NOM's Brian Brown: "victims" of the "new gay marriage regime"

Brian Brown, president of American anti-gay group the National Organization for Marriage, today posted that the New York marriage equality law is victimizing Christians:

We've already met the first victims of this new gay marriage regime. Town clerks, charged with a duty to issue and record marriage licenses, are faced with a stark choice: give up stable employment in the midst of a troubled job market, or give up their religious convictions about marriage. Two clerks have already resigned; others have been warned that failure to comply with the new law could land them in jail. Who will the next victims be? A wedding photographer or owner of a reception hall? Parents of public school children who object to curriculum changes this fall? How long before the new law impacts you and your family? The answer from Albany is clear: We couldn't care less.

Rob Tisinai put it best in a June 29 post about an elderly clerk who NOM identified as the "first casualty" of the marriage equality law.  Tisinai's response is worth quoting at length:

Suppose an on-duty police officer sees a known homosexual getting stomped to death in an alley by two men shouting, “Die, faggot, die!”  He does nothing to stop it, and he lets the thugs escape, because he believes in Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

His religious beliefs make it impossible for him to intefere with what he views as God’s will, or even to hold the assailants responsible.

Should this officer be penalized?  Or would that violate his religious freedom?

I’d like to know because NOM continually warns that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty . . . Barbara MacEwen is a public employee. She’s an elected government official demanding the privilege of not following the law.

Who’s asking for special rights now?

What other “rights” does NOM think Barbara MacEwen should have? The right to withhold licenses from interracial couples? From a divorced person who wants to remarry? From a Catholic and a Baptist planning to marry in a Baptist church?

All those unions have been considered immoral by someone’s religion. Where does NOM stand on these items? Because as far as I can tell, NOM conception of religious liberty include the right of public servants to ignore laws they don’t like.

At this point, I was going to bring back the police question I asked at the beginning, but I thought of another I like better:  A number of states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, so…

…if NOM wants to let town clerks pick and choose the laws they’ll recognize according to their religion, then shouldn’t clerks from gay-friendly faiths be able to issue same-sex marriage licenses regardless of state law?

So tell us, NOM. Tell us exactly which religious liberty protections special rights you’d like to have.

This Sunday, as the first same-sex couples begin to get legally married in New York, NOM plans to hold four hate rallies demanding a public vote on the law.