarding how same-sex families will benefit from the protections of marriage, Brown has admitted he actually believes having two moms or two dads is worse for children than losing a parent to divorce or death. This comment follows in the same week that NOM tried to fundraise off the fear that children might learn LGBT people exist, endorsed blatant discrimination against LGBT people, and defended the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay Scouts. For an organization that supposedly focuses on the issue of marriage, NOM seems increasingly concerned with preventing LGBT people from participating in society whatsoever.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has so far not been classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, because for the most part, the organization’s spokespeople focus their rhetoric on “traditional marriage” instead of demonizing homosexuality. (This has become less so, particularly given Jennifer Roback Morse’s repeated endorsements of ex-gay therapy.)

In a recent Tea Party Unity conference call, Brian Camenker of the anti-gay hate group MassResistance challenged NOM President Brian Brown about this selective language use, asking why NOM doesn’t just admit that homosexuality is a “perversion.” Brown admitted that he didn’t think harsher language could sway Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, but he encouraged group’s like Camenker to keep doing their own thing:

CAMENKER: It’s concerning to a lot of people that the arguments being used in the various court cases concede that homosexual relationships are legitimate and not a perversion or what have you, we just don’t like them, and we wonder if there was more of a hard stance that they are not legitimate, that it is perverse, unnatural and what have you, that we might have some better success in some of the cases. [...]

BROWN: Whenever I’m asked about what I think about homosexuality, I’m very clear, I believe and as a Catholic I believe in the traditional teaching of our church. I think that sex is reserved for marriage, period. As far as the legal arguments go we may differ. I think a lot of the legal arguments have been made in the Prop 8 case especially have been made to speak to [Justice] Kennedy and Kennedy has already found in the Lawrence case, for example, that states can’t ban sodomy. So it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.

I know some people think we need to focus more on homosexuality. All I’ll say is that when asked I state what I believe and many of the religious supporters that we’ll have at the march clearly will stand up and proclaim biblical truth on marriage, but I’m not sure whether legally that is the best strategy. Also, different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing. So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Brown’s subtle confession here is incredibly telling. NOM know there are a lot of negative things it’s not saying about gay people and homosexuality, even though its members seemingly believe all of the same things. Certainly it has no problem taking umbrage on behalf of these hate groups or featuring their rhetoric at their rallies.

If NOM is encouraging other groups to be harsher opponents of homosexuality just so it can save face, it’s no less responsible for it in the end. Indeed, by strategizing in this way, Brown has proven that even the most polished rhetoric “defending traditional marriage” is just as anti-gay, and they understand it has the very same consequences. If NOM’s motives and beliefs are part of the public rhetoric, then attempting to hide under polite talking points simply adds dishonesty to their already offensive intentions.

Many paid anti-gay activists work for an organization connected back to Robert George.

This week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage equality have understandably attracted media attention, but unfortunately the coverage has been peppered with blatant puff pieces that offer a free pedestal for paid operatives working against same-sex marriage. These articles claim to profile individuals who make their living off the anti-equality movement offer little context, instead invite them to share all their talking points without any rebuttal.

For example, last Friday USA Today ran a piece profiling some of the top lobbyists against marriage equality, while the New York Times profiled young conservatives working with many of the same organizations. NPR offered two puff pieces, one similarly profiling various conservatives and another just to highlight Maggie Gallagher’s views on the topic. Almost every individual in each of these stories advocates against equality as a profession. Here’s a list of who they are and how they used their free media pedestal:

• Brian Brown is executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  He told USA Today that “The people are definitely on our side,” even though polling continuesto show the exact opposite.
• Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), told USA Today that “there will be collateral damage to other freedoms” because of marriage equality, but offered examples of people who seek to violate nondiscrimination protections.
• Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), told USA Today that marriage equality will “lure” people into homosexuality, just like legalizing marijuana, gambling, prostitution, abortion, “or any vice that is legalized.” The article neglected to mention that CWA is recognized as a hate group along with FRC.
• Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chair of the Catholic Bishops’ committee for the “Defense of Marriage,” told USA Today that same-sex couples are inherently inferior, and that the LGBT movement should have a “live and let live” philosophy instead of calling equality opponents bigots.
• Rev. William Owens, head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, which is funded by groups like NOM and FRC, claimed to USA Today that marriage equality is “another nail in the coffin for black families,” confirming his role in NOM’s race-wedging tactics.

Read more

This week, the National Organization for Marriage’s John Eastman explained that adoption is the “second best” option for children when heterosexual couples can’t biologically have children of their own, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who adopted two children with his wife. The comment echoes an argument made in the Defense of Marriage Case that biological parents have a unique stake in the success of their children, and thus same-sex children do not deserve marriage. At CPAC Thursday, the Washington Blade asked Brian Brown if he agrees with Eastman’s statement, and Brown did his best to deflect without dissenting:

BROWN: Well, the reality is that on any indicator we’ve been able to measure since the explosion and the break down of the family from the 60s to the present is that children do best with both their mother and father. Obviously, we need to encourage adoption, we need do everything we can to help single motherhood. [...]

It’s entirely different when you put into the law the notion that either mothers or fathers are completely expendable. And that, at it’s nature, is what same-sex marriage is all about: two moms or two dads are essentially the same as a mother and a father. That is not the case. Children have rights, too. Children have a right to have a chance to have both a mother and a father.

Though Brown omitted the word “biological” from his answer, the word “their” is key for distinguishing biological children from children adopted by (other) parents. It’s not difficult to assert this is Brown’s position because he’s made the point before — notably in his dinner-table debate with Dan Savage:

BROWN: The notion—the simplistic notion that because parenthood is connected with marriage—because marriage is that institution by which society connects children to their biological mothers and fathers—the simplistic idea that somehow that means what we’re saying is that every single person has to have a child—that’s silly. We never claim that. Marriage is the institution that does this… Marriage is the institution that connects that child to both their mother and father, and that’s why the state is interested in marriage. Because marriage is the institution that allows children to know both their mother and father.

Of course, NOM’s Jennifer Roback Morse also repeatedly makes this anti-adoption claim. Whether she’s endorsing child kidnapping from same-sex couples or calling for the imprisonment of lesbians who buy sperm on craigslist, her argument remains that somehow the biological connection between parent and child takes precedence. Of course, there is no evidence to support this notion.

This line of reasoning seems to stem from a post-hoc attempt to rationalize inequality in ways that don’t sound blatantly discriminatory. Rather than admitting that DOMA and Proposition 8 were intended to target gays and lesbians, conservatives invented the idea that marriage should be reserved for straight couples because it “promotes procreation.” When confronted with the counterargument that straight couples who cannot conceive are still allowed to get married, they had to invent yet another new argument: that the biological connection with children is still preferential. They knew that nobody would interpret that to mean that all adoption should be banned, even though that’s the implication. In fact, the argument only works with the assumption that same-sex parenting is still worse than opposite-sex parenting, even though to make that case they’ve now offended every adoptive parent, every foster parent, and every parent who has ever used a surrogate, a sperm donor, or other fertility treatment to have a child.

Hopefully both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who also adopted, appreciate that same-sex parents are just as capable of loving a child without a direct biological link as they’ve been able to love their own.

When the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney, the group argued that it believed he would LGBT support nondiscrimination protections, engaging in some remarkable spin about their optimism for his candidacy. But the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown doesn’t take the Log Cabin Republicans “that seriously,” telling BuzzFeed that he believes strongly in Romney’s anti-equality credentials:

BROWN: I was in Connecticut during the 2004 Massachusetts fight. [Romney] was very strong, he spoke at rallies, he was strong the whole way through. Were there some people that were disappointed that he didn’t just, by fiat, say, “We’re not going to obey the judges!”? There are always people that do that, but in the real world, Romney went above and beyond.

He’s always been a strong supporter of protecting marriage, and he was an early signer of the Marriage Pledge. We obviously believe that he will follow through in his commitment; I don’t see why anyone would say otherwise.

Of course, Romney signed NOM’s pledge, committing to support a federal constitutional amendment banning the freedom to marry and to defend Christians’ “religious liberty” to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Though Brown has a public written commitment from Romney that Log Cabin Republicans doesn’t, his expectations of rolling back marriage equality suggest his judgment is questionable. He also told BuzzFeed that he believes opponents of equality could win in all four states this week, and even where they lose, he believes NOM can still successfully rescind the freedom to marry. For example, he is committed to Iowa passing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if and when the state leadership changes and Senate Leader Mike Gronstal (D) is no longer there to prevent such a measure from advancing. Also, if the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality in either the Proposition 8 case or any of the Defense of Marriage Act challenges, Brown is ready for the “big opportunity” to bring a renewed fight for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Polling over the past two years has consistently shown that marriage equality has a majority of support in this country. With young people more likely to support it, the trend is only likely to continue. Brown may have the more apt perception of Romney’s positions on LGBT issues, but the Log Cabin Republicans certainly have more reason to be optimistic about the future of equality.

Pastor Patrick Wooden, holding a cell phone like the kind he believes gay men insert in their anuses.

The National Organization for Marriage is following its own recipe to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks” with a new radio ad running on R&B and Urban Gospel stations in North Carolina. The ad features radical anti-gay pastor Patrick Wooden, who has called being gay a “death style” and believes gay men insert cellphones in their anuses. Wooden encourages North Carolina African-Americans to turn against President Obama because of his “strong endorsement of the homosexual movement.” NOM’s president Brian Brown defended the race-wedging ads:

BROWN: African Americans in North Carolina were quite understandably proud of Barack Obama for his historic election in 2008. But President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, his administration’s determination to repeal DOMA and the Democratic Party’s call for the repeal of North Carolina’s marriage amendment puts Obama at odds with the values of the African American community.

The goal of our advertising campaign is to issue a wake-up call to the African American community in North Carolina that President Obama does not represent the values that they have fought to protect. We urge all North Carolinians to join Dr. Wooden in rejecting the anti-family policies of President Obama this November.

Listen to the ad:

Brown is not one to be claiming any knowledge of “anti-family policies,” seeing as how he’s completely incapable of even recognizing a family when he’s in their own home. It’s also sadly ironic that NOM has spent the last two weeks trying to suggest it’s the LGBT community that incites violence, then uses a spokesperson like Wooden who believes it’s perfectly “normal” to react violently to gay people. And of course, any attempt to speak on behalf of the entire African-American community is troubling, especially given NOM’s explicit goal of “fanning the hostility” between people who are black and LGBT. NOM seems willing to sink to any depth to turn society against same-sex marriage and the loving families for whom it’s an important goal.

NOM's Brian Brown

The National Organization for Marriage was the first organization to exploit the tragic shooting at the Family Research Council, even using it to fuel their fundraising efforts. In a new fundraising email sent out Friday, Brian Brown repeatedly implied that LGBT people are violent and antagonistic, employing the same kind of “incendiary” rhetoric NOM and others have accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of for its “hate group” designations. Here are several examples of what NOM is “fighting back” against:

ACTION NEEDED: Chick-fil-A Under Attack!

Let’s be clear about something: the homosexual lobby and their puppet politicians’ assault on Chick-fil-A is just the beginning.

You see, wealthy homosexual activists, such as the so-called Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, are not merely threatening, bullying, and attempting to destroy a great American business—they are declaring war on anyone who disagrees with their radical agenda.

And why? To bully and intimidate the media and enough politicians and activist judges to force homosexual marriage as the law of the land—thereby destroying the time-tested, God ordained, traditional institution of marriage.

This is unacceptable. It’s time to send a crystal-clear message to the gay activist bullies who want to silence Christians and people of faith who stand up for marriage in America.

While others have backed down to gay “marriage” thugs and bullies, NOM isn’t afraid of a fight. But we can’t sustain this battle unless our supporters step up their urgently needed contributions right now.

Remember: the only way to stop a bully is to fight back and fight harder. And if you make an immediate contribution, NOM will continue to expose and defeat the gay activist bullies who want to silence Christians and impose homosexual “marriage” on all of us.

PS — The homosexual lobby’s assault on Chick-fil-A is a full-frontal assault on all of us who believe in the historic definition of marriage as one man and one woman. And the only way to stop a bully is to fight back and fight harder.

Under attack. Threatening. Bullying. Assault. Attempting to destroy. Declaring war on. Bully and intimidate. Thugs and bullies. Battle. Full-frontal assault. This is how opponents of equality are characterizing the LGBT community.

Brown mentioned several times it’s important to “fight back and fight harder” against people who just want legal security for their loved ones and children. The most telling point he makes is what it will take to “sustain this battle.” Not only is he the one maintaining the effort to diminish same-sex families, but he can’t even bring himself to recognize their existence.