NOM To GOP Senators: “We Pledge $2 Million to Reverse Same-Sex Marriage in New York”


“Politicians who campaign one way, and vote the other, can expect consequences come election time,” Brian Brown, president of NOM

NEW YORK – The National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) president, Brian Brown doubled his previous pledge, promising to commit "at least $2 million" in elections in 2012 to make sure Republicans understand that voting for gay marriage has consequences:

“The Republican party has torn up its contract with the voters who trusted them in order to facilitate Andrew Cuomo’s bid to be president of the U.S. Selling out your principles to get elected is wrong. Selling out your principles to get the other guy elected is just plain dumb.

Gay marriage has consequences for the next generation, for parents, and for religious people, institutions and small business owners. Politicians who campaign one way on marriage, and then vote the other, need to understand: betraying and misleading voters has consequences, too. We are not giving up, we will continue to fight to protect marriage in New York, as we are actively doing in New Hampshire and Iowa.”

NOM’s pledge to commit at least $2 million in the 2012 elections to hold politicians accountable for their vote includes independent expenditures as well as through NOM PAC New York.

“The New York Republican Party is dysfunctional. When Democrats control a chamber, they refuse to permit the people to vote for marriage. When they are a minority, as in Wisconsin and Indiana, they even flee the state to prevent a vote on a bill their base disapproves,” noted Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. “Contrast that with the behavior of the Republican party today. The Republican Party in New York is responsible for passing gay marriage, and sadly it’s the families of New York who will pay the worst price of the new government-backed redefinition of marriage.”


  1. Jay
    Posted June 26, 2011 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    Gay marriage will never hide the fact that homosexuality will never be the best way for a man to live out his life.

  2. Posted June 26, 2011 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    Interracial marriage runs counter to God's plan:
    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
    (Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3 (1967))

    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. ed. 2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S. Ct. 1824, 18 L. ed. 2d 1018):

    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations." Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

    Baker v. Nelson , 191 N.W.2d 185 at 187 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1971)

  3. AnonyGrl
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    Jay, it would not be the best way for YOU to live out your life.

    You have no idea what is the best way for others to live out theirs. How about you just let them work it out for themselves? After all, no one is trying to tell you who you can love.

  4. Fedele Razio
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:09 am | Permalink

    One simple fact will continue to hold true: if you are in a same-sex relationship you are not married.

    Even if a piece of paper with a government stamp, even if everybody around you say "yes, you're married", your body and your genetics will continue to tell you either:
    "you're a male, complementary to a female" or
    "you're a female, complementary to a male".

    You can continue to lie to yoursel all life long, but your body will continue to tell you the truth.

  5. chris from CO
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 3:14 am | Permalink

    Coming on this website today while my partner is watching youtube, listening to the WB Church stuff, wow it amazes me the crap that comes out of their mouths is reflected in your followers. Just a different outlet. Please understand that hate is not going to win in any state. We did see 31 states vote against equal rights for gay people but a majority vote was needed and in most votes it was a slim margin. Following behind my generation is a group of young people, that clearly supprort the equal rights of all citizens in America, they will change these 31 bans. I'm not hopeful, I understand that in AMERICA the slightest form of unjust in this country will not be tolerated. Change is in the air.

  6. John
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 3:39 am | Permalink

    Hey, I've just thought of an even better way to spend $2m. Let's create a bill that would ban NOM directors, staff, donators, members, etc. from marrying and procreating and then throw money at politicians to support it. I think we can all agree this would lead to a happier, healthy future for us all.

  7. Fedele Razio
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    @Chris: "Following behind my generation is a group of young people, that clearly supprort the equal rights of all citizens in America, they will change these 31 bans."

    Chris, you forget that:

    a) the problem is not with your rights, but with ours; we as heterosexuals with kids, want our special biological relationship with our kids recognized by the government;

    b) youg people become older, and wiser; and America is becoming older, and older, even if not yet wiser and wiser.

    Time will tell.

  8. Don
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    chris from CO:

    Homosexual activists are the worst kind of hypocrites. While they talk civil rights, they practice blatant racial discrimination from coast to coast.

    The fact that hate isn't going to win in any state explains why the voters of Maine overturned homosexual "marriage" passed by the state legislature. Voters wouldn't tolerate the hate inherent in such legislation.

    Over 30 states chose to protect and preserve traditional marriage. In California and Maine, such measures passed by a margin equal to or greater than the margin by which Barack Obama won the presidency. "Slim" margins don't mean a thing when it comes to voting victory.

    The predictions for the future made by homosexual activists don't have a very good track record. Prop 8 wasn't going to get on the ballot. It wasn't going to be passed by voters. Homosexual "marriage" was a "done deal" to be legislated into existence in Maryland and Rhode Island. Better take your crystal ball back to where you bought it and ask for your money back.

  9. Mike Brooks
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Anonygirl -

    It's ironic that homosexuals speak about not wanting people to tell them how to live, but then they demand that they can be "married," in essence living how society expects heterosexuals to live.

    Homosexuality is a mental illness; those afflicted with it are inclined to not use their reproductive anatomy for its intended use. Psychologically, that has to be a damaging trait, yet homosexuals embrace it. That's like a man who refuses to walk, opting to always sit and use his legs only to move his chair in and out. Sure, you can live that way, but it's a waste of a good set of legs.

  10. bman
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    @Chris".... hate is not going to win in any state.


    We did see 31 states vote against equal rights for gay people....

    Its more accurate to say they voted against "same sex marriage or gay marriage ."

    Your statement, "equal rights for gay people" is broader in scope than what they voted on, and its biased because it presumes gay marriage is a "right," when that is in dispute.

    The majority of courts that have considered the issue have said same sex marriage is not a fundamental right.

    Also, in regard to your statement, "....hate is not going to win in any state," hate was not the reason that 31 states voted against same sex marriage in the first place.

    There are many good and valid reasons to vote against same sex marriage - natural order, religion, public morality, philosophy, law and behavior theory, child development, preserving American tradition, preventing the collapse of western civilization, parental instincts, protecting the true meaning of marriage, among others.

    Whoever goes around saying its about "hate" misrepresents the true nature of the issue, and such a person is trapped in their own bias and bigotry.

  11. Comey Arifidly
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Isn't anyone calling for a federal marriage amendment after what happened in New York?

  12. Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Isn't anyone calling for a federal marriage amendment after what happened in New York?

    Most proposals for such an amendment merely reserve to the states the power to define marriage as between one man and one woman (and for Congress to do the same with respect to D.C.)

  13. DJ
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    NOM will you post my commons or til me why not?

  14. bill cope
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the info. Uptil now thought a federal amendment, could somehow ban SSM for all the states.

  15. DJ
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    NOM, is my last comments for this post ok?

  16. john
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    There sure appear to be quite a few self-satisfied individuals who maintain a level of certainty with regard to their approval of gay marriage and belief that the question is settled.
    Conclusions from studies regarding the reasons for and processes involved in complex human behaviors are almost inevitably speculative and full of tenuous connections, because of the number of possible interpretations of any such complex phenomena and of the great number and significance of the uncontrolled variables involved. To be balanced, one should consider interpretations and speculation from the opposing point of view. Such interpretations and speculation could include:

    1) Hundreds of millions of years of evolution designing male and female to fit together physically, sexually, emotionally, and intellectually.

    2) Humans are not ants and not likely to adjust to all-female society easily.

    3) Small hunter gatherer groups coming together to form larger and larger modern groups, originally based on agriculture, provide many challenges. Difficult to create large society without barbarity and cruelty, and many forms were developed, but one-man one-woman marriage alone provided the basis for the creation of harmonious societies and modern civilization.

    4) The most fundamental bonds holding together human civilization are those of men with women, which provide a sort of glue, evolved over millions of years. Dissolving that glue and breaking those bonds leads to societal disintegration and the erosion of civilized values.

    5) The most likely explanation for the development of “gay genes” in males would be that some genes are triggers that turn weak, non-dominant males into homosexuals so as to minimize conflict with the dominant males who are competing for the women.

    6) Members of lesbian groups often claim that lesbianism is a choice and it is choice they hope to convince all women and girls to make as they create a women-only human race. This is consistent with the observation that there appears to be no evolutionary advantage for women to have a “gay gene.” It is plausible that women are simply adaptable sexually, as they were never as powerful as men and often for their own survival or reproduction had to submit to the will of others, and so all women can become heterosexual, bisexual or lesbian.

    7) Since in the Western countries women control reproduction and child-rearing, including the inculcating of values in children, it is reasonable to assume that the increase in the incidence of lesbianism in the past few decades is at least in part the result of a lesbian movement, composed of groups with the intention and ability to convert greater and greater numbers of females into lesbianism. This has led to efforts to create universal acceptance of the idea that women can do everything of value as well as men can, with a somewhat subtle implication that women and men are equal in every way, except where women are superior, as in being more critical in reproduction and in being more peaceful, less violent, more docile, more patient, and generally more civilized, making men redundant, unnecessary, and even problematic.

    8) Because a lesbian movement that involves promoting the lesbian lifestyle and converting women and girls to it is real, and because recognition of that in the general society could lead to strong attempts to resist it, lesbians are generally happy to have gay males form the face of the gay movement, as they do not appear to pose a threat to grow as a movement, i.e., there is no real growing gay male movement, and fundamentally alter society’s composition as they are not in control of reproduction and child-rearing.

    9) One of the flaws in the reasoning behind this lesbian movement, which involves increasing mistrust, misunderstanding, and hostility between the sexes, and attacking ideas of common purpose and common interests for the whole of humanity, is that it assumes that the goal of an all-woman society is realizable, ignoring the likelihood that as it dissolves the social bonds between men and women, the social disintegration and chaos that grows reduces the extent to which an agreement on common goals and values is possible, reducing the opportunity for growing solidarity among the non-elites in society to avoid the predations of the powerful, allowing for the more predatory individuals and groups to gain control, leading to a more barbaric society, where physical force will become more important and social progress will become impossible.

    The debate may never end. If only the militant feminists would allow others to live in peace without their nonsense, then we could compare societies with the insane practice of gay marriage against similar societies that do not allow the practice. I expect to see the societies that do allow the practice to disintegrate over time, as the fundamental bonds holding human beings together will be dissolved, and such societies to become mired in poverty, misery, and despair.

  17. Jeanette
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    This must and will be reversed.

  18. Jeanette
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    New York state had a law in place that said no to same sex marriage and it was right. But Cuomo and those working with him have betrayed the people of New York state. They passed this law like thieves in the night. They worked together secretly like thieves in the night.

    This law legalizing same sex marriage in New York State must and will be reversed; of that I have no doubt.

  19. Lady Aizen
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    LaJoie Ward: Parents. Now that you bring that up, isn't it ironic that people are looking to get MARRIED, the chief reason of which (regardless of whether you come from an evolutionary or Biblical world view) should be to procreate, while they themselves are unable to have children with each other? If everyone were gay, there would be no human race.

    1. Marriage is not about procreation. Marriage is about commiting yourself to your partner, not creating babies? Did you know that a growing number of couples are choosing not have children?

    2. If everyone were infertle the human race would die out. Should we ban inftertle couples from getting married too?

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] we all know, the National Organization for Marriage has pledged $2 million dollars to reverse the recent ruling which gives marriage equality to same-sex couple in New York and to [...]

  2. [...] es que la ultraconservadora National Organization for Marriage clama ya venganza y anuncia una inversión de al menos dos millones de dólares en una campaña cuyo objetivo será evitar la reelección, en 2012, de los senadores que han [...]

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.