NOM Defends Against Racism Charge by Race-Baiting


The embattled National Organization for Marriage, reeling from the release of internal documents that appeared to show the anti-gay organization was keen on stirring up racial tensions in order to oppose marriage equality, has hit back against claims the group is racist — by continuing its race-baiting language.

Said NOM president Brian Brown in a press release, emphasis mine:

“The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was formed in 2007 and has worked extensively with supporters of traditional marriage from every color, creed and background. We have worked with prominent African-American and Hispanic leaders, including Dr. Alveda C. King, Bishop George McKinney of the COGIC Church, Bishop Harry Jackson and the New York State Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz Sr., all of whom share our concern about protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”

As Care2 reported earlier today, the Human Rights Campaign yesterday secured unsealed documents from a court case into NOM’s campaign funding in Maine.  NOM had stridently resisted releasing these documents.

Page 13 of the document showed NOM at its race-baiting worst:

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks–two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

The document, which we broke down for you in considerable detail, also revealed NOM’s plans for fighting marriage equality internationally and its plan to recruit “elite” kids to take up the fight.

And NOM’s tactics have now made mainstream media news, with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts covering the story (h/t The New Civil Rights Movement):

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read our full breakdown of the NOM revelations and the document itself here.

To read our full coverage of this unfolding story please click here.

Related Reading:

NOM Boycotting Starbucks Over Marriage Equality Support
Santorum: Gay Partnerships Don’t Benefit Society
Republicans Stand Up for N.H. Marriage Equality

Image used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to fibonacci blue.


Ra Sc
Ra Sc5 years ago

It's unsurprising that a group founded to support bigotry would try to use bigotry as a tactic.

Rin S.
Rin S5 years ago

This just makes me so mad. I hate conservatives.

Kandy B.
Kandice B5 years ago

Ruth 1:16-17- and then why when a son is born between Ruth and her husband (who she eventually marries out of convenience the village exclaims that a son was born to NAOMI (Ruth 4:17) and the town reminds her of Ruth's love despite her marriage to her husband..acknowledging fully the relationship that they share..(Ruth 4:15). Many say that there isn't any evidence to support that they were intimate..LGBT relationships do not have to be sexual to show TRUE intimacy. Being with the same sex, is completely different than being with the opposite sex. One thing is clear however,the bible directly advocates two women who made vows, lived together for life, loved each other deeply, adopted each other’s extended families as their own, and relied on each other for sustenance — as do many lesbian women today. Instead of condemning these relationships, the Bible celebrates them; and even GAVE them their own book in Scripture. NOW..why would GOD do that..if they were to be hated as an abomination? I personally think he did it because he knew that there would be bigots coming in his name and he wanted to be able to have scripture that they couldn't specifically decipher in order to eliminate it completely, so that when a time like this arose we would know EXACTLY how he felt and where he stood!

Kandy B.
Kandice B5 years ago

Then there is the story of God Saving A Gay Man In Acts 8:26-40- (JESUS and PHILIP)..Where the true definition of “a true eunuch is not one who is unable, but one who is unwilling, to indulge in pleasure” [with a woman]. Common sense he is not unable, but unwilling because he is not attracted to women… same thing with women in comparison to men…not unable just not justified, it would be purely out of lust..not out of love...and LUST is the SIN..not HOMOSEXUALITY!
Then of course there is the infamous story of David and Johnathan where the church swears their relationship was completely platonic..yeah...if you read the story..and are able to tell me of a man who shares those kind of feelings (weeping, kissing, laying naked with another man) where his father gets pissed at the dinner table and blames his mother and tells him that he shamed the family (1 Samuel 20:30)...THEN maybe I would believe you (or else believe the man you are speaking about is a severe closet case...
But then you would have to explain to me the story of Ruth and Naomi and why they spoke their love to one another in the same conviction that Adam and Eve did (the precise scripture that gets proclaimed in celebration of wedding ceremonies)

Kandy B.
Kandice B5 years ago

How can NOM claim to be about love and then do nothing but preach division? Mind you this coming from the same illogical morons who instituted segregation back when they preached that colored people carried different diseases than whites did!!! They are singing the same tune just in a different melody; how can their so called "supporters not see that?

It amazes me how hypocritical these people are! Even their scripture talks about homosexual couples yet they choose to define it differently in order to be comfortable in their own skin! I bet GOD is beyond livid with the fact that they not only are leading people to misinterpret his word but that they PURPOSELY changed it just to be sure that people FOLLOWED what they WROTE into scripture! Look for instance at Mathew 19:3-12 where it talks specifically about marriage- anyone who thinks that an eunuch is a castrated man needs to have their senses thoroughly examined! Hello...since when can you be BORN castrated? It means can be BORN gay, some people have changed their sex (transgenders) and some have chosen this lifestyle because they do not want to lust after someone they are not attracted to (because THAT is a SIN), all of which is done to get into the kingdom of heaven. It goes on to say….”he that can accept it, let him accept it”..another words God does so why shouldn’t you?!?

Christopher Fowler

For a group claiming to protect marriage they sure don't do anything to ban divorce. Am I the ONLY one that noticed that?

I know that Steve R. didn't take notice of it, but then if it's a far right wing hate agenda, people like him never see the flaws in it.

Steve R.
Steve R5 years ago

"Race baiting"???

Is that like Obama posting a YouTube video titled "African Americans for Obama"?

I KNOW Steve Williams would NOT vote for Romney if he posted a "Whites for Romney" video, right Stevie boy?

Or perhaps it's not "race baiting" if a black fella does it?

Glenna Jones-kachtik
Glenna Kachtik5 years ago

How can you deny gay couples civil rights held by straight couples & then say this isn't about civil rights? Illogical.

Even the Bible didn't talk 1 man 1 woman....sometimes (as in the case of King David) it was 1 man, 700 wives & 300 concubines. Abraham Sarah Hagar (although she was just a serving girl, he still had sex with her - with Sarah's blessings - and begat Ishmael), Lot & his daughters. Maybe Job had so many troubles because he was faithful to his wife???? The point is they are Romanticizing stuff that wasn't romantic. Gay people existed in all sorts of cultures. Women were property. They were sold to important men to cement bonds, gain new lands, prevent wars. This idea that a woman met a man & fell in love, married him & lived happily ever after is just a crock of BS. Women sometimes did grow to love the man they were married to; but polygamy was the rule of thumb in those days & it was all about heirs. Look at the number of passages that dealt with women & heirs. In order to continue blood lines, the brother or father was to marry the widow so she might have children. Lot's daughters got him drunk & had sex with him so that his bloodline would continue....
Well, women are no longer chattel & we aren't going back there.

Terry T.
Terry T5 years ago

NOM lives up to it's Hate Group status.

Lauren B.