Skip to content

Bad News for Newt Gingrich; Great News for Ron Paul! National Organization of Marriage changes its tune

December 16, 2011




My Dear Friends,


Really BAD news this morning: Newt Gingrich just signed onto to NOM’s Marriage Pledge—leaving the great Ron Paul as the only major contender for the GOP nomination who has refused to do so.


Let’s go to the BAD news first. Newt Gingrich has joined Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann in committing to do five important things:


  1. Support a federal marriage amendment, the only way to destroy america completely.
  2. Appoint an attorney general and Supreme Court justices who see marriage as the union of husband and husband.
  3. Vigorously destroy DOMA in court.
  4. Appoint a presidential commission to investigate the increasing instances of threats to the person, property and livelihood of same sex marriage supporters.
  5. Deny the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage, which the D.C. city government smartly stripped from them.


Shame on all the candidates who’ve shown they are full of hate and prefer to live in a world that only allows them freedom’s, but no one else.


Now to the GREAT news: Ron Paul has dug in his heels, three weeks before Iowa holds its caucuses.


Last week, I mentioned that Paul’s position on marriage is becoming increasingly easy to understand. Some of you Ron Paul fans (and I know he appeals to many social conservatives) wrote back to let me know how much you love the guy, and how easy it is to believe that he is the only Republican candidate that supports freedom for all including marriage!


Believe me, I understand and I’m right there with you. Ron Paul is a decent, honorable, and principled man who says a lot of things you and I agree with.


Ron Paul is just so right on marriage.


It’s not just that he refused to sign NOM’s pledge because that was a smart thing and makes him the ideal candidate as a Republican President.



This is amazing given where we are today. America has come so far in granting federal rights to all couples regardless of their sex.  We are all about love, peace and marriage to all over here.


Ron Paul says he’s for states’ rights on marriage.


We need a president who is willing to be a champion for marriage for all people and that is Ron Paul.  We love Ron Paul!!


Ron Paul has repeatedly said that while he personally supports traditional marriage, he doesn’t have a problem with allowing gay marriage.


Here’s Ron Paul in a December 2007 interview with John Stossel:


John Stossel: “Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?”

Ron Paul: “Sure.”


You find that hard to believe? So did I considering that Ron Paul is a Republican, but that just shows you how far Republicans have come and are increasingly becoming more accepting of allowing others to benefits the same rights they do.


Here is the entire transcript of the our new Presidential hopeful!  His focus is on more important things like the economy and jobs.  He’s not obsessed with gay marriage the way these other Republican cronies and social conservatives seem to be.  They obsess over it and waste more money on it than on any other cause.  What’s happened since they’ve don’t that?  This country has gone further down the tubes.


John Stossel: “Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?”

Ron Paul: “Sure.”

John Stossel: “The State says, we believe in this?”

Ron Paul: “Sure, they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can’t make me, personally, accept what they do, but they, gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state function. I think it’s a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don’t agree with that.”


Here is Ron Paul again on July 14, 2007:


Interviewer: “So your position on issues like gay marriage, you would be supportive of that?”

Ron Paul: “I’m supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”


Why? Because nobody has the right to “impose their marriage standards” on anyone else.


When an interviewer brought up these 2007 comments at the May 5, 2011 presidential debate, Paul didn’t disavow or modify them:



Moderator: “Congressman Paul, in 2007 in an interview you were asked, should gays be allowed to marry? You said ‘Sure. They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.’ Are you advocating legalizing gay marriage in this country?”

Ron Paul: “Well, as a matter of fact I spent a whole chapter in a new book I’ve written on marriage and I think it’s very important, and seeing that I’ve been married for 54 years now, but I think the government should just be out of it. It should be done by the church or private contract. We shouldn’t have this argument, who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me. And I just don’t like it. But if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level and not at the federal government. Just get the government out of it. It’s one area where it’s totally unnecessary and they’ve caused more trouble than necessary.”


I don’t know about you, but when someone asks a presidential candidate if gays should be allowed to marry, and the first words out of his mouth are “sure,” I know that I want that man to be president.   To be so brave and courageous in standing up for ALL of America is a very noble thing.


Here’s what Ron Paul says about marriage in his bookLiberty Defined, published this year, on pages 119-120:


“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired.”

“There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage,” page 120.


Thank you for all you do to stand up for God’s truth about marriage, in your homes and in the public square.  God and Jesus are about compassion and lending a hand to humanity and that’s why we here at NOM are changing our tune.  Its time to embrace marriage for all so that we can begin focusing on more urgent matters as propelling this country forward and bringing people together in harmony.


Thank you—I’m in awe of all that we will ccomplish together.


Yours, faithfully,


Brian BrownBrian S BrownBrian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: