Brian Brown: Same-Sex Marriage Not Inevitable Nationally

Jun 30, 2013 Full story: WTMA-AM North Charleston 44

When asked whether same-sex marriage bans across the country will eventually be struck down following the landmark Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, that he didn't think that it would be "inevitable."

Full Story

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#21 Jul 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
YES, They would've been MUCH better ! And on the last day of The Obamaniac Regime, when the unemployment has plunged FOUR TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT, you and The Obmaniac are going to say "BUSH'S FAULT !", Right ?:)
Then you really aren't very bright.......but then your hatred for President Obama has truly blinded you!!!
Brian

Attleboro, MA

#22 Jul 1, 2013
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we'll say it's the republican congress's fault for not doing anything in 8 years except trying to outlaw abortions and keeping gays from marrying.
I forgot to mention trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, how many times now?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#23 Jul 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
YES, They would've been MUCH better ! And on the last day of The Obamaniac Regime, when the unemployment has plunged FOUR TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT, you and The Obmaniac are going to say "BUSH'S FAULT !", Right ?:)
Bush tax cuts were supposed to herals a new area of prosperity. Where did all the jobs Bush created disappear into? Oh yeah, a black hole. Where did all the increased revenues from all that growth disappear to? Oh gee, I don't know. I must have missed them.

Bush turned a half billion dollar surplus in the budget into over a trillion dollar--and climbing--deficit. Obama's deficit this year is lower than the one he inherited.

Oh but why am I trying to provide factual information to you? The only facts you like are the ones you pull from your butt.

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#24 Jul 1, 2013
I hope the USofA gets across-the-board marriage equality sooner rather than later. It's amazing how much has NOT been done while people waste the time and energy on what is clearly a human rights issue guaranteed by the Constitution.
Statistically here in Canada, it has HELPED marriage, families and children ... why is that simple fact ignored? Same reasons as universal health care, I guess.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#25 Jul 1, 2013
mark in Toronto wrote:
I hope the USofA gets across-the-board marriage equality sooner rather than later. It's amazing how much has NOT been done while people waste the time and energy on what is clearly a human rights issue guaranteed by the Constitution.
Statistically here in Canada, it has HELPED marriage, families and children ... why is that simple fact ignored? Same reasons as universal health care, I guess.
Obviously, you don't understand the U.S. Constitution, not the federal-state relationship.

"Human rights" are NOT "guaranteed by the Constitution", nor mentioned in it, nor even defined. STATES have the RIGHT to write their own marriage laws, and to deny marriage to whomever they see fit to do so (with only a couple of limited exceptions).

Please stay on your side of the line, since everything is peaches and cream and PERFECT in The People's Demokratik Socialist Republik Of Kanada.

:)
Brian

Attleboro, MA

#26 Jul 1, 2013
mark in Toronto wrote:
I hope the USofA gets across-the-board marriage equality sooner rather than later. It's amazing how much has NOT been done while people waste the time and energy on what is clearly a human rights issue guaranteed by the Constitution.
Statistically here in Canada, it has HELPED marriage, families and children ... why is that simple fact ignored? Same reasons as universal health care, I guess.
Will you marry me, so I can move to Toronto? The US is really beginning to suck!
Sheldon

Alexandria, VA

#27 Jul 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but President Obama took over a deficit from Bush......and Bush put us in 2 illegal acts of Policing actions
Hate to take us further off topic, but 2 illegal acts of policing actions? I can see how, perhaps, Iraq might fall under that category, even though the action was fully authorized by Congress. But I hope you're not referring to Afghanistan, where the President, as well as Congress, was fully within its rights to retaliate against a country which provided a launchpad for an attack on this country. But perhaps I mistakenly assumed which 2 illegal acts of policing actions you were referring to.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#28 Jul 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you don't understand the U.S. Constitution, not the federal-state relationship.
"Human rights" are NOT "guaranteed by the Constitution", nor mentioned in it, nor even defined. STATES have the RIGHT to write their own marriage laws, and to deny marriage to whomever they see fit to do so (with only a couple of limited exceptions).
Please stay on your side of the line, since everything is peaches and cream and PERFECT in The People's Demokratik Socialist Republik Of Kanada.
:)
Where the people are wealthier than in the US....

