Shortly after the official results of the overwhelming victory for marriage equality in Ireland were announced Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, issued a statement with a spin that might cause even his ardent fans to blanch after NOM had tried to help bankroll the “No” effort. But Brown’s reactions today and leading up to the vote also spell out some themes NOM will probably pursue in its planned lie-and-whine-based international expansion.
After the Irish victory, Brown said:
“We want to thank David Quinn and The Iona Institute for fighting the good fight running the No campaign against tremendous odds in Ireland.
We are disappointed but not surprised with the apparent passage of a referendum in Ireland providing for the redefinition of marriage in that country. This is a reflection on the increasingly secularized nature of Ireland, together with the utter abandonment of principle by every political party in the nation, all of whom endorsed the referendum. This, combined with intense harassment of any group or individual who spoke out in opposition to the referendum, made it difficult for opponents. Despite this, millions of Irish citizens stood to vote to uphold the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Even with this decision in Ireland, the idea of same-sex marriage has been widely rejected by the community of nations around the world, where only 18 nations recognize same-sex ‘marriage’, almost all of them in the west, which represents less than 10% of the nations in the world.
If there is any relevance to the Irish vote for people here in the United States, it is that the US Supreme Court should take note that the people of Ireland at least had the opportunity to vote. This is what we demand of our justices — respect the right of people to define marriage in the law for themselves. If that occurs, we are confident that the American people will continue to support marriage in the law as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman in order to provide the ideal environment for any children born of their union.”
Let’s deconstruct this statement a bit:
- NOM is a Catholic-centric organization and strategist Frank Schubert considers protecting “traditional marriage” his “calling.” The Catholic population in Ireland is believed to be 84%, leading some to believe Ireland was close to a theocracy. NOM should not have expected to run against “tremendous odds” in this country.
- Given Ireland’s Catholic population, it is surprising that NOM is not surprised by the results—though it is not surprising that they would want to minimize their loss and attribute it to an increasing secularization of the country and its political leaders—which suggests NOM favors a country run on religious principles, otherwise known as a theocracy.
- Brown reverts to the old “victimization” whine NOM and other anti-LGBT groups developed during the battle over Prop 8 and during the federal Prop 8 trial—as exemplified by ProtectMarriage spokesperson William Tam who refused to testify fearing for the safety of himself and his family. Now Brown complains about how the “intense harassment of any group or individual who spoke out in opposition to the referendum, made it difficult for opponents.” Isn’t that known as political campaigning?
4: Direct, knowing, lie: “Despite this, millions of Irish citizens stood to vote to uphold the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Nope. Brown’s statement was put out after the official results came in. The vote was 1,201,607 “Yes” in favor of marriage equality and 734,300 “No” in opposition. Just over 700,000 is not “millions of Irish citizens.”
- NOM has lost every ballot measure since 2012 when North Carolina passed Amendment One. And since the Supreme Court overturned Prop 8 and DOMA, the American public seems to increasingly favor the position that same sex couples should not be discriminated against in civil marriage rights with the Gallup Poll on May 19 showing that 60% of Americans now support marriage equality. Additionally, on May 20, Gallup reported that a majority of Americans think gays and lesbians are “born that way.” Nonetheless, Brown whines that if only the Supreme Court justices allow people to right to define marriage for themselves, “we are confident that the American people will continue to support marriage in the law as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman in order to provide the ideal environment for any children born of their union.”
Of course, NOM’s stake in the outcome was high, with Brown’s increased attention to Europe and plans to go global.
On May 1, Brown sent out an email urging fiscal support for the anti-gay marriage forces in Ireland. In it, he spelled out many of the themes he is using internationally. As noted above, there is the “victimization” meme, as Brown claimed the “No” campaign “is receiving significant abuse and needs your help,” adding that the Irish public was being manipulated by “slanted” polls. In fact, polling over marriage equality in ballot initiatives is often all over the place, as it was in in 2008 predicting the outcome of the battle over Prop 8. If anything, the inaccurate interpretations of the polling influenced supporters of marriage equality that Prop 8 would be easily defeated, thus lulling “No on Prop 8” voters into apathy.
In that May Day email, Brown also explains how American marriage equality advocates are hypocrites for applauding the success of the Irish referendum while decrying a popular people’s vote here:
While we in the US have our eyes on the Supreme Court, the people of Ireland also are keenly engaged in the issue of redefining marriage. Interestingly, advocates for redefining marriage in America told the high Court that it’s up to the justices to take this step because “fundamental rights” should not be left to popular vote.
Yet in Ireland, same-sex ‘marriage’ activists have done just that — pushed a national referendum that would redefine marriage. Apparently “principle” is a flexible concept that can be molded to suit the objectives of gay and lesbian activists depending on the circumstances.
First of all, almost all LGBT groups and individuals advocating for marriage equality have stated that marriage is a “fundamental” constitutional right and that such rights, especially those that protect minorities, should not be put to a popular vote.
In fact, the whole notion of “principle” versus situation ethics is how NOM won Prop 8 in the first place. Yes on Prop 8 strategist Frank Schubert and his then-consulting business partner Jeff Flint needed to figure out how to overturn what the California Supreme Court had ruled was a “fundamental” right in In Re Marriages in May 2008. They created out of thin air the idea of the potential, unseen “consequences” of how same sex marriage might hurt children and thus must be stopped before it could do harm.
Schubert explained during a case study deconstruction of the Prop 8 strategy ( in videos that have now been made private) on March 28, 2009 in Washington, DC. 2009 at the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC):
“We knew from the very beginning that a campaign that was simply an affirmation of traditional marriage and did not develop a path that lead voters to consider consequences to legalized same sex marriage in California – that that formula would not be successful. We would not get to 50% of the vote. So we redefined the measure as not being about tolerance of gay relationships but about being about consequences of gay marriage.”
Flint said they needed to raise a doubt about something–
“…raising a doubt and projecting a doubt forward – that you have to get people to believe may happen but it hasn’t happened yet. So in this case, gay marriage had been legal for a few months and we wanted people to understand that that could mean consequences. But largely because it was a new thing, those consequences were something that could happen in the future.”
Additionally, Schubert said:
“What the research showed was that we could not win by simply affirming traditional marriage. People said, ‘Yeah, OK – but what’s the problem here. How does this impact me?’…. This forced acceptance [by the court] that gay marriage was now mandatory was a big deal – the consequences – specifically regarding religious freedom, religious expression and teaching of gay marriage in schools – and the education consequences become the most powerful in the course of the campaign.
That messaging has been used in every campaign since Prop 8. Buzzfeed’s Lester Feder reports that the “No” campaign’s messaging and name— “Mothers and Fathers Matter”—came out of discussions with NOM and Brown concedes that he talked to the leaders and Schubert consulted on polling and messaging. But:
The No side denies that it is borrowing tactics from California, saying it’s learned more from campaigns in eastern European countries like Slovenia in 2012 or Croatia in 2013, where referendums were passed curtailing partnership rights for same-sex couples.
“We wouldn’t be taking too many more lessons from Prop 8 than from elsewhere,” said David Quinn, head of the Iona Institute and adviser to Mothers and Fathers Matter. Quinn, who also writes a regular column in the Irish Independent newspaper, is widely regarded as the savviest campaigner on the No side.
“Obviously the only way two men or two women can found a family is by violating a child’s right to have a mother and a father.”
There is an old saying that one definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results. At some point perhaps the religious right will realize that a very real consequence and harm to a child is not allowing them to find any love at all, including in an LGBT family.