Opinion
              A program and an Illinois rainbow flag is placed on a seat for spectators who will witness Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signing the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, during ceremonies on the campus of the University of Illinois Chicago Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
              A program and an Illinois rainbow flag is placed on a seat for spectators who will witness Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signing the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, during ceremonies on the campus of the University of Illinois Chicago Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)   

2014 may be the year of decision for marriage

Photo of Brian Brown
Brian Brown
President, National Organization for Marriage
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      Brian Brown

      Brian S. Brown serves as President of the National Organization for Marriage after serving as the Executive Director of NOM-California in 2008 and Executive Director of NOM until spring of 2010 when he was named President. Prior to coming to NOM-CA, Brian was the Executive Director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. During the five years he was with the Family Institute, he developed it into one of the largest statewide pro-family organizations in the Northeast. He now brings that organizational expertise and New England familiarity to his work at NOM-CA. Brian is a C. Phil. at UCLA in American History, earned his B.A./M.A. in Modern History at Oxford University, and received his B.A. in History from Whittier College. Brian and his wife have six young children.

There’s a reason why gay ‘marriage’ advocates have focused much of their attention on forcing a redefinition of marriage through the courts. They realize that when the American people get involved, they consistently demonstrate their support for true marriage including voting for constitutional amendments to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman in over 30 states.

We got a powerful demonstration of where the American people stand over the past ten days as they turned out in overwhelming support of Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynasty empire. Robertson, a devout Christian, colorfully expressed the view that men and women were made for each other and that, according to the Bible, homosexual unions are sinful. In essence, he expressed a traditional Christian viewpoint on human sexuality. For that matter, it’s a viewpoint shared by virtually every major religion.

But expressing a Christian viewpoint on human sexuality is not acceptable to the left. Immediately, two gay rights groups demanded that Robertson be fired by the A&E television network, calling his views “vile.” Within hours, A&E succumbed and suspended Robertson from his own show.

A&E’s reaction was no doubt welcomed by the left, but it was also likely expected. For some time now, gay advocacy groups have been able to utilize harassment and threats of boycotts to bully individuals, businesses, and church groups who simply don’t want to endure a public battle over personal beliefs.

But the Robertson family would not be bullied. They stood strong and announced that they could not imagine the show continuing without Phil at the helm. And the American people rose to support them.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) launched a petition drive urging A&E to reinstate Phil Robertson, as did numerous other individuals and groups. All told, millions of people publicly lent their names to actions demanding Robertson be reinstated. Tellingly, Facebook users who “liked” pro-Phil pages outnumbered by many times those who “liked” A&E.

During the lull of the Christmas holiday, A&E realized the magnitude of their error and reinstated Phil Robertson amid a few paragraphs of self-serving rhetoric about tolerance.

This is not the first time the country has reacted to homosexual activists’ bullying with a show of support for true marriage. In 2012, hundreds of thousands of Americans flooded Chick-fil-A restaurants to support the CEO for expressing that he supported marriage as the Bible defined it. The demand for a boycott by gay advocates fell completely flat.

These same advocates hope that federal judges will be less responsive to public sentiments and have increasingly sought to manipulate the law through the courts. In recent weeks federal judges have redefined marriage in Utah and undermined it in Ohio. Lawsuits to redefine marriage are pending before federal judges in countless other jurisdictions.

This comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s terrible ruling earlier this year to invalidate a key section of a federal law that defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. Though the opinion in Windsor v. United States  upheld the right of states to define marriage themselves, activist judges are nonetheless using language in that decision to justify redefining marriage.