NOM’s Brian Brown must think that we are all as stupid as his constituency.  Really. We already knew that Brown’s intellect was mediocre. Today’s response to recent criticism (after the jump) suggests that we overestimated his wit. Brown wouldn’t be happy unless he could be an unhappy self-created victim.

Brian wants us to know that, when NOM links to editorials in the NY Times      or even the advocate, that does not constitute an endorsement.

Of course, when NOM does link to an external site, it does so to make a point. It explains that point in the text accompanying the link.

It seems unrebuttable that, when NOM links to an anti-gay article, it endorses those views.

Mr. Brown would also like you to know that he has never proffered an argument that “rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form.”

That may be. Brown relies on others to do so. Directly, NOM, Brown, Gallagher and Robert George all suggest, with little subtlety, that gays pose a threat to children. I don’t see much difference. How does George phrase it? Oh, right, gays “threaten the innocence of children.” He did so while he was still Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.

Some in the gay blogosphere are trying to assert that NOM–or me–endorses the view of every blogger/article NOM links to, by the act of linking to it.

This would lead to the absurd conclusion that NOM endorses the editorial positions of the New York Times, because NOM links to them–or The Advocate for that matter, as we often link to stories in the gay press.

If you want to know what NOM’s message is, there are abundant videos and press stories (including our own press releases) with me, or Brian Brown, or other NOM personnel actually speaking. Fair enough to criticize us for what we actually believe and say.

The standard “a link constitutes an endorsement” would cut off the free flow of ideas at the knees.

I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I’ve ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form. (If there is data that shows this, I’ve never seen it.)

I have written at this point hundreds of thousands of words defending marriage as the union of husband and wife, resting on the idea that society has a special and unique interest in unions that make new life (inside or outside of marriage) and that marriage’s main public mission is connecting children to their mothers and fathers.

I’m very proud of what NOM has accomplished and the way it has accomplished it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.