Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Hey, readers: what would you ask NOM?


By Adam Bink

Out there on the road, we at are endeavoring to ask the tough questions of NOM and their leadership. You’ve seen Arisha’s aggressive questioning of Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and others- she doesn’t take any prisoners. She and the rest of the team are working to demonstrate that the claims spouted by NOM and allied groups are false (see Arisha’s questioning here), exposing fringe haters like Larry Adams and their homophobic, pro-violence views (here), and seeing if there is any daylight between groups like NOM and Larry Adams (asking that of Brian Brown here).

But we don’t have all the questions. And that’s why we’re turning to you!

So we’re asking you, what questions would you ask NOM? What point do you think needs to be made about why marriage is love, or claims that need to be rebutted, or “facts” that need to be checked?

Reply here in the comments, and we’ll select the best ones for our team to ask on the road. And if you like other commenters’ suggestions, be sure to hit reply on their comment and say so. We’re a community, and we value your opinion.

And for those of you on Twitter, try asking your questions to NOM (@NOMTweets) directly using this format, and we’ll track those too:
[email protected] “your question here” #heyNOM

[email protected] “Do you see my love?” #heyNOM

So submit those questions in the comments or on Twitter, and let’s put NOM on the hot seat.

UPDATE (6:57 PST): I just tweeted:

@adamjbink [email protected]nomtweets What are NOM’s efforts to make it harder to get divorced, in the interest of protecting marriage? #heyNOM


  • 1. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:01 pm


  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    my email inbox is lonely again – subscribing

  • 3. John  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:42 pm


  • 4. Kathleen  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Been away from my puter all day – Bring It On!

  • 5. JonT  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Bring it.

  • 6. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    @KirilleXXI tweets:

    @nomtweets “My American husband is in the hospital, crying alone because I can't be with him — I'm a foreigner. How fair is that?” #heyNOM

  • 7. Franck  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:32 am

    I second this one. Along with:

    I've been in a monogamous relationship with my fiancé for over three years, but forbidden to even just to see him, because apparently that right is reserved to married couples, and you made sure we could not become be a married couple. Is that the love you're trying to spread?

    My aunt and uncle married each other for love, not kids. They are currently the only really happy couple in my family. Should we have denied them the right to get married given that they cannot and do not want to have kids?

    And lastly: why do you keep insisting that Articles 2, 7, 12 , 16 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not apply to me? Or am I not Human enough for you?

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1134 days, as of today.

  • 8. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:06 am

    Franck, only 4 more days until it will have been just as many days as there are federal rights automatically granted to married couples on day 1 =/

  • 9. Chris B  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    Q: Do you really think that gay marriage is a bigger threat to 'traditional marriage' than the 50% divorce rate in the US?

    Q: If you are opposed to gay couples using the word "marriage", would you support allowing same-sex couples to have civil unions, and laws that give civil unions the same rights as marriage?

    Q: In an effort to protect marriage, to bring the honor back to marriage, and to encourage people to take the sacred vows of marriage more seriously, do you support making divorces more difficult?

    Q. Since many traditional marriage supporters claim the main purpose of marriage is procreation and the raising of children, would you like to limit marriage to only people who are able to have children?

  • 10. John B.  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    "Do you really think that gay marriage is a bigger threat to ‘traditional marriage’ than the 50% divorce rate in the US?"

    Bingo. Or as I would put it, why are you protesting same-sex marriage and not divorce? Why are so many politically active Christians so much more concerned with same-sex marriage than with divorce? Why are you trying to impose your religious beliefs on gay couples, but ignoring the words of Jesus himself when it comes to divorce? How do you decide which parts of the Bible to follow, and which ones to ignore? And finally, do you think John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and numerous other leaders and commentators on the right are adulterers because they are divorced and remarried?

  • 11. Jim  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Nice, John. Your first question is STUNNINGLY POWERFUL.

    “Do you really think that gay marriage is a bigger threat to ‘traditional marriage’ than the 50% divorce rate in the US?”

    Does anyone know a source for the precise U.S. divorce rate–would love to have the precise figure to plug into that question.

  • 12. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Brilliant, John, because they *are* trying to impose their religious views onto the citizens of this country!

  • 13. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:32 am should give you the info you need

  • 14. adambink  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Great questions, Chris. Very pointed.

  • 15. Brandy  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:56 am

    I love the last two questions. I think it hits the nail right on the head.

  • 16. Sarah  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    I think we need to ask why their views, which are based mostly on their religion, should become our law. That seems to get lost in this- we do not live in a theocracy, and religious rites and freedoms should have nothing to do with civil rights and freedoms, nor the law of the land. I guess, hit on how the founders saw the importance of this separation, and would have none of this Christian doctrine influencing our laws. Throw some Jefferson at them, get them to admit their views are religious (which they do not readily admit it seems). And I like the signs that ask, "When can we vote on your marriage?"

  • 17. Will  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:21 am

    Amen. A valid question since several major denominations support SSM rights and some will even perform SSM ceremonies.

  • 18. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:26 am

    I third this! This has been my question to them for a long time, what do they think gives them the "right" to impose their religion on this COUNTRY!

  • 19. Rev. Will Fisher  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:43 am

    I almost forgot to add: If NOM favors biblical marriage, do they support legalization of levirate marriage (see deut 25:5-10 and genesis 38 for the Bible readers out there)?

    Given that DOMA was authored by thrice married congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) and into law by the notoriously philandering Bill Clinton, why should Americans think it's anything more than a monument to hypocrisy?

  • 20. Em  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:40 am


    I had to read down the list before I posted this same thing and sure enough, someone got to it first, and good on you for it!

    Despite the fact that these people tend to give no due credibility to psychological and sociological research studies, I believe we must point out that all NON-RELIGIOUS justifications for outlawing same-sex marriage can be and have been refuted by hard science.

    Ex: "Children need a mother and a father."
    (1) Not all gay couples will choose to adopt or procreate.
    (2) Research studies have found that children from same-sex parented households are every bit as functional, intelligent and socially apt as other children.

    Would they have all children removed from post-divorce single-parent households?
    I know there are already some states quietly working on laws that will bar adoption from anyone but married couples. Of course these are the same states where gay marriage is not legal, but it also places a barricade in front of perfectly capable single people as well as making guardianship a real hassle. (My sister's legal guardian, should my parents both pass away before I'm out of college and capable of taking her, is our uncle, but he is a bachelor and under this proposed law would not be able to legally adopt my sister, who would go into state custody while a relative who would love her as his own and care for her all his life would have to stand by and watch.)

    It has always been my opinion that we should work as hard as we can to strip away all of the religious justification and then methodically begin hammering out all of the others with facts. It's appalling how few people recognize or care that Church and State are unequivocally SEPARATE in this country and our laws should not be written as if we live in a theocracy, but maybe with enough PR and publicity our side can raise this issue more loudly than ever before.

  • 21. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:26 am

    It's also worth asking if they think it's better for a child to age out of the system in terms of Foster Care, rather than be adopted by a Gay couple. To claim this is absolutely CRUEL! Children who age out are typically homeless, immediately, and have no skills and no family net to fall back on for support. In fact, a recent scientific study came out that concludes that it's HARMFUL to children to prohibit Gay couples from adopting!

  • 22. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:45 am

    They'll immediately say that it's a Christian nation and all that BS. As you said, that's why it's important to be ready to immediately counter that and point that the US have a secular government. Maybe it was founded by Christians (and even that is somewhat debatable), but it's obvious that they didn't want religion to influence politics.

  • 23. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Yes, what of *my* "rights" as a High Priest to officiate over a legal marriage of my choice?

  • 24. Chris in Lathrop  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Huzzah to that, Brother! )O(

  • 25. John B.  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    Brian Brown was asked about the protester holding a sign with two nooses and of course he said he didn't agree with it. But the immediate followup question should be, why not? The sign quoted directly from the bible so why not go all the way? Call them on it and ask why they're not being consistent; they are simply cherrypicking like they always do. Press this question, and press it hard–why do they follow some of the instructions of the bible but not others?

  • 26. Jim  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Your question is spot on, John. A direct hit to NOM's inherent hypocrisy.

  • 27. Zachary  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Excellent point! I don't want to see the question of this protester raised again (we've already talked to Brian about it twice), but that absolutely should've been the reply.

  • 28. Sarah  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:27 pm


  • 29. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    I'd like to ask Brian why he keeps wearing that brown jacket?

  • 30. BananasMel  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:10 am

    I was going to ask that too

  • 31. Sagesse  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    Busy day, but I'll get back to you on that. Would have answered the question, even if you hadn't asked.


  • 32. Bolt  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    If the proponents of "traditional marriage" believe their cause is true, and just, why does the NOM hide their donors under an opaque cloak of secrecy?

    If the NOM expects us to play their game at the ballot box, and ask for the permission of voters to legalize marriage equality, wouldn't the playing field be leveled if they revealed their supporters contributions?

    Because the NOM likes to have it both ways by playing an unfair campaign game, and admonishes us for using the court system to get what we want, can they see how they don't leave us any options?

  • 33. ns  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    Along those same biblical lines: Do you eat pork? Bacon? Good, isn't it. You know, the Bible forbids that, right?

  • 34. Chris  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    I'm confused on how to feel about all the poor turnouts at the rallies. It's pretty exciting to see, but sad that it isn't representative of the country as a whole.

  • 35. Bolt  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Excellent observation, and I agree.

  • 36. Jim  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:28 am

    The radical right is comparatively small in numbers. But these religious zealots will spend whatever it takes on propaganda and slick advertising to mislead those in the middle, those on the fence–the swing voters who decide ballot measures and elections.

    Consider that the Mormons account for 2% of California's population but coughed up the majority of spending for Yes on Prop 8.

  • 37. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:09 am

    But those weren't the Californian Mormons. The money cam directly from Utah. The Mormon Church is very powerful, since it can basically blackmail all its followers into giving them money. A command from their Prophet is the same as a word from their god and they are threatened with excommunication if they don't comply. NOM was specifically founded a front group to funnel that money into California while keeping the involvement of the Church under the radar.

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:17 am

    And what money to pass Prop H8 did not come directly from Salt Lake City, came directly from New haven Connecticut (Knights of Columbus). And with the word-wide membership of the Knights of Columbus, the Columbian Squires, and the auxiliaries for the ladies, the contribution works out to be less that the price of a cup of coffee each. And that figure is based on a cup of coffee from the gas station when you bring in your own cup and get charged the refill price.

  • 39. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:21 am

    And any money for NOM that did not come from Salt Lake City came from New Haven Connecticut, the World HQ for the Knights of Columbus. With the total world-wide membership between the Knights, the Columbian Quires, and the Ladies' Auxiliary, each member's contribution would normally have bought a refill on coffee at your local convenience store. Unlike the Rainbow Tribe, they have almost unlimited finances.

  • 40. PamC  |  July 29, 2010 at 11:54 pm


    "Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for those who have already been there."

    h/t to joosy commenting on

  • 41. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:12 am

    Under Writing
    (Sub) (Scribing)

  • 42. toth  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:12 am

    How, specifically, does allowing gay people to get married affect your marriage?

  • 43. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:14 am

    Which of the 1138 federal benefits make the difference between "marriage" and a "civil union"?

    Which of the state benefits make the same difference?

  • 44. jonelle  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:17 am

    Someone else suggested these in a previous thread and I think they're great questions to ask NOM leaders and supporters, who insist that "marriage" should be unique to one man and one woman:

    1. Do you oppose "religious" marriage, "civil" marriage/union, or both for same-sex couples? Why?

    2. If you're against civil marriage/union for same-sex marriage, which specific state and federal benefits a full marriage affords do you think should be reserved to opposite-sex marriages and why? Why do you think those benefits cannot and should not be extended to same-sex couples and their FAMILIES?

  • 45. KC  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:22 am

    Given the P.R. disaster Prop 8 has been for the Mormon Church, do you think they will be as willing to get involved with NOM's cause for yet a third time in California?

  • 46. Richard  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:22 am

    My question to NOM would actually be to Maggie Gallagher and it would be this:

    Given your stance on "traditional marriage" and that "every child needs a mother and a father", are you telling us that the reports in the Internet that not only have you had out of wedlock children, but you have been divorced already are untrue?
    I know when all us said and done, it's none of my business. But I'm sure Madame maggie doesn't want to look like a hypocrite. And given the rhetoric she spouts, she should fess up to this if it is true.

  • 47. Richard W. Fitch  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:07 am

    I would also like to know why Margaret (Mrs. Raman) Srivastav never is seen with any type of wedding ring and seldom if ever seen in public with Mr, Srivastav – even at events that are specifically promoted as being for married couples. And: Maggie, if you are indeed as you profess a devout Christian/Roman Catholic, why are you "unequally yoked" with a Hindu?

  • 48. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Perhaps Raman has gone through the indoctrination known as RCIA and is now himself RCINO.

  • 49. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:33 am

    I'd ask, "Thanks to DOMA, there are 1138 federal benefits [that is the count, right?] that are withheld same-sex couples, regardless of the definition of that coupling. Which of these 1138 benefits will you 'give' [as if we have to beg for it?] to same-sex couples, and which do you want to reserve for hetero-couples only?"

    Then follow up with "You claim to be in support of the LGBT community in everything but marriage; why do you want to withhold those benefits from your fellow citizens?"

    Or, if they claim none should be withheld: "You claim to be in support of the LGBT community in everything but marriage; why aren't you working to repeal DOMA?"


  • 50. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Andrew, Maggie has consistently implied through all of her polemical articles over the years that she believes that any and all laws protecting Gay people are a direct threat to her so-called "peoples of faith"–ie. Christianity!

  • 51. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Exactly! I want her to admit that, so that we can then offically have them labeled as a hate group.


  • 52. Fred Vaughn  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:38 am

    Q: Why do you think that some grown, tax-paying adult citizens and residents of the United States of America should be denied the fullest possible freedoms – freedoms you'd pitch the mother of all fits if YOU DIDN'T HAVE…?

  • 53. Bolt  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:07 am

    Hi Fred, any relation to Vaughn Walker?

  • 54. Gina  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:43 am

    If only God knows the absolute truth, how can you be so sure you're right? And doesn't the bible also say not to judge? Why not let us be and allow God to judge us? Does God give you extra credit for each person you convert? You say you dont hate, but you're ruining our lives… Isn't that a form of hate?

  • 55. John B.  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:44 am

    Here's one for Brian and/or Maggie: if Maggie Gallagher is such a strong supporter of "traditional" marriage, why hasn't she taken her husband's name??? Shouldn't we refer to her as "Mrs. Raman Srivastav"?

  • 56. Katie  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:48 am

    You're concerned about people being able to vote on the issue. If the people in a state or country voted to overturn a same-sex marriage ban (or, if there wasn't already a ban, voted to allow SSM), would that be the end of the issue, or would you go to the courts or legislature to try and overturn "the will of the people"?

  • 57. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Great question Katie

  • 58. Tommy News  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:50 am

    Three questions to ask:

    1- How does someone else's marriage affect your marriage?

    2- What gives you the right to deny somone else the right to marry?

    3- Do you know that Civil Marriage, granted by The Government, is not the same thing as Religious Marriage, performed by a church. What do you think the difference is between the two types and why do you think same sex couples do not deserve equal rights?

  • 59. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:51 am

    South Africa

    have all leaglized same sex marriage, why is it the united states cannot do the same when there is clearly no danger to heterosexual marriage?

  • 60. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Don't forget (as so many people do) that Denmark has had Marriage Equality for nearly 30 years!

  • 61. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:21 am

    No they dont, they have a domestic partnership law, as a lot of other countrys do, but it is not the same, and does not grant 100% of all the rights regular mariage does in danmark

    love Marius

  • 62. Chris  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:45 am

    in addition to lukes point ask:

    Q: Knowing that several countries have allowed same-sex marriage why do they believe that If America does this, that it will be the last straw and we will have a repeat of sodom and gamorrah.

  • 63. Richard W. Fitch  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Please bear in mind that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has absolutely nothing to do with committed same-sex relationships. As the words of both Ezekiel and Jesus affirm, it is an example of breaking the ancient rules of hospitality and an example of gang rape as a means of humiliating enemies.

  • 64. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:56 am

    is it just the word marriage that bothers you? because if it is thats really sad,

  • 65. Crystal  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:59 am

    @NOMTweets Do you actually know the difference between marriage and weddings?
    @NOMTweets That is to say, do you realize that marriage is a legal contract and that weddings are a part of religious institutions?

    I doubt they'll answer, but I'm looking for an @cnsteltenp directed my way.

  • 66. ChrisQ  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:00 am

    Bobbi Radeck, from Concerned Women For America spoke at your rally in Columbus. Today, they have published an article on Chelsea Clinton which very much frowns on inter faith marriage:

    So, does Chairman Gallagher's mixed faith marriage conflict with the message of one of its allied organizations? Or has her husband converted to Catholicism since she wrote of him being a Hindu in 2000?

  • 67. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:35 am

    More generally than that.

    Q: NOM has said that it does not hate gay people, that it just wants to support traditional marriage, is that correct?

    Q: A number of your invited speakers [Brad Brandon] [Chuck Darryl] [most outspoken Catholic speaker] [Arisha, you pick] have expressed the view that gay people are perverted, have compared them to pedophiles, have suggested that they are unfit parents, in their speeches on the Tour or in other forums. Do you agree with and support these views.

    Q: If your concern is marriage, why do you ally yourself with them and invite them to speak?

  • 68. Christopher Mongeau  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:05 am

    My gay lifestyle: Every day I get up, go to work, then come home and have dinner with my partner and children. Evenings we do homework and attend school/sports related activities. Weekends we do household chores and always cook at least one meal together as a family. We go on summer vacations to places like Disney.

    My question, How is my gay lifestyle harmful to my children?

    Follow-up question, if churches want to get involved with making laws, shouldn't they then be required to pay taxes?

  • 69. Keegan  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:14 am

    LOVE the taxes comment!!!

  • 70. Dave in Maine  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:06 am



  • 71. Lightning Baltimore  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:07 am

    1. You say that the goal of NOM is simply to preserve "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman. You claim there is no animus in your message and that you have nothing against LGBT citizens. Why is it, then, that you work to deny and-and-all rights to same-gender couples? You've fought not only same-gender marriage but also civil unions for LGBT couples. You've slammed lawmakers for legislation that would allow surviving same-gender partners the legal right to do with the body of the deceased partner as they see fit. You've done everything in your power to ensure LGBT citizens are legally second class. Please explain how this is not inspired by animus.

    2. You say that it's "not discrimination to treat different things differently." By that same token, it's not discrimation to treat blacks differently than whites: they're not white. It's not discrimation to treat Protestants differently than Catholics: they're not Catholic. It's not discrimation to treat Jews differently than Christians: they're not Christians. It's not discrimation to treat left-handed people differently than right-handed people: they're not right-handed. At what point do you allow that two things which are clearly alike in the most basic ways, though different superficially, should be regarded as the same under the law?

  • 72. Lightning Baltimore  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:10 am

    oops . . . forgot to subscribe


  • 73. ChrisQ  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:11 am

    @Lightening: Maggie is such a tool. It is TOTAL discrimination to treat the SAME things differently. For purposes of the government, marriage is two consenting, tax paying adults who want to enter into a civil contract recognized by the state and federal government. Period.

  • 74. Zachary  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Home run, Lighting Baltimore!

  • 75. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:09 am

    if you so storngly beleive that a baby needs a mother and a father, how do you attest for the thousands of single paent out there, eithe by choice or by circumstance. Shoudl the child be taken away and given to a family with both parents or should the remamining parent be forced to get married to 'save" the family

  • 76. James in Hollywood  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Unedited and off the cuff, here they are:
    Have you ever thought of protecting marriage simply by employing a phalanx of marriage counselors for couples in trouble who might contact your organization for help?
    Aren't you really just modern-day snake oil salemen who found a way to make a profit through people's prejudices and fear of the unknown? Do you really believe the crap you're spewing, and is your obvious contempt for gay taxpayers sincere?
    Is this tour mainly a chance for you to play petty provocateur in order to get footage of angry gay citizens to use in your ads against us?
    What is your (Maggie's and Brian's) combined weight?
    (See, I told you these questions were unedited.)
    Regarding marriage equality, how does it hurt you and why do you care?
    What is your ultimate goal, your final solution? Constitutional amendment banning gays from marrying? Annulment of existing gay marriages? Gays returning to the closet? Gays dead? Or simply enough money to earn a comfortable living, whether gays live or die, are free or oppressed?

  • 77. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea to keep calling NOM, posing as heterosexual couples with "marriage troubles" and asking them for help in salvaging their marriages? We could record the responses and put them on-line!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I'm sooooo devious it's scares me…….

  • 78. Adam  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:00 am

    breaking news headline (NOM). . .

    Supporter of Equality admits to being so devious he scares HIMSELF! 🙂

  • 79. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Also, NOM has consistently refused to cross their anti-Gay base by, for example, condemning the Ugandan "Kill the gays Bill", the sign with the nooses, nor Miss Beverley Hills who invoked Leviticus against gays when Maggie ran to her aid to defend her for her "courage". I think that they know precisely what sort of people they attract!

  • 80. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:23 am

    Do you support states' rights to define marriage? How do you reconcile this with DOMA, which conflicts with said definition in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, as well Washington, DC?

  • 81. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Their answer is a Constitutional marriage amendment to set those silly states right once and for all. No political or mathematical way, but they still talk about it.

  • 82. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:24 am

    They are also forgetting that an amendment to the US Constitution is required to be ratified by at least 37 states out of the 50. And there are enough of us out there to keep that from happening. At least I hope there are.

  • 83. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:29 am


    Congress has to pass it first, and I don't see that happening. This isn't 1996 (DOMA).

  • 84. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:43 am

    But unfortunately, as long as there are men and women like John McCain in office, and men and women like Carly "destroy HP/Compaq through greed and deception" Fiorina running for office, there is unfortunately a chance that it will make it through both houses of Congress. One of my FB connections said we really need to get out the LGBT vote and elect more LGBT's and Allies to office at all levels, and then hold them all accountable to doing what they promise. And I for one, agree with that.

  • 85. Sagesse  |  July 31, 2010 at 3:10 am


    Goes without saying, especially the Get Out the Vote part. Liberal, progressive people have a voting rate lower than the conservatively inclined, so there is a deficit to be overcome to start with. This is one of the biggest problems with marriage equality ballots… the old white religious right are already at the ballot box.

    That said, they are fighting a rear guard action in congress… they are not passing DADT and DOMA, they are fighting ENDA and the repeal of DADT and DOMA (and, knock on wood, slowly but surely, losing). And the mean spirited rhetoric they could get away with pre-Lawrence, when they were expressing moral horror at a group whose lives were illegal in many states, is not acceptable anymore. The Justice Department didn't even try to argue the original legislative reasons for DOMA in the Massachusetts cases.

    And I'm an optimist.

  • 86. PhillyKarl  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:28 am

    My first question: In India it is illegal to kill a cow. There is no rational basis for this law, but cows are sacred to Hindus. Do you believe the the USA should also allow for sacred laws; laws that uphold that which is sacred to the majority, even at the expense of the rational beliefs of the minority?

    My second question. Prayer is considered a sacred activity. Does it destroy or harm your prayer life when other people pray to false gods? Does the knowledge that others pray to false gods harm the very meaning of prayer itself?

    My third question: Do you accept that marriage has evolved over time? Are there other limits, other than same sex marriage, that you would place on the further evolution of marriage?

  • 87. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Another question:
    Which is the better environment for a child to grow up with:
    1. The biological mommy & daddy who physically abuse the child,
    2. A series of foster parents who do not love the child and are only doing it for the money,
    3. Living on the streets or an orphanage like some modern-day Oliver Twist, or
    4. A couple so full of love that the child would be nurtured, but just happens to be same-gender?


  • 88. Lightning Baltimore  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Brian Brown has continually tried to conflate NOM's goals with the lofty ideals esposed by Martin Luther King, Jr. King fought for equality, however, not divisiveness and discrimination. Please explain why the appropriate comparison with NOM for that time is not Alabama Governer George Wallace.

  • 89. anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:40 am

    1) Based on recent studies proving there is no detriment to children being raised by same sex parents, what, other than religious, are your objections to same sex marriage?

    2) Since this country is a melting pot with no state religion, what is the legal basis of your objection to same sex marriage?

    3) Your claims that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to churches being forced to perform same sex marriages is pure hogwash, and you know it. Why do you persist in this lie?

    4) Legally, marriage is not about childen. Some people get married and never have children some have children and never get married. Why do you keep insisting that children are the main issue at stake here?

    5) Why do you use the example of Catholic Charities choosing to close an adoption agency (rather than changing their discriminatory policies so as to continue to receive state funding) as an argument against same sex marriage? If your objection is simply to the definition of marriage being changed but you "support the LGBT community's rights" in everything else, how does Catholic Charities practicing discrimination figure in as part of your cause?

    6) Which LGBT rights do you support? Please be specific.

    7) If civil unions were, in fact, exactly equal to marriage in all things (as we know they are not, but for the sake of argument say they were), and granted all the same rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, would you support same sex civil unions?

    8) Do you believe gay can be "cured"?

    9) If homosexuality was a choice (it is not, but say it was, for argument' sake), how does that make a difference? If a man fell in love with another man and wanted to mary him, why should that be treated any differently than a man and a woman wishing to marry? Try to avoid a religious answer here, because we are not all of your religion, so that does not apply.

    10) As a human being, how do you justify claiming that the love between two people you do not know is not worthy of validation based soley on their respective genders?

    OK… some of my questions are pointed and answer themselves… but some might be useful.

  • 90. Brandy  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:54 am

    # 6 should definitely be asked, b/c I haven't seen it addressed anywhere in the interviews.

  • 91. adambink  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:50 am


  • 92. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Brandy, NOM opposes ALL GLBT Civil Rights because, as Maggie has stated, they pose a direct threat to Christians and Christianity!

  • 93. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Wade–And there it is! That is precisely the point, isn't it? NOM is a religious political organization. It is not working to enforce the Constitution; it is working to enforce its interpretation of the Bible.

  • 94. Rev. Will Fisher  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:24 am

    I'd re-phrase #3 to something like, "Same-sex marriage has been legal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for six years now. Has any church opposed to same-sex marriage been forced to perform a wedding for a gay couple?" (the answer is no) "How can you continue to claim that churches will forced to perform said wedding against their will, when no such thing has happened?"

  • 95. anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:47 am

    I like it! Thanks.

  • 96. l8r_g8r  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Or, to make it more specific: "What are the facts and circumstances on which you base your claim that churches will be forced to perform said wedding against their will, when no such thing has happened?

  • 97. Kathleen  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:47 am

    l8r_g8er, I can tell you how they will likely respond.

    They will point to a case in NJ (I think that's where it was) where a religious organization rec'd a tax break on its property because it offered it to the public at large. A lesbian couple asked to hold a ceremony there (I think it was a reception, not even the wedding itself) and were refused. The state revoked (or threatened to revoke?) the special tax status because the org violated the state's non-discrimination law.

    This happened ONLY because the property was getting special compensation as a PUBLIC venue and thus had to abide by non-discrimination policies that any public venue must. But NOM and its minions cite this case all the time as proof that churches will be punished.

    I'm just mentioning this so that if Arisha asks this question, she's prepared to counter this reply.

  • 98. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:58 am

    The answer is that this church was given a tax break on that property specifically to maintain it as a public space open to the public. By denying the lesbian couple, but no one else on religious grounds, they broke their agreement to keep the space as a publicly available one.

    The deal is that churches can own property other than just the church grounds, but not all of it is tax exempt, based on usage. So churches can own houses, for example, and rent them out, but they do have to pay taxes on that.

    In the agreement with the state to get a tax exempt status on that property, which was a gazebo not on church grounds, but out by the beach, I think, they agreed to make it open to the public. That requires them not to discriminate in its use.

    When taken to court, I believe that the church decided to give up its tax benefit and make the space no longer a public space.

    NONE of this had anything to do with the church performing same sex marriages. It had to do with state tax law.

  • 99. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Re: #5, it's worth noting that this was not about Gay marriage, but about a pre-existing non-discrimination law. Furthermore, it was purely over state-funding. After all, a LDS adoption agency refused to place children with Gay couples, but they are able to do so because they don't accept state money. Can't the wealthy Catholic Church do the same? After all, I highly doubt those silk damask robes and solid gold chalices are necessary for the RC Church!

  • 100. Christopher Mongeau  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Re: #9

    I might also ask,

    If being gay were a choice (its not, but for the sake of the question…) why would that preclude protections from discriminatory laws and practices? Religion and church affiliations are clearly made by choice, yet they are protected from discriminatory laws and practices.

  • 101. Chris in Lathrop  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:42 am

    I'm rather fond of #9. Whose business is it who we choose to marry, so long as they are legally competent to make said contract? I think this whole choice-versus-genetics dichotomy is really slowing things down, leaving us to wait on the lack of forthcoming scientific evidence on the subject and the haters' unwillingness to accept such findings.

    I also love #4 because I'm hetero, married, and child-free by choice. Oooooh. Scary, huh?

  • 102. Allison  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:48 am

    I think so many of these questions will be answered with a. the bible tells me so, or b. the majority of the country believes so and thus the majority should win. Given that, I would love to see a list of "Did you know…" questions rattled off in rapid fire with the proof right there to back up the point that their beliefs are not only shaky, but downright contrary to the Bible. Ex. Did you know the Bible says its an abomination to eat shrimp? Do you eat shrimp? Why can you choose shrimp and we can't choose marriage? And if they say they didn't know – hand them a cheat sheet of what the Bible really says marriage generally.

    These people are fear based not because they are 'bad' but because they were taught the wrong things. And Brian is just reinforcing that education. I really believe that any questions that go to the heart of the basis of their faith will make a long-term difference. It won't sink in in the moment…but has a better chance of taking hold long-term then false beliefs left unchecked.

  • 103. Rev. Will Fisher  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:28 am

    How can you interpret a just 11 or so verses condeming the violent gang rapes at Sodom and Gomorrah and the exploitive cultic prostitution of Imperial Babylon/Greece/Rome cults as condeming homosexuality in general and consencual, loving, mtual same-sex relations in particular?

  • 104. Ronnie  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Q. Since Mildred Loving herself said "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights", isn't it safe to say that the Interracial Marriage rights battle does in deed go hand in hand with the Marriage Equality rights battle?

  • 105. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:51 am

    I would ask NOM, particularly Maggie Gallagher, why she insists on misrepresenting the historical record and the documented history of MARRIAGE when her claims are based only on wishful thinking. The REAL history of marriage has roots in a period when women had no rights–they were property, not people. And, as valued property, they were usually buried alive with their so-called "husbands' at the time of his death, likely to serve him for eternity in the Afterlife; or, if she were unwilling to go, she would be executed and buried with him. Some cultures–like the Hindus, it was pointed out to me–even tossed his bride onto the urning funeral pyre with him (still alive)!

    Moreover, the REAL history of marriage was NOT to "bring together the two great halves of humanity to create and nurture the next generation–it was a contract that ensured that a chief male's property were passed down to his legitimate heir–and, by "heir" I mean son! Marriage also served as a method for controlling women's bodies. Heck, if marriage was all about the children's supposed "rights"* over their parents to be known by them, and to be nurtured by them, than why to we find in most cultures on Earth the view that a child is either kept or rejected after a period of days? If it is rejected, usually because of a malformation or being otherwise sickly, the infant would be left to wild animals or thrown over a cliff as in the Mediterranean. And, this makes perfect sense, because that child would have been a drain on valuable resources! Even to my Celtic ancestors, it was considered the greatest offense for a father's child to approach him without the father first acknowledging his child–but, this was done ONLY after the child had proven them self worthy in some heroic feat!

    * This notion particularly offends me, because NOM is basically saying that unborne children exert a "right" over all heterosexual and Gay couples even if that couple has no desire to procreate! It also tells me how selfish NOM is in their views, because they want us to make MORE babies, when there are far too many mouths to feed on this planet as it is…

    Moreover, how does NOM respond to the numerous world-cultures that have allowed two men or two women to legally marry? Some of these include: The Japanese, the Celts, the Romans, the ancient Greeks, the Gay Chuckchi shamans of Siberian, the Mayans and Mesoamericans, and the Native American plains Indians to name only a few…

    *I* would ask Maggie to respond to all of these!!!!!!!!

  • 106. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:56 am

    As a freelance historian, Maggie's continued misrepresentation of the historical record greatly offends me. And, if you do ask her this, do NOT allow her to wiggle off the hook by claiming it's merely a difference of interpretation between our two positions, or some other similar bullshit–it's NOT! Maggie's position is based PURELY on wishful thinking, and mine is based in the historical, anthropological, and archaeological records!

  • 107. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Indeed, Maggie is continuing to do precisely what the so-called "Manhattan declaration" did, by attempting to REWRITE the historical record and whitewash the mere existence of vultures that have and presently do allow two men or two women to get married.

    Furthermore, Maggie continues to conflate religious marriage with civil/ secularist marriage. Does she realize that she can have as many religious "God-ordained" marriages as she likes, but in the eyes of the secular law those are purely symbolic and meaningless? Another question might be why she and NOM want to redefine secular/ civil marriage for the rest of us?

    Another article to give you guys some fire-power is by Prof. Stephanie Coontz:

  • 108. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:02 am

    SOMEONE needs to hold Maggie accountable to History!

  • 109. Alex O'Cady  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Lurking, but had to add to this – what of the same-sex wedding ceremonies performed in the early Catholic church? No one ever talks about those….

  • 110. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Fiona has mentioned them. But I think you mean nobody from NOM ever speaks of them.

  • 111. fiona64  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:11 am

    The Adelphopoiia Rite. I bring this up regularly.

    Anyone who has *not* seen this link, please take a gander:


  • 112. Alex O'Cady  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Sorry, Richard, you are correct. I meant no one from NOM or the like ever mentions them.

  • 113. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:42 am

    That is okay. At least Fiona was gracious enough to repost the ink here for anyone who may have joined the site recently and not seen it. So by your very post about it, we have helped to educate even more of the lurkers. In short, you did a good thing.

  • 114. Lightning Baltimore  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:53 am

    If the purpose of marriage is children, why did you choose to become pregnant when you were not legally wed?

  • 115. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:17 am

    ask why did you get married? (both) Obviously it wasnt to have children, you already had them,( maggie) but if it was will you get divorced when your wife hits menopause and cannot have children and your children have lef the home, and move on and have children with a new young wife? (Brian)

  • 116. Joel  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:41 am

    How about: Forty years ago, your marriage would have been considered invalid by the federal government. Do you think that your marriage should be annulled by the government now, since the only reason you were able to marry in the first place was the result of a ruling by "activist judges" in Loving v Virginia?

  • 117. Amy L  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:54 am

    The principle that the government of the United States should provide equal opportunity for all is at the core of our founders' beliefs and is the backbone of our constitution. Legally, you are perfectly entitled to a personal belief that gay citizens are second class to straight citizens (the same right that white supremacists are entitled to have regarding black citizens). But the government, under our constitution, is required to provide the same rights to all citizens and the same opportunities. While marriage is not a "right" given to all in the constitution, it is a legal union that is currently given to some. By allowing only one portion of the population to experience the financial benefits of marriage, the government is not guaranteeing equal protection and equal opportunity to all of its citizens. (Argument for providing Civil Unions).

    However, by failing to call the union of two gay individuals a marriage, the government would be degrading the commitment that is shared between the two individuals. The term marriage does not express a strictly a religious commitment in the United States; in fact to some it expresses a solely legal commitment. While a "civil union" would provide the same benefits to gay individuals, the failure to use the term "marriage" would place the commitment between gays and lesbians as second class. The equality of the language used is just as important as financial equality for all couples; it is what would display how the government recognizes gays as equal members of society. What if we called a commitment between a black man and white woman or even a commitment between two black citizens a "civil union" instead of a marriage? Today it wouldn't happen. But at one point in time in the United States, commitments such as these were not considered marriage. This was a time period when African Americans were not considered equal citizens. The language must be used to show the equality the government grants to all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. A gay commitment and a straight commitment should be recognized by the government as equal acts, regardless of any religious beliefs.

    The main argument today against gay marriage is religious. My question is:
    The United States government was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Therefore, under the constitution, the government is required to act in a non-religious manner. With the religious argument taken out of the political ring, what argument do you have against the government allowing gays to marry in a legal setting? (individual churches can decide individually whether or not they want to allow gays to marry inside their church)

  • 118. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:00 am

    1: Since NOM is against Marriage Equality for SS couples what WOULD NOM support? Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships….and what rights would these be allowed?

    2: What services does NOM provide to married couples to help insure they have a strong marriage? Counseling services both pre and post marriage perhaps?

    3: What is NOM doing about the startling percentage of divorces in this country?

    4: When NOM uses the term 'Traditional Marriage' at what point in history is NOM pulling this 'tradition' from since marriage has evolved greatly over the centuries?

    5: Do you believe that lies and distortions of the truth are in line with Christian values if the ends justify the means?

  • 119. Joel  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:48 am

    I like number four. Perhaps more detailed, though:
    Exactly which form of "traditional marriage" do you support? Polygamy? Arranged marriage? Or perhaps child brides?

  • 120. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Bring back dowries, perhaps. Or the right of the tribal chief to claim the bride on the wedding night.

    Blast. The snark got out again.

  • 121. Chris in Lathrop  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:47 am

    "Exactly which form of “traditional marriage” do you support? Polygamy?"

    Yeah, where do *I* sign up for 300 wives and 700 concubines???

  • 122. fiona64  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:12 am

    One of my favorite student bloopers: "Solomon had 300 wives and 700 porcupines."


  • 123. Andrew  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:08 am

    This question is RE: Education Reforms concerning Gay Marriage.

    As a Massachusetts resident and recent high school graduate, I have been in Massachusetts public schools my entire life. NOM has constantly made the claim about Gay Marriage, Lifestyle, and Sexuality being taught in public schools as one of the steps of the "Slippery Slope". I attended a moderate high school (liberal and conservative teachers were equally matched) and, since the inception of Same Sex Marriage in 2004, there has been no distinct change in the curriculum concerning the topic. Heterosexual marriage and sexual education was and is still taught with no mentioning of homosexual intercourse. Civics and Social Studies courses focus no more on the topic of gay marriage than they did before it was legalized.

    Thinking I would at least think about NOM's fears about education, I thought perhaps my school was a fluke and it was really happening everywhere else. I contact friends from other schools, both older and younger than me. The response was the same from everyone. There was no difference before or after Same Sex Marriage was legalized. Absolutely none. Now, it is 6 years later and, based on these experiences, I have two questions:

    What is NOM's basis for claiming students where Same Sex Marriage is legal will be forced, provided, or otherwise taught about homosexual relations, including, but not limited to marriage and sexual intercourse?

    How much longer do we have to wait before we have the ability to discredit NOM's claim on this issue?


  • 124. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:43 am


    Your question is sneaking up on a fatal flaw (wishful thinking? hope not) in NOM's strategy. That flaw lies at the intersection of NOM's territory, marriage, and family. NOM has focused exclusively on marriage, giving its reason as procreation, a child needs to be raised by his/her biological mom and dad.

    Recall how freaked out Louis was by the couple who invaded NOM's space with their little girl, like they were normal people out for a walk. The reality that is slowly dawning on them is that the LGBT community have relationships, they have long-term relationships, they have monogamous long-term relationships, and they raise families. LGBT couples are able to legally adopt in all but a few states.

    They've spent enormous political capital getting state and federal DOMA's passed, and fighting every single marriage equality law and court challenge. They can't go back now and say, 'oops, we need to outlaw adoption too.'

    So, back to the schools. There are same sex parents in neighbourhoods all across the US. Their children go to school, and the parents attend the PTA, and teacher conferences, and school concerts and soccer games. They may be legally married, or DP'd, or just parents. But they are there.

    There are two ways that children come to know about these families at school. It could be taught, as part of the curriculum (which it mostly isn't) or it can be learned just by observing that some of the other kids have two moms or two dads. And, kids being kids, will ask questions, and they may ask questions of their teachers. Presumably, the teacher has to answer in a way that implies there is nothing wrong with that.

    These families are there, in the community. No matter what laws are passed, or not, regarding marriage, these families are not going away. Neither are the classmates who will identify as gay somewhere along the way, or their accepting straight family members.

    There must be a shorter way to say this, but here's a question:

    Q: There are same sex parents in neighbourhoods all across the US. Their children go to school, and the parents attend the PTA, and teacher conferences, and school concerts and soccer games. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, there were 270,000 children under 18 being raised in households headed by same sex couples in 2005. These couples may be legally married, or DP'd, or just parents. Schoolchildren across the US are aware they some of their classmates have two moms or two dads, or identify themselves as gay.

    How does it protect children to deny same sex parents and their families the right to marry and to claim the benefits available to other families?

  • 125. Andrew  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:12 am

    From what I have read, the first reason listed by NOM was Tradition. When arguments were provided, showing "Tradition" was not a valid reason for discrimination, they moved on to Family and Bonding, particularly describing the union of man and woman as sacred and beneficial. When arguments about divorce and abuse arose, they moved to "Children need a loving home, best with their natural parents." Although they are still hovering on this topic, there are a lot of arguments about adoption, divorce, death, and other extremely common "exceptions" to their rules. Now, they have begun moving on to fear that "Little Johnny will learn about homosexuality in school, even if we don't want him to." However, as shown in the first state to approve of Same Sex Marriage, their claim is false. Furthermore, the PTA and school board is responsible for the curriculum (as long as it follows state mandates) and concerned parents are more than encouraged to join these committees.

    Now I begin to wonder where they will go next. They have already breached the "Separate, but equal" argument and the "We are victims of religious prejudice", so I am curious to see when they simply run out of good "talking points".

  • 126. Brandy  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:10 am

    In one of BB's interview (the last one, I think), he says something about not wanting to answer to a hypothetical question. I think that, wherever possible, the questions should be posed using concrete examples. The NOM people seem to hate hypothetical questions and like to stay in their theories (without any concrete example of how to deal with kids that really DON't have a mother and father).

    I'm sure that many of us (if not all) could provide an example that would fit into these questions.

    Here's mine…my partner's sister has 2 kids (ages 12 and 15) and just recently married a man (not the children's father). He is currently in jail (waiting on his trial date) for beating the 12 year old. The mother has several "boyfriends" (using the term loosely, here) that come in and out of the house. I have witnessed at least one of them openly flirt with the 15 year old girl, so I am worried for her safety around these strange men. The mother has indicated that she plans on keeping her "boyfriends" and taking the husband back after he finishes his jail/prison time (it's looking like 4 years right now). She has also had CPS investigate them at least 2 or 3 times and she lost custody of the daughter for a couple of years when the girl was younger. I would love for my partner and I to finish raising these children and adopt, if we could. My partner and I have been in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship, and married according to CA but not our homestate of TX – but that's another comment. So, since these children have a mother and father, they are better off than being with my partner and me? What would you (NOM people) suggest would be the best place for the children?

  • 127. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Another point that Maggie ought to answer is, precisely, what religions ought to be granted the "privilege" of a legally-valid marriage? After all, many of NOM's supporters have told me, personally, that they do not accept marriages performed within the Wiccan or Pagan religions to be (to quote Mags), "real marriages"!

    Furthermore, since she said, recently, on CNN that marriage is a privilege, not a right, what does she think about the continued rulings by the SCOTUS that marriage *is* a right? Should, then, the Lovings not have had the legal authority to have challenged VA. law at the Fed. level, instead of living with it? After all, many NOM supporters claim that Gay people have just as much a "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex as they do. Well, you can spin that response on its head and state that the Lovings had just as much a right as anyone else did in their home-state to marry a spouse of the same race!

  • 128. Christopher Mongeau  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Re: "marriage is a privilege, not a right"…
    If NOM's latest spin is that "traditional man-woman" marriage is necessary to protect the well-being of children and hence the future of society, shouldn't it then be an obligation, not a "privilege"?

  • 129. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Some NOMbies actually consider procreation within marriage an obligation, despite that this planet already has too many mouths to feed. NOM and their supporters bemoan about the replacement rate being unequal, but I think that's a good thing! Where there are fewer mouths to feed, there is more money to be spent, and less competitions for jobs! In fact, the Plague that decimated Europe proved that the poor people actually were able to buy their own land and move up on the latter of class! That same may be true in this case.

  • 130. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:14 am

    NOM continually makes the argument that the best arrangement for children is to be raised by a father and a mother, preferably the biological parents. In many cases, this is not possible, due to death of parents, divorce, and so forth.

    a) Given NOM's oft-stated concerns for the welfare of children, how much of NOM's resources – financial, personnel, advocacy – is directed towards helping children who are without their parents be placed in adoptive homes?

    b) Given NOM's preference that children be raised by their biological parents, is it NOM's position that children raised by adoptive parents are not being raised optimally?

    c) For children conceived by medical intervention – in vitro, surrogacy, etc – where biological parents are not an option, and where children are raised by single parents or same-sex parents, is it NOM's position that it would have been better for those children not to have been born at all?

    d) In order to best serve NOM's concern for the welfare of children, how many dollars does NOM donate annually to adoption agencies?

  • 131. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:16 am

    I have asked the following of NOM-supporters and never gotten a response: Would you support the institution of Civil Unions for all couples as a purely legal infrastructure, rather than calling it a "civil marriage"? It would be available to ALL couples, regardless of sexual orientation. This would give you and your supporters the word "marriage" to monopolize as a purely symbolic and non-legal action.

  • 132. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:34 am

    I second that. One of their talking points is that they oppose the "redefinition of marriage". Then they fight civil unions legislation….

  • 133. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:20 am

    During the Prop 8 trial, NOM's lawyers argued that the purpose of marriage was to prevent "irresponsible procreation." Given this as the basis for maintaining marriage as-is:

    a) Does NOM support sex education in the public schools?

    b) Should heterosexuals who have engaged in "irresponsible procreation" be forced into marriage; ie, should society bring back the concept of "shotgun weddings?"

    c) Since same-sex coupling cannot result in irresponsible procreation, does it not follow that same-sex marriage is the MODEL for how not to yield irresponsible procreation?

  • 134. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Did someone say "procreation"? I don't recall Cooper saying such a term….

    [youtube =]

  • 135. Chad  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I'm really annoyed by the use of anecdotal evidence and opinions – in lieu of facts – to make their case.

    They have a perfect opportunity to back up their claims (i.e. lies) by looking at those few states that already allow SSM.

    My question is:

    How do you recommend we scientifically measure the destruction same-sex marriage has/will have on “traditional marriage,” families, et al, in those states that allow same-sex marriage?

  • 136. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:01 am

    when measuring the 'destruction 'dont forget to mention all the countries in the wordl that have legalized ssm or have unions similar in type. Should they have measured the distruction before they implemented such unions.

    South Africa
    Czech Republic
    New Caledonia
    New Zealand
    Wallis and Futuna
    United Kingdom

  • 137. Jake in DC  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Why do you hate and call it love?

  • 138. rf  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:26 am

    my question would be (in addition to the many good ones here): Since you believe your views speak to truth and justice and are beyond reproach, will you now allow Rick Jacobs (or me–meaning the person asking the question, or all dissenters or people who disagree in a respectful manner or however you want to phrase it) to post comments to the NOMblog without being censored or removed?

  • 139. JonT  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Hmm. I like that:

    NOM, why do you censor opposing views on your blog(s)?

  • 140. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:27 am

    To the next Catholic or Evangelical clergyman (NOM doesn't have women clergy, do they?) [Father Michael Becker] [Brad Brandon]

    The United States Constitution protects the religious freedom of your church, of you clergy, and of your members, and the religious freedom of other churches with similar beliefs: the freedom to believe and to preach that homosexuality is a sin and to prohibit same sex marriage within your church. I understand that.

    The Constitution also protects the religious freedom of other faiths, affirming faiths, who accept gay members, who ordain openly gay clergy, and bless or perform marriages for same sex couples. What do you say to the affirming churches and their followers about their religious freedom?

  • 141. Elsie  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:30 am

    I'm a woman and I've been married to my college sweetheart, the first man I ever dated, for 26 years but I have no children. Given that it's NOM's position that the primary function of marriage it to facilitate responsible procreation should I get it converted to a domestic partnership?
    If not, should my husband take a second wife to full fill his obligations to God's plan?

  • 142. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:31 am

    I, for one, would love to hear someone from NOM defend their position solely on its 'merits'. Not because of religion or tradition; and certainly not by pulling in the topic of children!

    I want to know how my same-sex marriage would adversely affect their opposite sex one with no talk of God or children. Just talk about the affect of one marriage on the other. I guess my question to Bryan would be, "Please tell me, specifically, how my same sex marriage will affect your opposite sex marriage?" And when he uses words like tradition, children, values, etc. I would insist that he come back to the question. I want specifics; I want to know how his marriage will be affected. Will he love his wife less? Will he feel less commited to her? Will he no longer take his vows seriously? Will his marriage no longer be recognized? How will it affect him?

    I would love to see the discussion stick with the topic of same sex Civil Marriage.

  • 143. Jim  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:34 am

    I wonder if it's worth creating a section on this site where the most powerful, tightly/precisely worded questions can be listed–so we all can be asking those questions going forward, and we all can be putting those questions on posters, t-shirts, etc.

  • 144. Jim  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:36 am

    …and NOM's video/written responses could be added below each question as we get NOM's answers to these important questions. (And surely NOM believes questions about divorce, sin, the Bible and other key topics to be important questions that merit answers.)

  • 145. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Great idea Jim!!

  • 146. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Given Maggie want to "protect marriage", does she support the proposed Californian "Marriage Protection Act" which would ban divorce? Does she and NOM plan to help with campaign financing, or gathering signatures, etc. as they did in Prop 8? If so, will NOM be hiring the same PR firm?

  • 147. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:04 am

    YES YES YES ask that one

  • 148. Lauren  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Just tweeted:

    @nomtweets I thought Jesus taught love thy neighbor & thou shall not judge. Am I wrong? Why do YOU get to decide who that applies to? #heyNOM

  • 149. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:40 am

    The problem isn't just people against gay adoption, it's people against adoption.

  • 150. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Yeah, my (younger) str8 brother, for whatever reason, loathes the concept of adoption! He finds the thought of raising someone else's "pup" revolting!

  • 151. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Question for NOM: Given the reality that gay couples will continue to form families and raise children, with or without civil marriage rights, do you not believe that those children deserve the protections and stability that come with having legally married parents?

  • 152. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:44 am

    …although NOM will spin it as – if you don't have the legal protections of marriage, don't have children.

  • 153. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:43 am

    What does NOM think of the phrase "Full Equality Under the Law?"

    NOM states that it's sole purpose is to keep the meaning of "marriage" as it has been understood for centuries. Do you favor full equality under the law for civil unions and domestic partnerships with all the full legal protections and benefits of marriage; the only difference being the specific word?

    If yes, you do favor CU or DP, why did you expend so much energy in Washington State to un-do their "everything but marriage" law? And why did you do essentially the same in Hawaii recently, standing at Gov. Lingle's side when she vetoed that state's civil union law? Please explain how your actions in those cases exemplify your belief in "equal treatment under the law."

    If the answer is no, you do not favor full equality under the law, then which of the 1,138 federal laws and protections should be reserved exclusively to yourselves? Please be specific and explain why you believe only yourselves are entitled to those.

  • 154. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Dave, Im once had some female NOMbie say to me, once, "Marriage MEANS something to ME, and YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!!"

  • 155. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Precisely! Please have them define it: what is that "something" that has meaning, and why is that reserved exclusively to them?

  • 156. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Purely a personal opinion, please don't take offense.

    Questions I would not ask.

    1. Don't play the divorce card. To agitate for laws prohibiting divorce is just to replace one kind of government interference in people's personal relationships (DOMA statutes and constitutional amendments) with another (divorce prohibitions). We live in a world with all kinds of household and family structures (traditional families, single parent families, step-families, extended families, foster families, adoptive families, families headed by same-sex parents). Society needs to provide support for all kinds of families, not just an ideal stereotype that began to disappear in the 60s and 70s.

    2. Don't play the separation of church and state card. They don't believe it; they believe the United States is a Christian nation. It's a waste of breath. Hence my question above which could also be phrased 'Explain again how your religious freedom trumps my religious freedom'.

    These questions can be asked, of course. I just think there are better ways to trap them with the logical inconsistencies in their rhetoric.

  • 157. Linda  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Sagesse–I agree with what you're saying. I think we've all noticed that the way they defend their position is by deflecting the topic OFF same sex marriage and ONTO something they can use to stir up emotions. Don't let them dictate the direction of the interview. Have specific questions you want answered, and make them answer them! Don't let them divert the topic and end up controlling the conversation.

  • 158. adambink  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Wow, so many great questions submitted so far, everyone. Many of these are great ideas we haven't thought of. The team here is blown away. We'll have a lot of deciding to do! Keep 'em coming!

  • 159. Regan DuCasse  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:52 am

    I've already asked Brian Brown these questions, and after several email exchanges between each other, he shut me down for asking them.

    But, you all can always try with OTHER people.

    1. When you want to learn about being Jewish, life lived as a Jew and the socio/political history of Jews in the world, why go to a non Jewish, anti Semitic person to do it? Why go to the equivalent non gay, anti gay person to learn about gay people? Isn't that like asking a segregationist, Jim Crow law supporter all about blacks?

    2. Our nation of many religions that forbid what we who are not sharing that faith can do freely, why is equality for gay people considered a restriction of religion ONLY?

    Jehovah's Witnesses, who forbid blood and organ donation, don't demand the government forbid it for others, nor say it's a restriction on them when others utilize the option of such donation.

    3. Domestic violence endangers women and children at an alarming rate. Whole families are wiped out, or the repercussions can reverb in other ways. Hitler, was horribly abused by his father.
    Why not focus on a bring attention to preventing domestic violence and use your funding for shelters and counseling?

    There are several more of course, but everyone's questions are exactly what the courts were asking. And of course, NOM'ers couldn't even prove bans were necessary to the effect of op sex marriage in the first place. In other words, NOM is redundant in the case of op sex marriage, and tyrannical in the case of same sex marriage.

  • 160. James L. Greenlee  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage for 5 years now. What evidence does NOM have that the sky over Boston has indeed fallen?

    Also, is NOM named for the sounds eminating from Maggie's spot at the NOM bus fold-down table? nom nom nom nom nom nom

  • 161. EdC  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:53 am

    After asking which rights and benefits same-sex couples should be "granted", isn't it then appropriate to ask what portion of our taxes should be refunded to us?

  • 162. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:05 am

    I totally agree with a question about refunding a portion of our taxes!

    But when asking about rights and benefits being "granted" try to turn it around. If they grant us rights, they are being beneficent: "See how generous we are? We are sharing some of our rights with you. You should be grateful for these scraps."

    Turn it around to ask which rights they reserve unto themselves; that they are not willing to share. Make them out to be the mean-spirited, selfish, exclusionary, anti-equality and un-American folks that they truly are..

  • 163. Rich B  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Q: Would you support a refund to LGBT people of a portion of the taxes they have paid over the years for benefits they can never receive?

    Q: A Police officer paid into his pension for 15 years and was killed in the line of duty on Christmas this past year. Do you support the denial of pension benefits to his partner of 15 years based on the fact they were legally barred from being married?

  • 164. anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Where NO other conditions apply, that is, these questions are without regard to gender, just to the word itself and a legal defnition, as you see it:

    Do you believe the word "marriage" refers specifically to the religious union, or does it apply equally to non-religious couples who are married by a judge or in some other civil ceremony?

    Do you believe that the word "marriage" refers only to a couple who marry intending to either procreate or adopt (if infertile), or does it apply equally to those who deliberately choose not to have offspring and not adopt?

    Do you believe that the word "marriage" means the same thing all across the world, or does your definition only apply to marriages in this country? Do you believe it should apply worldwide? What would be your plan for accomplishing this?

  • 165. [email protected]  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Good questions! An avenue I had not yet considered…

  • 166. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Why should a marriage between two straight people who just met, got drunk, and ran off to a chapel in Vegas be given more legal recognition than a marriage between same-gender partners who have been in a committed monogamous relationship for years?

    You want your church to be free to NOT marry same-gender partners — but other peoples' churches want to be free TO marry same-gender partners. Why should the views of your denomination be seen as more important than the views of other denominations?

    Do you believe straight child molesters should have the right to marry? Straight adulterers? Straight thieves? Is some immorality more immoral than other immorality?

    Your view that homosexuality is sinful is an excellent reason for you personally to not engage in such behavior. If I don't believe that homosexuality is sinful, why should I be expected to live by your belief instead of my own belief?

    Do you support legally-recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage for same-sex couples? Do you believe that civil unions or domestic partnerships are "just as good" as marriage? If so, would you be willing to have your marriage converted to a civil union or domestic partnership?

    Would you support a system in which the government recognizes only secular unions for tax/benefit purposes, and allows "marriage" to be the purview solely of religious institutions? Any couple could enter into a civil union & be recognized by the government — and those who wanted religious recognition could have a separate ceremony. Of course, religious institutions would be free to marry any couple they wanted to…

  • 167. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Do you believe straight child molesters should have the right to marry? Straight adulterers? Straight thieves? Is some immorality more immoral than other immorality?

    Great question but it needs a follow-up:

    Why not rally for a federal constitutional ammendment banning marriage for these people?

  • 168. Kathy  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Apologies if these have already been asked:

    BB/MG (and Louis–Hi Louis!), you keep pushing that there should be a public vote on SSM, yet every other marriage & family law has been decided legislatively or in the courts. With your emphasis on tradition/precedent, why the inconsistency here? Why have a public vote only on marriage for gay couples? Is it just because you disagree when bills pass or judges rule in favor of same-sex couples?

    Same-sex couples want the same legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples, yet you claim that same sex-couples want to "radicalize" marriage. Can you explain why the state treating all couples the same way is "radical." What about equality is radical? What about monogamy and commitment is radical?

  • 169. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Excellent Questions!

    I also want to know why the sudden 'we want the people to vote for it…" Are they suddenly figuring out how inept their lawyers were in the Prop 8 case – and it might just win in SCOTUS?

  • 170. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:26 am

    LLB, they are evolving on this version of the victim game.

    First the 'activist judges' did this to them. Then, near the beginning of the Tour BB used a phrase something like 'unelected judges and activist legislators'. Because sometimes the people vote in the wrong representatives, or mistakenly elect a governor who respects the legislature and refuses to veto.

    The only place they've had consistent success is direct vote on a ballot initiative or constitutional amendment. I think their heads are going to explode when they start losing those too. I would say that in military terms this is the last line of defence, but…..

    In a drug induced delusional state, Maggie fantasizes about electing a president who will place the right judges on the Supreme Court and a marriage amendment to the US Constitution.

  • 171. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:00 am

    Add that the desire to live in long-term monogamous relationships and possibly raise children is actually a very conservative and traditional mindset.

  • 172. Sean Harrington  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Q: Why are your "breaking news" segments apparently produced in-house by NOM? If they aren't, why are they not sourced to any journalistic organization? Standard ENG practice is for the reporter to identify themselves, their newsgathering organization, and the city from which they are filing the report.

  • 173. Svenbot  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:30 am

    I'd ask him for a forecast in NOM donations and how much money he plans to make from it.

  • 174. anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Oh… we are not asking the right questions. If we get to ask tough questions, with the idea they might actually answer, this is what *I* want to know…

    How much of your funding comes directly from the Roman Catholic Church?

    How much comes directly from the Mormon Church?

    How much comes indirectly from those two institutions?

    How much comes from other organizations with a specifically anti-gay agenda who are using your supposedly not anti-gay status as front?

    How many of your individual donors are "not anti-gay, just don't want to change the definition of marriage"? How many are anti-gay?

    If you were to fail, categorically, on the issue of banning same sex marriage, would any of that funding would be re-purposed toward useful programming to support the institution of marriage such as counseling services, adoption clinics, child care assistance, and so on or would you simply cease to exist?

  • 175. omini  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I would drill right to the heart of their "we're just like MLK" BS.

    Ask them: If you think that allowing same sex couples to marry infringes on your religious freedom to dissallow them rights, what should happen if banning same sex marriage infringes on someone else's religious freedom to grant them rights?

    Or rather: you say you are fighting for your religious freedom to disallow rights to a group of people. What happens when people with different religious views (none at all, ie atheists like myself) start demanding their religious freedom to allow those rights? Why are your religious views so much more important than others? So much more important that they should become law and then apply to everyone? Now wouldnt that infring on the views of those who support those rights?

    Notice that i never mentioned the words "same sex marriage" in that second suggestion?

    They'll probably counter by saying that christians who support ssm aren't "true" christians, to which you should tell them that those christians probably think that you (Brian Brown ect) arent true christians.

    The only escape from this never-ending cycle of contradictions and paradoxes is to leave religion out of this entirely, correct?

  • 176. AndrewPDX  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Here's a question explicit for a Mormon NOM supporter (and anyone with more knowledge with the inner-workings of the LDS Church, please correct me):

    Do you currently allow heterosexual but non-LDS members to get married in a Mormon Temple? (the answer is 'no', right?) Then how does the fear that "Christains churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples" make any sense if you are already allowed to block heterosexual couples with no repercussions?

    And then, of any NOM-supporting clergy:
    What makes you think I would even invite your fear and hatred as a guest to my same-sex wedding reception, let alone desire to have you officiate, when there are already many ministers who will willingly and lovingly support us? Are you really that conceited?


  • 177. anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:41 am

    My understanding is that a non-Mormon is not even allowed to set foot in a temple, so I think the marriage answer is a big "no".

  • 178. Lesbians Love Boies  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Excellent point about Christians inability to marry in a Mormon Temple.

  • 179. Joel  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Your last question is funny! It parallels the fear of straight men that gay men will constantly hit on them, when in reality, they can't even get straight women to hit on them! Most of these "straight" men who are so afraid of sexual advances from other men are so undesirable that the only way they have sex at all is by paying for it.

  • 180. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:45 am

    have a questin for BB

    So, did you marry your wife becaus you loved her, or just becaus you needes someon to have your children?


  • 181. Stephen Melott  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:48 am

    How can you call yourself Christians ?

  • 182. Frances Melott  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Will God judge these people for loving, or judge YOU for HATING ?

  • 183. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:52 am

    My question is: If the purpose of NOM is to "protect marriage" rather than to discriminate against gays and lesbians, WHY did they divert their "Summer for Marriage" Tour to attend a vote on an amendment in South Bend that was proposed to protect the rights of gays and lesbians with respect to employment? Oh, surely they were there to support the amendment, right?

    It seems more likely that, like a moth to a flame, they couldn't resist the opportunity to weigh in against gay rights, even though it betrays their animus.

  • 184. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:23 am

    OK, here's another one, guaranteed to anger…

    Brian, you believe life begins at conception, right? You do realize that you, then, began life as a female, and you later underwent a chemically-induced involuntary sex change in the womb. Whether you asked for it or not, you, and all other men, could in fact count yourself as members of the LGBTQ community. Chew on that for a while…

  • 185. Bob  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:53 am

    anonygrl now you're getting to the heart of the matter, do we know what religion Brian and Maggie belong to, I'm sure it's Mormon, NOM is a front for all these religions who are anti gay. so how do they feel as Mormons working for the Catholic Church?

    What do these religions have in common, other than fear of gays?

    Is it true they don't even see each other as valid religions?

    Tell us how Mormon's and Catholics differ on doctrine and practices?

  • 186. PamC  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:19 am

    I'm pretty sure BB is Catholic; he was head of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which was catholic-sponsored.

  • 187. fiona64  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:23 am

    The National Organization for Marriage was established by the Church of LDS. All you have to do is look at the 'org chart' of the founders:


  • 188. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Shouldn't married couples lead by example to prove the sanctity of their marriages?

  • 189. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:00 am

    or in another way:

    Since half of all married people do not respect the sancitity of their marriage, how can it be used to justify not allowing it for some?

  • 190. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:57 am

    during the campaign for yes on 1 in maine you claimed that same sex couples in maine already had rights under the current domestic partnership law which is not marriage, but yet in washington you campaigned to rid same sex couples of their rights which are provided civil unions, which again not marriage, nor were they ever called that. Now you claim that you are not anti-gay why then would you try and take away rights that were never even designated as marriage in the first place? Also if there are federal rights that you think same sex couples are not entitled to please list them off and why.

  • 191. Michael Ashmore  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Maggie, are you afraid that you are gay, or afraid that your husband is gay? The fact hat you spend so much energy tormenting people, must come from your own fear. Is the fear the impetus for your bullying? How can your actions be based on your religious convictions, when the Gospels clearly speak to the contrary? Lastly, how do you sleep at night? Oh, one more: When are you going to shut the fuck up?

  • 192. Michael Ashmore  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I meant, "the fact that," rather than …"hat"

  • 193. anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Can we GET a Fact Hat? One that the wearer could not lie while wearing?


  • 194. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:19 am

    A couple more…

    1. If, as one of the speakers at today's Rochester MN rally claims, "the separation of church and state is a lie…," which denomination's version of Christianity should we be using as the basis of our theocracy? Should each state govern according to the dogma of its own most popular denomination, or does the country as a whole get to vote on which dogma we follow? Could we maybe use one denomination's view on marriage, another's view on contraception, and another's about how best to help the poor?

    2. If one (or more) of your children actually turns out to be gay, will you fight against the idea of him/her being allowed to marry his/her soul-mate?

    3. If a man goes through reparative therapy and declares himself no longer gay, does that mean that he doesn't think about men in a romantic or sexual sense, or simply that he no longer has sex with men? If it has only to do with the "sex" thing, a follow-up question…

    3a. Is a virgin assumed to be straight until he/she has sex with a same-sex partner?

  • 195. Kathy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:30 am

    OOOOH! I like #2.

  • 196. Joel  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Part of your rhetoric is that gay couples want children for purely "selfish" reasons. For what purely altruistic reason do YOU desire children?

  • 197. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:21 am

    NOM's rallying cry seems to be "Let the People Vote."

    In some cases, same sex marriage became law through court decisions; in others through legislatitve action.

    Specifically in VT, NH, ME and DC, the people did vote, through their elected representatives. In VT, the people's elected representatives went so far as to override the governor's veto. In NJ and WA, the people's vote to permit marriage-equivalent civil unions became law through their elected legislatures.

    Yet NOM continues to cry, "Let the People Vote."

    Is it NOM's position that the people's elected representatives are not entitled to make law? How should a Democratic Republic such as the US determine which laws enacted by the people's elected representatives do not qualify as the equivalent of "letting the people vote?"

  • 198. Kathy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Yes! I've been saying this for years now. We're a republic, and most of our laws are generated through a representative legislative body. While it's true that one person cannot represent the views of ALL of his or her constituents, at all times, this system has worked pretty well most of the time, and NOM seems to want it overthrown.

    Who are the actual angry radicals here?

  • 199. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:19 am

    They only have to be overthrown because either (a) the people elected the wrong representatives, or (b) the representatives voted the wrong way. Or in the immortal words of Brian Brown, they are 'activist legislators'.


  • 200. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Or, in other words, the system is flawed, the people elected legislators who don't agree with me…. the people.

  • 201. Luke  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:32 am

    I would ask her , well then why not simply get rid of the legislature and the courts and leave everyhing up the populace. They can vote on everything, taxes, trials, patents etc.

  • 202. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:24 am

    OK, here’s another one, guaranteed to anger…

    Brian, you believe life begins at conception, right? You do realize that you, then, began life as a female, and you later underwent a chemically-induced involuntary sex change in the womb. Whether you asked for it or not, you, and all other men, could in fact count yourself as members of the LGBTQ community. Chew on that for a while…

  • 203. Ray in MA  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:35 am

    BTW, that's why we all have nipples!!!!

  • 204. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:49 am

    hi Tracy, don’t mean anything bad bout this, bout you’r not quiet correkt, seeing that a childs gender is determent by whether the sperm has an x or y cromoson, maning that the child have a genietik gender from the moment of conception


  • 205. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Right you are about that point, Marius, but I would argue that the XY genotype merely determines whether testosterone will be introduced to stimulate the production of male sex organs. I would also argue that the production of those sex organs may be more closely related to sexual / gender identity. Does a genetic male who fails to develop male sex organs feel / think / love like a man or a woman?

    Besides, my comment was really more tongue-in-cheek than a serious suggestion.

  • 206. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:27 am

    good points tracy=)

  • 207. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Given that millions upon millions of legally-married opposite-sex American couples engage in oral sex and anal sex, why do you act as if only homosexuals engage in such behaviors? Should straight couples who engage in such behaviors lose our right to marry, too?

    If God only wants us to have sex in order to procreate (as at least one of your Catholic priest speakers has implied), why don't we as a species only engage in mating behavior when the woman is in the fertile part of her cycle? Why don't we go into and out of heat as animals do?

    If we're not supposed to have sex for pleasure, why did God give me a clitoris, and why do orgasms feel so amazingly good?

  • 208. New  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Q. I heard Maggie saying that "It's NOT discrimination to treat different things differently." How are children with same sex parents diferent from children with opposit sex parents? What kind of difference in treatment should exist between children from parents with different sex orientation?

    Note: I don't tweet so feel free to post my question.
    Thank you.

  • 209. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:34 am

    I kinda really like that one.

  • 210. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:47 am

    hi Tracy, don't mean anything bad bout this, bout you'r not quiet correkt, seeing that a childs gender is determent by whether the sperm has an x or y cromoson, maning that the child have a genietik gender from the moment of conception


  • 211. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:53 am

    It's the Y chromosome that somehow triggers the change from female to male in the womb, but Tracy is correct — all embryos start off as structurally female.

  • 212. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:09 am

    To clarify that:
    All embryos are female at first. Then, depending on the chromosomes, genetic females continue to develop as such and genetic males undergo a change in their structure, specifically the reproductive organs.

  • 213. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:18 am

    The XY genotype merely determines whether testosterone will be introduced to stimulate the production of male sex organs. I would argue that the production of those sex organs may be more closely related to sexual / gender identity. Does a genetic male who fails to develop male sex organs feel / think / love like a man or a woman? It can, and does, happen.

    Besides, my original comment was really more tongue-in-cheek than a serious suggestion.

  • 214. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Hi Steve, you are corect that the first 7 weeks the embryos develop the same way, still they are genetically male or female from the moment of conseption, they actually developinng the internal setings for bout male and female (So they hare more like hemafrodites than females),after week 7 when the hormons start kiking inn heydevelop the rest of what they need, and deteriate what they dont, this gos for bout males and females


  • 215. Varika  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Marius–which, then, is an infant who has XXY chromosomal abnormality? The majority of these, if I recall, develop into males, but if the definition of male or female is strictly based on being XX or XY, then which is an XXY individual? How 'bout an XXYY individual? Or a single-X individual? What about someone who has chimerism and parts of their body are XY and other parts are XX? (This is something that has come up in court cases; one woman had her children taken away because they weren't "hers" because her blood contained one type of DNA and her ovaries contained another type.)

    The truth is that gender is defined by physical development far more than genetic identity.

  • 216. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:54 am

    hi, im not a specialist, im just refering back to how gender is scientifically determend. But after having checked up whit a friend of mine i can awnse you. XXY, XXYY and XYY onely afect males sice they have the Y kronocomes, and XXX onelty afeckt whomen


  • 217. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:59 am

    "The truth is that gender is defined by physical development far more than genetic identity."

    if that whas thru that female runner last year that turnd out to be ginetickly a male after tests whould not have lost her meddal…

    Love M=)

  • 218. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:21 am

    X0 is Turner Syndrome. They are women. XXY is Klinefelter Syndrome. They are male.

    There are other such sex-chromosome anomalies, but in the case of simple missing or duplicate chromosomes the phenotype is always clear.

  • 219. Varika  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Marius and Steve–my point wasn't that DNA has NO impact, but that DNA is not the only deciding factor. If DNA was the only factor involved, the female runner last year would never have been allowed to enter at all.

    Also, if you google "XXY female" you will come up with several results: one case study is of an XXY woman who has two daughters and a son, and one of her DAUGHTERS is also XXY. It is true that XXY is the cause of Klinefelter's Syndrome in those who develope into males. It is equally apparent that there are XXY fetuses who develope into women who, as that case study clearly reveals, are not infertile at all.


    The second link, in the abstract, even refers to naturally-born females who are XY genetically.

    I stand by my statement that gender is more about physical development than genetics.

  • 220. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    The runner was alovd to enter caus she looked female, however when dna tests showed she was genetically an male she was disquallefide….

    When it comes too your XXY liks, non of this realy talks too mutch about this, however the googelserch says XXY always are considred male insted of female, even when they look female. However the main sciense allso says that that "wohmen" should not have been able too get pregnent, and sicen I cant seem too find any other concreet evidence that this i a reale case, like an scientiffik artikle, not just a blog (If you have one, pleas send it when i Whould love too read more on the subbjekt).



  • 221. VRAlbany  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:49 am

    I am a straight woman who has been in a serious long term relationship with a great guy for a couple years now.
    Can you tell me, if the government starts recognizing same sex marriages, how exactly would my relationship and possible marriage to this man I love be affected? What would you say I personally need to worry about in terms of my relationship if same sex marriage is legalized?

  • 222. New  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Q. Considering the current growing in tolerance and civil rights and acceptance of gays and lesbians in America, how do you think that future generations will define NOM's anty-gay rights movement?

    Note: I don’t tweet so feel free to post my question.
    Thank you.

  • 223. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Would you please define "the gay agenda?"

    If you could provide handouts, it would be ever-so-appreciated.

    As a straight woman, I've apparently been left out of the loop. ;o)~

  • 224. Dave in CA  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:54 am

    At the Prop 8 trial, your witness David Blankenhorn famously said:

    "I believe homophobia is a real presence in our society," and also testified that "We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before." He said he also believes that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would probably be good for the couples and their children.

    Do you agree with Mr. Blankenhorn's testimony or not, and why or why not?

  • 225. David in Houston  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:41 am

    That's an awesome question.

  • 226. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Have you taught your children, "Treat others as you would like to be treated?"

    If so, how would you feel if someone started campaigning for a constitutional amendment specifically un-recognizing your marriage?

    How, in general, do you feel about the statement, "Treat others as you would like to be treated?"

  • 227. Tim Ellerbrock  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:59 am

    How much exegetical study of the scriptures, old and new testaments, have you done to support your condemnation of homosexuality and oppposition to same-sex marriage?

  • 228. RJ  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:59 am

    To Brian Brown and Maggie:

    "How much are you being paid by your organization?"

  • 229. Jim Stone  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:03 am

    You keep saying the people have a right to VOTE! When the Supreme Court struck down laws that prevented interracial you think that should have been put to a vote as well? Do you think the majority should be allowed to vote on minorities rights??

  • 230. David  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Since procreation and child rearing is the conerstone of your doctrine on traditional marriage, should legislation be introduced to ban post menopausal women and sterile men from marriage as well?

  • 231. Joel  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:39 am

    And, shouldn't you be pushing legislation that positive fertility tests be a mandatory requisite for getting a marriage license? Also mandated should be an affidavit that the couple intends to produce offspring within, say, three years. If no offspring materialize, the marriage is summarily annulled. What do you think, Maggie?

  • 232. Jim Stone  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:08 am

    You keep saying that homosexuality will be taught in schools? Do you mean that children will be taught that there are homosexuals out there. I never took the Homosexuality 101 course in school and I turned out gay. In niece and nephews have been exposed to my partner and I since they were babies and they are all straight as an arrow-it didn't rub off? Please explain!

  • 233. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:11 am

    A similar question is this: If so many kids went through Catholic private schools with all those priests and nuns, why aren't there more priests and nuns?

  • 234. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:14 am

    My questions for NOM:
    1) What do you so deeply fear about yourself that you are out here wasting money that could be used to feed the hungry attacking my marriage?
    2) Why should your view of religion be allowed to interfere with mine?
    3) Why are you so afraid of legal and civil equality for all of us?
    4) Why do you accuse us of harassing you when all we are doing is standing up for our civil rights?
    5) Why do you consistently ignore the truth about gay-bashing attacks and the fact that actions such as your promote that bashing?

  • 235. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Forgot to click the box again!

  • 236. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:15 am

    You and others (e.g., Cooper in the Prop8 trial) have stated that SSM is an "experiment" and it is not yet known whether it will be harmful to traditional marriage. Are you prepared to begin a public (i.e., open) scientific study for the benefit of all Americans to determine an answer to this question?

  • 237. Jim Stone  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Your organization would get a lot more $$$ if you accepted ALL people and fought for equal rights. Fight for committed relationships and stable families whether they be straight or gay. Trust me-your bank account will love you!! The "hate dollars" that you have lived on since your inception are drying up as society becomes more enlightened. Fight with us-not against us!

  • 238. Dunderhead  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:24 am

    NOM does not answer questions. They make declarations.

    It's nice to vent and all, but thinking that Brian Brown or Maggie Gallagher are eager to be accountable to anyone, left or right, misses the reason they exist. They simply do not care.

    Want to discredit their message? You can't. It is only understood by nonsensical people who wish to hear it.

    Don't be afraid to approach Brown and Gallagher and any other political figure in public. They are just ordinary people — well trained, well prepared, and able to control their emotions in public. It's their JOB to not care about you, while pretending they do in public.

    Approach them in public. Seriously. I have, it will open your eyes! And at the end of your conversation, I recommend telling them, in public, with all the sincerity you can muster, "God bless you, [name]!" very audibly in front of others as they're walking away.

  • 239. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:25 am

    You have stated that children need a mother and a father, and you and others have suggested that this need justifies legal action (bans, revocation of gay rights, etc.). Do you advocate removing children from gay / lesbian homes? If not, how do you justify disallowing their parents' marriage, given that marriage is good for children, and hence, the gay marriage ban causes harm to these children?

  • 240. Christopher Mongeau  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Question to MG or BB:

    If (quoting Jim Jordan) "family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the cornerstone", why would you work so hard to prevent thousands of Americans from being part of that foundation? Wouldn't the inclusion of these thousands of marriages and families strengthen this foundation?

  • 241. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Why are your supposedly public blogs closed to public comments? When there are entries open to comment, why do the moderators not let all comments (or at least all comments which don't have cursing or which aren't simple personal insults) be posted?

    You give the impression that a debate involving both sides of the issue is unwelcome — but if your belief in what you're saying is so very strong, what would be the harm in letting dissenting opinions be heard?

  • 242. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Since you believe that (A) children need their biological mother and father and (B) this need justifies a ban on SSM because SSM MIGHT cause heterosexual marriage to decline INDIRECTLY (either by gradually increasing divorce rates, or gradually lowering marriage rates), my question is the following:

    Do you advocate banning divorce (which CERTAINLY causes an IMMEDIATE negative impact on children), and do you advocate banning adoption (which DIRECTLY removes children from their biological mother and father, placing them with strangers, who may in fact be a gay couple)?

    If not, how do you resolve the obvious hypocrisy?

  • 243. Alan E.  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:35 am

    This post made it to Towleroad's Newsreel right at the top:

  • 244. mikeplainfield  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:36 am

    I would ask them over for dinner to meet my family and friends, so that they can see how we are just regular people too.

  • 245. Seraphiel  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:39 am

    "If marriage equality happens, are you afraid that you won't have any excuse to stay in the closet anymore?"

  • 246. RS  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Why do people who profess to be Christians not follow the example of Christ? There is no place in the New Testament that tells of Jesus condemning anyone, except for those making money in the temple. jesus gave only two commands: you should love God, and you should love others as you love yourself – and he continued by saying it is on those two commands that all of the laws and prophecies are riding. Why do "church people" continue to use outdated scriptures cherry-picked for their own prejudices to condemn others when that was clearly not the message or teachings of jesus?

  • 247. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:01 am

    "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ" — Ghandi

  • 248. Barry  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Hey NOM! Are you the same group of pseudo-outraged protesters gay filmmaker John Waters invented for his film "Polyester"?

    I've always thought I've seen your protests somewhere before and then it hit me where you get your inspiration from….

  • 249. Seraphiel  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:47 am

    "You keep insisting that children must be raised by their biological mother and father in order to be healthy members of society. Why do you continue to insult all the single-parent families, and all the good people who were raised by single parents? You are a despicable excuse for a human being. Oh, sorry, that last part wasn't a question."

  • 250. Kathy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Wouldn't it be better to let gays and lesbians marry each other instead of entering sham marriages to people of the opposite sex, which in all likelihood will be extremely unfulfilling, make both parties unhappy, and probably lead to divorce?

  • 251. David in Houston  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Great question :o)

  • 252. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Do you believe the state should force heterosexual unmarried couples to marry and raise a child that they happen to conceive together? Why not?

    Do you believe that men who donate sperm to a sperm bank should be forced to marry all of the women who conceived using his "deposit"? Why not? Should sperm donation be illegal?

    Do you believe that single mothers should be forced to abort their child or place it up for adoption to maximize its chances of being raised by a mother AND a father?

    Is one natural parent better than two unnatural parents? Is one mother BETTER or WORSE than two mothers?

  • 253. Rhonda  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:58 am

    if a man has multiple children with different women, or a woman has several children by different fathers, wouldn't your demanding a biological mother/father household cause polygamy?

    Just saying..

  • 254. Seraphiel  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:50 am

    "Also, why do you hate orphans? They need to be taken care of. Would you really prefer them left in the care of a state institution, instead of getting the attention and love of two people who happen to be the same gender? Is there even a shred of humanity left in you?"

  • 255. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Why do you insist on insulting not only adoptive parents, but also the chilcren they have adopted, by saying that adoptive children aren't really the children of the parents who adopted them and gave them a loving home where they will have roots to grow and wings to fly?

  • 256. New  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Q. You keep saying the people have a right to VOTE. How much percent of public votes in favor of gay marriage will convince you that it's time to stop your anty-gay marriage campaign.

    Q. Do you have plans to fight for a ban on gay marriage in Masachussets?

    Q. Considering that voters seem to be split on their opinion about gay marriage, how do you think the federal government should proceed?
    a) Ignore gay rights advances and make gay marriages ilegal once and for all to satisfy you and your precious "majority"?
    b) Recognize gay marriages once and for all throughout the nation?
    c) Keep the status quo: legal segragation between gays and straights?

  • 257. Andrea  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:09 am

    If religious freedom means you get to apply your religious opinion to every US citizen, what's to stop any other religion from applying their rules to you? What if Jews, Muslims and vegetarian Hindus, Buddhists and Jains got together to ban pork, would you cheerfully give up ham on Easter?

  • 258. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Well of course not, Andrea! All those other religions are wrong, don't you see? They'd have no problem with it if they believed that all religions were created equal. After all, America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles…. oh wait –

  • 259. Andrea  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:23 am

    Yeah, my example is also bad because I can actually think of some secular reasons to ban pork. 🙂

  • 260. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:39 am

    As in the extremely high sodium content that increases the risk for high blood pressure and all of the accompanying complications thereof?

  • 261. Andrea  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:13 am

    Also: How can you say marriage equality is bad for marriage as an institution, when marriage rates went up and divorce rates down in Iowa over the past year?

  • 262. Kenneth  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:15 am

    I saw this on a sign and I thought it was very simple and eloquent.

    "Would Jesus descriminate?"


    "Have you read the rest of Leviticus, eaten pork, shaved, cut your hair, worn anything other than 100% cotten today?"

    and, a follow up would be

    "How does it feel to be a hypocrit?"

    Why do you insist hating everyone that is not white, straight, male, and protestant?

  • 263. Colin  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:20 am

    1. Who IS "against" traditional, or heterosexual, marriage?
    1a. Have any same sex marriage advocates proposed that there is something wrong with traditional marriage?
    2a. If yes, who?
    3a. Would this be an accurate representation of the general argument for SSM?

    The line of argumentation that NOM supporters use, when they say, "We support traditional marriage", is a false choice, in that it suggests that one cannot be FOR heterosexual marriage AND FOR homosexual marriage. They are purporting to defend something from an attack that does not exist.

    2. As a conservative, who believes in the institution of marriage as an effective social tool in encouraging conservative family values of commitment to spouses and children, and general responsibility, why would you want to exclude homosexuals from participating in it?

    3. How is the relationship between a man and a woman "unique," but that one between partners of the same sex is not?

  • 264. Emily S.  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:28 am

    You have said that "scientifically" children need both a mother and father. Despite this statement, the APA has found that children raised by LGBTQ couples are just as healthy as those in traditional family settings. In fact, a recent study suggests kids raised by lesbian couples fair even better. (
    What do you make of this?

  • 265. Don  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:31 am

    If NOM could have it's "perfect" world, what would it look like? No gay marriage, certainly. Clearly no gay parents. Gay people fired from their jobs and kicked out of their homes just for being gay? Gay people denied medical care and access to other goods and services? Separate drinking fountains and public restrooms? No mention of gay people in the media or in the public square? Gay sex illegal? Gay people illegal? Camps? Would there be gay people at all?

  • 266. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:35 am

    I'd like to know the following:

    Don't you think that saying:

    "If they pass gay marriage then all those of us who opposed it will be treated as bigots!"

    is disturbingly similar to:

    "If they allow interracial marriage then all those of us who opposed it will be treated as racists!"

    Well, I say, if the shoe fits…..

  • 267. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:49 am

    By the same token, they say that gays and lesbians do not have the right to "redefine marriage for all of us" … that is like saying, in response to the emancipation proclamation, that blacks didn't have the right to redefine freedom for all of us. When humanity became the only necessary prerequisite for freedom, it was a fundamental redefinition of the term…

    …for the better.

  • 268. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:54 am

    It eliminated the "right" of people to subjugate blacks and deny them basic human liberties … which was upsetting to many people, certainly. But this "right" was misconstrued. It was not a right, but a tradition — a toxic tradition that justified many evils perpetrated on a subjugated class. Like slavery, the SSM ban is a toxic tradition that needs to be overturned, or we are just as guilty as our forefathers for miscontruing our own inalienable "rights".

  • 269. Joe Brown  |  July 30, 2010 at 6:50 am

    My question for NOM is: We know what you are against. But what are you actually doing FOR marriage?

  • 270. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:01 am

    I would love to see someone's argument against #234.

  • 271. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Oops — the numbers change…

  • 272. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Is same-sex marriage a bigger threat to the concept of "family" than divorce? Couldn't we save more families by making divorce illegal?

  • 273. Tracy  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:15 am

    They typically use divorce rates as a reason for the SSM marriage ban …. i.e., "divorce has damaged marriage so much already that it can't survive another blow like SSM". Sad, isn't it?

  • 274. Lar  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:22 am

    If Brian Brown was asked for his definition of "Bigot" would he describe himself to a T or would he come up with something totally off the wall?

  • 275. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Either way, it would have the same effect.

  • 276. SammySeattle  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Exactly which rights would you grant to gay people?

  • 277. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:26 am

    The right to choose which form of execution we endure.

  • 278. Varika  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Question 1: Are you aware that the majority of homosexuals are born into heterosexual households? Does this then not indicate that heterosexual marriage causes homosexuality?

    Question 2: If you consider homosexuality such a threat, what are your feelings about asexuals? That is, are all alternative sexualities inherently threatening to your heterosexuality, or are some better than others? Do I, as a woman who is not interested in romantic relationships with ANYONE, threaten your marriage by refusing to enter into a marriage of any sort?

  • 279. Jeff  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Maggie –

    I think it's very clear to all of us that you're very overweight. The Bible says that gluttony is a sin. I propose that we strip you of some of your rights and perhaps even beat or execute you because of your gluttony. Is my literal interpretation of the Bible valid in your view?



  • 280. David in Houston  |  July 30, 2010 at 7:59 am

    1. Where is Brian Brown's wife? — If they are promoting "family values", why does his wife not appear in public to show her support for this noble cause? Is she ashamed to be seen in public?

    2a. Where is Maggie Gallagher's husband? — See questions above.

    2b. Where are Maggie Gallagher's children? — If marriage is solely for the purpose of raising children, why isn't she showing off her beautiful God-given offspring to the public? — If she doesn't have children, should she be allowed to stay married?

    3. Since NOM believes that every child needs a mom AND a dad to raise them… why aren't they condemning the fact that over 20 million children are being raised by single-parent families? Don't those millions of children need BOTH parents?

    4. Since NOM believes that marriage has everything to do with raising children… why aren't they trying to prevent senior citizens, barren heterosexuals and those who don't want children from getting married? Why only gay couples?

  • 281. Lar  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:34 am

    David, Brian's wife (Sue I believe) is more than likely at home pregnant with their seventh child maintaining the family home and at this time could be barefoot and in the kitchen. Typical of the catholic belief that pulling out early is the only approved form of birth control.

  • 282. nightshayde  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:38 am

    His wife and six children were with him on the first part of the tour. I'm not sure if they re-joined the tour with him when he returned from California, though.

  • 283. Marius  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:17 am

    So, off topic, did they ever apeale the Massachusetts court cases?

    Love M

  • 284. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Did your choice of starting dates for this tour have anything to do with the release via Netflix and Video-On-Demand of the documentary "8: The Mormon Proposition"?

    Was this tour an attempt to divert people's attention from this documentary detailing the underhanded methods used by the founders of NOM to codify bigotry into the law?

  • 285. celdd  |  July 30, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Q: How is it you can donate One Million dollars to Carly Fiorina's campaign for CA Senator and equaly large amounts to other politicians who are for discrimination of the LGBT community, but plead poverty and beg for funds regarding fixing tires or daily expenses regarding your current Tour?

  • 286. Elfwreck  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Q. Does NOM wish to restrict transsexuals to marrying someone of their assigned-at-birth gender, or of their identified gender?

    Q. How does NOM believe the gender of an intersexed person should be decided, for the purpose of establishing marriage rights?

    Q. Does NOM claim that *any* MF couple will make a good home children, in ways that MM or FF couples cannot?

    Q. If not, which categories of MF couples would they prevent from marrying–those convicted of spouse or child abuse? Convicted of drug use? In bankruptcy? Homeless people?

    Q. In what way are 36-hour celebrity marriages healthier for society than those involving same-sex couples who've lived together for decades?

  • 287. JonT  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Q: Your organization often mentions how fearful you are regarding potential intimidation and harassment for your beliefs.

    Could you tell me how many christians are beaten or murdered every year in the US because of their religious beliefs?

  • 288. David  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Suspending belief for a moment and assuming that your campaign against gay marriage is truly motivated by the desire to preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage, what is your position on those who marry for economic convenience, or those who, during a drunken state of irresponsibility become pregnant and consider it "the only honorable thing to do"?

  • 289. Jexer  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:35 am

    If NOM is victorious and marriage equality is banned in all countries…

    1) What advice do you have for homosexuals who will be forced to enter sham heterosexual marriages to avoid discrimination and persecution? What advice do you have for the poor heterosexuals that end up married to an incurably gay closeted partner?

    2) Who will you attack next in order to keep yourself gainfully employed since you obviously have no other marketable skills other than hatemonger and rabble rouser?

    3) Considering that much of your campaign against marriage equality is based on the "destructive lifestyle of teh gays"… considering there largest destructive element of being gay is religious intolerance, what are you doing to eliminate that?

    4) I am a non-Christian American. Why do you think it is your religion's right to tell me how to live my life? You attack us, but in reality you merely use your twisted interpretation of the Bible to engage in bullying tactics for your own profit and agrandizement. What brand of sleeping pills do you take to help you sleep at night?

  • 290. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:40 am

    @ Jexer, I can answer your second question for you, especially since they won't be honest enough to answer it themselves.
    After they finish with the LGBTQQI community, they will then turn on the Jews. If you need any further proof of this, look at all the political attacks on Israel for standing up for their rights.

  • 291. Jexer  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:10 am

    You're probably right.

    I don't equate 'Jews' with 'Israel'. Some of my dearest friends are Jewish, I respect their beliefs and traditions. The actions of the government of Israel, however… *sigh* that's another discussion.

  • 292. Paulo  |  July 30, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I hope I am not too late to submit a question. A wickedly good idea by the way.

    My question to NOM: Since gays are going to be members of society no matter what the marriage law, how do you see them as full members of society? Are you advocating for ANY limit to discrimination or lack of benefits?

  • 293. Paul in Minneapolis  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:31 am

    My questions for NOM:

    Q. You often say that there's "something special" about the relationship between husband and wife. Is there nothing special about the monogamous relationship of two gay men or two lesbians?

    Q. You say that opposite-sex marriage deserves special protection because it is "unique." Aren't monogamous relationships between two lesbians or gay men also "unique?" If not, why not? If so, why don't they also deserve special protection?

    Q. Given that heterosexuals far outnumber GLBT persons, and that opposite-sex couples far outnumber same-sex couples, why aren't same-sex couples more "unique" and "special?"

    Q. No laws currently exist that require the married to procreate, or that require procreators to be married. Given this fact, how can the central purpose of marriage for all married couples be about children?

    Q. There is some dispute about the percentage of the population that is GLBT. If that percentage is as low as opponents of marriage equality often claim, how can such a small number of people entering same-sex marriages threaten the entire institution of marriage?

    Q. Why should we not believe that NOM endorses every word said on the podium by speakers it has invited on its tour?

    Q. How would you react if someone defined the entirety of heterosexualdom by its murderers, rapists, child molesters and promiscuous members?

    Q. Do you make any differentiation between civil marriage and religious marriage? If not, why not?

    Q. Opponents of marriage equality often say that GLBT people have the same rights as everyone else, that they have a right to marry anyone as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex. What would you think about a gay man marrying your daughter, or a lesbian your son?

    Q. You took umbrage at the sign Larry Adams brought to your Indianapolis rally, indicating that Mr. Adams does not speak for NOM. Why, then, do you characterize – on your website, in e-mails and in letters to your supporters – a handful of GLBT people protesting at your rallies as representative of all supporters of same-sex marriage?

    Q. Many religions require their faithful to abstain from activities that are perfectly legal – alcohol, tobacco, gambling, consuming caffeine, eating pork or shellfish, etc. The fact that the non-faithful drink, smoke, gamble, etc. does not seem to lessen the faith of believers; nor do these faithful generally advocate prohibitions against these activities for non-believers. Given that legalized same-sex civil marriage would not require any religious institution to marry any same-sex couple, how would same-sex civil marriage diminish the faith of those whose religion prohibits it?

    Q. Can't NOM find an extra fifty bucks in its budget so Maggie and Brian can visit decent stylists before going on tour?

    Q. Why do you hate America?

  • 294. John  |  July 30, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    Q. No laws currently exist that require the married to procreate, or that require procreators to be married. Given this fact, how can the central purpose of marriage for all married couples be about children?

    Q Why should we not believe that NOM endorses every word said on the podium by speakers it has invited on its tour?

    Q. How would you react if someone defined the entirety of heterosexualdom by its murderers, rapists, child molesters and promiscuous members?

    Q. Do you make any differentiation between civil marriage and religious marriage? If not, why not?

    Q. Opponents of marriage equality often say that GLBT people have the same rights as everyone else, that they have a right to marry anyone as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex. What would you think about a gay man marrying your daughter, or a lesbian your son?

    Q. You took umbrage at the sign Larry Adams brought to your Indianapolis rally, indicating that Mr. Adams does not speak for NOM. Why, then, do you characterize – on your website, in e-mails and in letters to your supporters – a handful of GLBT people protesting at your rallies as representative of all supporters of same-sex marriage?

    Q. Why do you hate America?

    Wow, talking about turning the tables! With the right introduction or leading up to, some of those questions are dynamite. I like the way the questions are framed.

  • 295. Jexer  |  July 30, 2010 at 10:35 am

    oh yeah… another question:

    Health and moral character are of the utmost importance when raising children, agreed? They should be raised in an environment that actively sets the right example, yes?

    How does your gluttonous self-destructive morbid obesity and chronic campaign-trail absenteeism set a healthy and moral example for your own children?

    Or do you simply care more about other people's children than your own?

  • 296. Anonygrl  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:38 am

    OK… once again… *I* am a fat person. We could lose the obesity stuff, it does not pertain.

    Thanks. 🙂

  • 297. Jexer  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    It does pertain. There are more solid documented scientific studies showing that being morbid obese is unhealthy.

    And if she's going to condemn the gay lifestyle for being an unhealthy way of life… she needs to mind her own shop before presuming to lecture the rest of us.

    I, honestly, respect your right to be whatever weight you are comfortable with being…. unless you're a hypocrite about it.

  • 298. Ray  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:06 am

    How about simply:
    What rights, if any, are committed same-sex couples entitled to?

  • 299. Jexer  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:35 am

    And if my last wasn't nasty enough… I really want to ask Maggie:

    "You hate us because you got preggers trying to 'cure' one of us, and we threw you to the curb, right? No, don't answer… I don't trust anything that comes out of your mouth… I want to ask the father… and a blood test better confirm his identity."

  • 300. Kathleen  |  July 30, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    I haven't caught up yet with all the comments, so if these have already put forth, please excuse.

    Q: If, as you often say, this is about giving children the best chance of being raised only in a family where there is a mother and a father, how does denying same-sex couples the right to marry accomplish that?

    And depending on their answer, you might follow up with: Oh, so your real purpose isn’t to deny marriage rights, it’s that you don’t want gay people to raise children – either adopted or their own? I still don’t understand how denying gay people marriage keeps them from raising children.
    If you have no objection to gay people raising children, why don’t you want the children in these families to have the greater stability afforded them by having their parents married?

    These should be asked calmly, and when wrapping up the interview, thank the person for clarifying his/her position.

  • 301. Matthew  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    My question:

    How many sins does your religion allow you to commit in your crusade to eradicate our Human rights? Do you have to repent for those sins or will you be rewarded with virgins or something in the afterlife?

    Greed: Your hatred of us seems to only be eclipsed by your greed for money. At every turn you are begging your supporters for money. You are always saying you need more to fight the fight. Yet you are so well off that you can pay your leaders 6 figure salaries.

    Pride: You act so proud of yourselves and your supposed moral values. So proud on fact that you insist you are the only moral ones left in the world. That your values are the only ones worth having. You even go so far as to claim that you and only you knows exactly what God wants.

    Then there is all the other stuff you ignore. "Do unto others". "love thy neighbor as yourself". "he who hateth his brother hateth the lord(not exact quotes but you get the gist)

    You want us to go back in the closet and pretend we are something else. So you are directly advocating against the whole "thou shall not lie". And a while slew of other commandments too.

    I could go on but I only half a 30 minute lunch 😉

  • 302. Ken Pierce  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Question: You have indicated that you invite speakers on the tour that don't always represent the core beliefs of NOM. Since you are comfortable in allowing speakers to "speak their mind", would you have the courage to invite a representative of the other side to speak as to why they support same-sex marriage? There are many religious representatives that would be more then willing to do so.

  • 303. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Oh, if only they would ask my husband to be one of their religious speakers. After all, he is a Lubavitcher rabbi.

  • 304. Leo  |  July 30, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    This question was inspired by the interview with Father Becker and his talk of "complete union" between a man and a woman.

    Question: Asexuals are people who are not sexually attracted to anyone at all, male or female. Do you believe that asexuals who want to spend a life together, but have no desire for a sexual union, should be allowed to marry? (a) if they are opposite sex; (b) if they are same sex

  • 305. You asked, and NOM’&hellip  |  July 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    […] the video, Arisha puts forward several of the questions you asked in today’s open question thread and other places, including the role of religion in our government, what people say when they mean […]

  • 306. Billy Pollina  |  July 30, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    In Arisha's latest Q&A with Brian Brown regarding the separation of church and state he skirts the issue and says that the first amendment protects religious liberty. He also says that he believes religious views should be expressed in the public square. He goes on to say there are churches that support marriage equality (Episcopol). Does he believe "religious liberty" entitles his church to enforce their religious views on churches that don't agree with them? Wouldn't it be supportive of religious liberty and the first amendment to express his church's views publicly if he wishes but only enforce his views in his own church and allow the rest of the public to enjoy their own religious views as they choose? Isn't that the definition of religious liberty?

  • 307. Steve  |  July 30, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    It doesn't matter what he thinks about it. That's how it is. Religious freedom also means freedom FROM religion. He can preach all he wants. He just can't put his beliefs into law.

  • 308. Mark Lawrence  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:12 am

    [email protected] " It seems like NOM's only argument against marriage equality is children. What about LGBT couples who don't have or don't plan on having children? Why should they be denied marriage equality? ” #heyNOM

  • 309. Linda  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:19 am

    Or….why should any couple who does not plan to have children be ALLOWED to marry?

  • 310. Jerry  |  July 31, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Keep your religion out of my civil rights. What makes you think that your religion is the one way that is right to believe? What about the many many other religions that don't agree with yours in many ways

  • 311. Linda  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Jerry-I agree with you. But here’s how they deal with that scenario: they pull out the ‘America is a Christian Nation’ card. Therefore, Christianity trumps any other religion. That’s why it is crucial that they rewrite history so that it appears that our Founding Fathers intended for America to be a Christian Theocracy.

  • 312. Daniel  |  July 31, 2010 at 8:28 am

    1) Since NOM is so keen on making marriage rights subject to a popular vote: Who in NOM would be willing to give strangers the power to approve or veto any of their “traditional” marriages?

    2) What other human rights should we allow the majority to keep for themselves & withhold from the minority using the bully power of their popular vote? (If “majority vote” is the deciding factor, why not vote to deny redheads land ownership & transfer their holdings into a public trust?)

  • 313. Chris  |  July 31, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    One would think that these people would want all this "evil" to happen. It means Jesus is coming back.

    Matthew 24:8-9 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name."
    II Timothy 3:1-5,7 "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, disobedient to their parents…
    Luke 21:32 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place."

  • 314. You asked, and NOM’&hellip  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    […] the video, Arisha puts forward several of the questions you asked in today’s open question thread and other places, including the role of religion in our government, what people say when they mean […]

  • 315. telyawot  |  July 31, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    looking closely at history, in fact 'christianity' has a controversial, fraudulent and murderous beginning.

    jesus was actually an essene initiate priest (a path tracing back to ancient egyptian traditions) and had intended james to replace him as head of his popular local ministry after his death. unfortunately the blowhard roman occupiers felt threatened by the simple authenticity of the ministry.

    james was killed (and subsequently downgraded in the biblical record,) while jesus' true followers were snuffed out by the romans, and his name was transferred to the packaging of their cynical new 'religion'.

    the roman paul, who founded the 'christian' sect of rome, was loathed as a liar, blasphemer, outsider and subverter by jesus' own ministry and contemporaries.

    'christianity', legalized in 312ad with the edict of milan, is in fact a secular crowd-control mechanism elaborately disguised as spirituality. its purpose was always political, to align the population of the far-flung disintegrating roman empire.

    jesus says not a word in the bible regarding homosexuality.

    leviticus was a lone crank in his time, a radical voice against the ancient traditions going on happily around him.

    the story sodom was about luxury and inhospitality. nowhere is (any) 'sexuality' mentioned as the 'reason' for its destruction.

    given this legacy, and considering the disastrous historical record of the church, what credibility can they rightly claim?

    i'd say we're all being extremely tolerant of their 'right' to project hate into the public sphere.

  • 316. Leo  |  August 2, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Based on today's interview:

    Do you support the right of people to lead fully secular lives if they so choose?
    Israel is currently the only democracy in the world that has no secular marriage. Do you think other countries, including the US, should also eliminate the institution of secular marriage?

  • 317. Steven  |  August 3, 2010 at 1:31 am

    Q: Brian,
    It seems that we are at an impasse when it comes to NOM’s desire to protect “traditional marriage” and same sex couple’s desire for equal protection under the law for themselves and their families. In your opinion, how can our communities work together to insure that all American couples and their families have equally protection under the law?

  • 318. [email protected]  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:19 am

    I asked this already, but will ask it again: "Given Maggie want to 'protect marriage', does she support the proposed Californian 'Marriage Protection Act' which would ban divorce? Does she and NOM plan to help with campaign financing, or gathering signatures, etc. as they did in Prop 8? If so, will NOM be hiring the same PR firm?"

  • 319. Prop 8 trial pre-decision&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:45 am

    […] I think it’s time to take a look back at that “Hey, readers: what would you ask Brian Brown?” open thread. Be sure to stop on over and ask Brian a question. I’ll let you know when it’s […]

  • 320. free bingo uk  |  August 24, 2013 at 2:09 am

    I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your site. It’s
    a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often.
    Did you hire out a designer to create your theme?
    Excellent work!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!