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#29 Jul 1, 2013
Sheldon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to take us further off topic, but 2 illegal acts of policing actions? I can see how, perhaps, Iraq might fall under that category, even though the action was fully authorized by Congress. But I hope you're not referring to Afghanistan, where the President, as well as Congress, was fully within its rights to retaliate against a country which provided a launchpad for an attack on this country. But perhaps I mistakenly assumed which 2 illegal acts of policing actions you were referring to.
U.S. military action against The Taliban and terrorists in Afghanistan, and against the government and military forces of Iraq WERE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. U.S. military action in bot of these countries was NOT illegal.

Furthermore, if Congress had desired to halt military action at any time in Afghanistan or Iraq, they merely had to refuse to fund military actions there. Instead, they continued to fund those military actions.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#30 Jul 1, 2013
Sheldon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to take us further off topic, but 2 illegal acts of policing actions? I can see how, perhaps, Iraq might fall under that category, even though the action was fully authorized by Congress. But I hope you're not referring to Afghanistan, where the President, as well as Congress, was fully within its rights to retaliate against a country which provided a launchpad for an attack on this country. But perhaps I mistakenly assumed which 2 illegal acts of policing actions you were referring to.
I agree. Afghanistan was not illegal, and it had sufficient cover from the international community. Nonetheless, our foray into Afghanistan was foolhardy. W is old enough to have seen the fate of other countries who deigned to tame that beast. He should have learned from history, or at least had advisers who knew the history.

And Iraq was more about competing with his dad than the safety of the country.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#31 Jul 1, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the people are wealthier than in the US....
UNTRUE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie... (PPP)_per_capita

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#32 Jul 1, 2013

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33 Jul 1, 2013
mark in Toronto wrote:
I hope the USofA gets across-the-board marriage equality sooner rather than later. It's amazing how much has NOT been done while people waste the time and energy on what is clearly a human rights issue guaranteed by the Constitution.
Statistically here in Canada, it has HELPED marriage, families and children ... why is that simple fact ignored? Same reasons as universal health care, I guess.
People are picking the facts that they want.
states rights

Girard, OH

#34 Jul 1, 2013
Larry wrote:
What will turn things on the fast track, anyone and I do say anyone who believes that ALL OF DOMA is wrong and HAMMER THAT HOME 24/7. We will make the difference. What will hurt all the law makers who stand on the high mountain, when they see their Towns, City's, and States lose income from the many thousand married gay couple that work for big corporations being unable to move to one of the banned DOMA States. Or the corporation not willing to move to one of the States because of the unleveled christens. The tide is turning and fast. All ABORD
Q) What logically follows gay marriages?
A) Civl lawyers!...waiting for gay divorces, and gay custody of their gender-confused adopted children

The leadership of each individual state of our great Union need to know that at the end of the day - they have an option.

Option A would be cowarding down and letting Obama and the Feds manage their decisions FOR them.
Option B is all about state government demanding complete sovereignty from the Feds in virtually all aspects EXCEPT national defense and a sound integrity of our national infrastructure.

Today, July 1 2013 marks the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg - arguably the bloodiest Civil War battle. What kind of friction led our nation to divide itself just over 150 years ago? Most folks today live in the belief that the Civil War was fought over the North's wish to abolish slavery in the South. Well, this is true. However there is a whole lot more to the Civil War than the slave issue. Unfortunately, the writers of our textbooks decided to omit the rest of the story.

Although abolitionists had been strong voices throughout the North for decades, the South's increasing demands for greater state sovereignty with less restriction (especially regarding cotton & sugar trade to/from Europe) from Washington D.C. was the fuel that stoked flames that ultimately led to the Civil War's beginning at Ft. Sumter SC. If a battle over state's rights instigated the bloodiest war in American history, beware folks...it can happen again!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#35 Jul 1, 2013
states rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Q) What logically follows gay marriages?
A) Civl lawyers!...waiting for gay divorces, and gay custody of their gender-confused adopted children
The leadership of each individual state of our great Union need to know that at the end of the day - they have an option.
Option A would be cowarding down and letting Obama and the Feds manage their decisions FOR them.
Option B is all about state government demanding complete sovereignty from the Feds in virtually all aspects EXCEPT national defense and a sound integrity of our national infrastructure.
Today, July 1 2013 marks the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg - arguably the bloodiest Civil War battle. What kind of friction led our nation to divide itself just over 150 years ago? Most folks today live in the belief that the Civil War was fought over the North's wish to abolish slavery in the South. Well, this is true. However there is a whole lot more to the Civil War than the slave issue. Unfortunately, the writers of our textbooks decided to omit the rest of the story.
Although abolitionists had been strong voices throughout the North for decades, the South's increasing demands for greater state sovereignty with less restriction (especially regarding cotton & sugar trade to/from Europe) from Washington D.C. was the fuel that stoked flames that ultimately led to the Civil War's beginning at Ft. Sumter SC. If a battle over state's rights instigated the bloodiest war in American history, beware folks...it can happen again!
Good luck with that.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#36 Jul 1, 2013
states rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Q) What logically follows gay marriages?
A) Civl lawyers!...waiting for gay divorces, and gay custody of their gender-confused adopted children
The leadership of each individual state of our great Union need to know that at the end of the day - they have an option.
Option A would be cowarding down and letting Obama and the Feds manage their decisions FOR them.
Option B is all about state government demanding complete sovereignty from the Feds in virtually all aspects EXCEPT national defense and a sound integrity of our national infrastructure.
Today, July 1 2013 marks the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg - arguably the bloodiest Civil War battle. What kind of friction led our nation to divide itself just over 150 years ago? Most folks today live in the belief that the Civil War was fought over the North's wish to abolish slavery in the South. Well, this is true. However there is a whole lot more to the Civil War than the slave issue. Unfortunately, the writers of our textbooks decided to omit the rest of the story.
Although abolitionists had been strong voices throughout the North for decades, the South's increasing demands for greater state sovereignty with less restriction (especially regarding cotton & sugar trade to/from Europe) from Washington D.C. was the fuel that stoked flames that ultimately led to the Civil War's beginning at Ft. Sumter SC. If a battle over state's rights instigated the bloodiest war in American history, beware folks...it can happen again!
Do you really think the South will try to secede again? Oh I hope you're right!
Brian

Attleboro, MA

#37 Jul 1, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think the South will try to secede again? Oh I hope you're right!
ME TOO! And take Texas too!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38 Jul 1, 2013
states rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Q) What logically follows gay marriages?
A) Civl lawyers!...waiting for gay divorces, and gay custody of their gender-confused adopted children
The leadership of each individual state of our great Union need to know that at the end of the day - they have an option.
Option A would be cowarding down and letting Obama and the Feds manage their decisions FOR them.
Option B is all about state government demanding complete sovereignty from the Feds in virtually all aspects EXCEPT national defense and a sound integrity of our national infrastructure.
Today, July 1 2013 marks the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg - arguably the bloodiest Civil War battle. What kind of friction led our nation to divide itself just over 150 years ago? Most folks today live in the belief that the Civil War was fought over the North's wish to abolish slavery in the South. Well, this is true. However there is a whole lot more to the Civil War than the slave issue. Unfortunately, the writers of our textbooks decided to omit the rest of the story.
Although abolitionists had been strong voices throughout the North for decades, the South's increasing demands for greater state sovereignty with less restriction (especially regarding cotton & sugar trade to/from Europe) from Washington D.C. was the fuel that stoked flames that ultimately led to the Civil War's beginning at Ft. Sumter SC. If a battle over state's rights instigated the bloodiest war in American history, beware folks...it can happen again!
Gonna wear butternut this time, too, crosspatch?

My Henry LIKES butternut.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#39 Jul 2, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Gonna wear butternut this time, too, crosspatch?
My Henry LIKES butternut.
I've got 2 butternut chickens, and not surprisingly they're always trying to bully the 3 black chickens.....

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#40 Jul 3, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you don't understand the U.S. Constitution, not the federal-state relationship.
"Human rights" are NOT "guaranteed by the Constitution", nor mentioned in it, nor even defined. STATES have the RIGHT to write their own marriage laws, and to deny marriage to whomever they see fit to do so (with only a couple of limited exceptions).
Please stay on your side of the line, since everything is peaches and cream and PERFECT in The People's Demokratik Socialist Republik Of Kanada.
:)
Thanks for enforcing one of my main reasons for leaving the USofA.
I got real tired of living with closed-minded imbeciles like yourself.
Have a nice life down there ... you obviously enjoy what you've helped create.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min WhyAllTheFuss 121,020
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min NTRPRNR1 270,144
Obama to broaden US effort to combat militants 5 min TEA 1,348
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Yeah 1,125,932
Dems want White House shakeup 6 min Go Blue Forever 186
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Rogue Scholar 05 179,323
GOP types accused of 'thinly-veiled racism' for... 7 min serfs up 200
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 26 min Frankie Rizzo 1,519
US Ebola Crisis Is A Media Myth, Claims Obama 1 hr MITT from URANUS 43

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE