10,000 New Yorkers to Politicians: Let the People Vote! - NOM Marriage News July 28, 2011


NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Sunday the people of New York laid down a marker: Politicians cannot sell out their base, sell out their principles, lie to their people, and pass a law which is a lie about human nature, without consequences.

Votes have consequences.

Thousands of New Yorkers turned out on a very hot Sunday, with a threat of thunderstorms, to make the message clear.

We estimated 10,000 people across the five cities that had rallies. I was in Albany and Maggie was in Manhattan, along with Sen. Rev Rubén Díaz and a number of local pastors organized by (evangelical) Bishop Joe Mattera. The Associated Press said there were "thousands."

And even a Wall Street Journal editor who is deeply skeptical of our capacity to get a marriage amendment through the legislature to the people had to admit:

"We happened to run into the group's New York City march yesterday as it crossed Second Avenue, and the turnout was impressive. It was the biggest demonstration we can remember seeing in the neighborhood, which gets a lot of them thanks to its proximity to the U.N. Most interesting, it was a very diverse crowd—we'd say a quarter to a third black, with lots of Hispanics."

We generated massive media on a day the mainstream media had set aside to celebrate gay marriage in New York.

More than 150 different radio and TV outlets, from WABC News to "This American Life," included a mention of "Let the People Vote" rallies, which were sponsored not only by NOM but by a coalition of local state groups.

International Business Times: "More than 10,000 supporters of "Let The People Vote" rallies marched in New York City, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo starting 3 p.m. on Sunday, urging the Legislature to put the issue of gay marriage before voters in a statewide referendum."

BBC/Reuters: "The National Organization for Marriage held rallies in New York City, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo on Sunday, accusing Mr Cuomo and lawmakers of redefining marriage without consulting voters."

Bloomberg News: "One of the rally's organizers, the National Organization for Marriage, also held events in Albany, Buffalo and Rochester. The group has pledged to spend millions of dollars ousting lawmakers who voted in favor of same-sex marriage."

Of course not everybody in print media got the story right. UPI was probably the worst: "Opponents of gay marriage maintained a low profile. The Times said an informal poll of New York clergy found the vast majority did not intend to address the issue in their Sunday sermons."

... a low profile?

LTPV Rally

We carefully did not aim our protest at individuals hosting private ceremonies, but at politicians in Albany who passed gay marriage without a vote of the people.

In Buffalo, for example, pastors confronted Mark Grisanti, the state senator who had repeatedly said he was "unalterably" opposed to gay marriage before voting for it.

In Buffalo, "You say that the Church now has special protection," Mount Olive Baptist Pastor Rev. William Gillson called out to Mark Grisanti. "Before you voted, I didn't need special protection."

Local TV news coverage was generally fair, especially in upstate New York.

Here's Megan Cruz's YNN coverage of the hundreds at the Albany rally, where I spoke.

BB Video

But the national network news coverage was biased in the extreme, incompetent, and, well, just plain dreadful, which may be no surprise.

A Culture and Media analysis of 239 programs aired on CNN from June 15 to July 15 found that pro-gay-marriage supporters were quoted or interviewed nearly four times more often than critics.

That's no surprise. Here's the real surprise: Of the major networks, CNN's biased coverage of our rally, was actually the least slanted. That's right—ABC, NBC, and CBS did an even more biased job than CNN.

Liberal analyst Howard Kurtz, on his "Reliable Sources" show on July 3, acknowledged "the media's celebration—there really is no other word—of the gay marriage debate in New York."

On the Today show and Good Morning America, ABC News and NBC News actually featured a tiny, infamous "Westboro Baptist" contingent of haters and blasphemers (for saying that God hates is to take His name in vain)—showing their photo and not even mentioning the massive "Let the People Vote" rally held around the corner.

Poor Elizabeth Hasselbeck of the View, whom we admire for sticking up for David Tyree (even though she's pro-gay-marriage), was one of those misled, attacking gay marriage protests as in "bad taste." (Pretty strong words for a Midwestern Christian!)

And on Fox News it was as if the massive rallies simply did not exist. We note with growing concern how rarely Fox News reports in a balanced way on the gay marriage issue—with a few shining exceptions like Bill O'Reilly.

If this were a one-off we might be more worried about what the mainstream media said. But let me assure you that this is just the beginning of an 18-month campaign to make sure that politicians in Albany cannot sell out marriage without consequences.

How are the politics unfolding? Well, Shirley Huntley, a black democrat from Queens who flip-flopped to vote for gay marriage, recently told reporters she thinks gay marriage will help flip the Senate back from Republican to Democratic control. Gov. Cuomo is expressing similar confidence that the gay marriage vote will be helpful politically.

"What I've said is that I believe [that for] the legislators who voted for marriage equality, this is actually going to be an asset to them in their campaign; I believe that," he said.

Meanwhile Republicans are justifiably nervous. One of the upstate Republicans who voted for gay marriage, Jim Alesi, was at the press conference with Gov. Cuomo and was nervously trying to forestall a primary challenge. "...Alesi has had a strained relationship with both the Republican and Conservative parties in his home district, for a variety of reasons predating his marriage vote, but cautioned Republicans against trying to oust him in a primary." reported PolitickerNY. "I don't think this is the make or break issue here," said Alesi. "I think it's important to understand for someone like me, if I were the loser in a primary, I don’t know of anybody else in my district that is going to hold this seat. ...So a loss in a primary for me, I think, would be disastrous for the Republican majority."

This is one of the things that Dean Skelos, a majority leader, ought to have considered when he agreed to bring gay marriage up for a floor vote. It's the majority leader's job to protect his caucus, not to win plaudits in the New York Times or help Andrew Cuomo run for president.

At the rally a reporter tried to relay the absurd meme that politically it was "good" for the Republicans to have helped pass gay marriage. Mayor Bloomberg's and Tim Gill's cash flowed into their coffers immediately after the vote, and a new lawsuit brought by our friends New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom even alleges an illegal quid pro quo (very hard to prove).

Greg Ball, who voted against gay marriage, has raised three times the money of any other freshman, including Grisanti.

We don't have to argue with mainstream media types. In 2012 New York will have an election. These senators will face their voters, in primaries and in general elections. We will find out if New Yorkers in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Long Island, and New York City really like electing politicians who lie, flip-flop and then brag about how noble it was to sell out their base and their constituents.

Will GOP elites nationally be misled by this absurd new meme that it's safe for Republicans to vote for gay marriage—not to mention abandoning the other social issues?

We got a very troubling, albeit only preliminary, warning sign from Gov. Rick Perry. We love Gov. Perry, who has a very strong record on life and marriage—but on the other hand, this just happened.

It happened at the Aspen Institute, a very upscale, insider gathering, where people from both sides of the aisle comes together to share ideas, rub elbows, and confirm one another as members of the cosmopolitan elite.

It was at this venue that Gov. Perry was asked about New York's gay marriage bill, and according to multiple reports he said he was "fine" with it because such decisions should be left up to the states.

Fine? Fine with gay marriage?

Somebody should ask him: Is he fine with Ruth Sheldon being threatened with criminal prosecution if she does not do gay marriages? Is he fine with Illinois attempting to drive Catholic adoption agencies out of business, too?

Will social conservatives really stand by and select as their standard-bearer a man or woman who is just fine with Republicans selling out their base to pass gay marriage in New York?

Rick Santorum, God bless him, immediately came out swinging, tweeting: "So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?"

Here's more on Rick standing up for marriage:


A gauntlet has been thrown down. The battle has been joined! Will other leading GOP candidates stand up for marriage?

Fortunately, as I write, we're getting the good news that Gov. Perry has taken the time to make it clear that he's not really "fine" with gay marriage in New York. In a just-released interview with the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, Gov. Perry reaffirms his support for a federal marriage amendment, saying, "I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me,' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed." On the marriage amendment, he said, "That amendment ... defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise. And it respects the right of the people in the state by requiring that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify. It's really strong medicine."

It's up to you and me to make sure Republicans insiders do not lead good men and women into imagining they can and should drop marriage and life from the Republican Party's mission. (Just as in New York we joined hands with Democrats seeking to hold their leaders accountable.)

As Maggie pointed out in her column last week, no issue unites Republicans more than the social issues, including life but especially marriage.

Even the latest polls, which show that the mushy middle can be pushed into saying they support gay marriage, show Republicans standing united, with 88 percent in the "not fine with gay marriage" camp.

One thing we promise you: We will not sell out the core truths of Genesis, not for any price.

Together you and I have done amazing things for marriage.

We will never give up, never give in, never sell our souls or our votes for a mess of pottage; we will continue to be, with love and clarity, your voice for your values.

Here's me, Maggie, and Sen. Rubén Díaz at last Sundays rallies


As Maggie said, "In the end, I promise you, truth and love will prevail."

God bless you!

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

PS: Will you stand with us to protect marriage? Whether you can give $15 or $150, you can make a difference to preserve marriage for your children and grandchildren.



  1. Lisa
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    There are more than those who where present at the rallies. In NYC alone, real marriage is put on the ballot and it will be overwhelmingly uphold to retain its true meaning.

    No matter how much the homosexuals instigators seek to ridicule the American public, theirs is a lie, no matter how they painted. Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr wrote; "An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

    Let the validity of the homosexual arguments for a redefinition of marriage stand or fall on its own merits before the people, not hide behind corrupt politicians. In NY and the rest of the nation. Let the people vote!

  2. holly vellani
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    No actually, in the end sadly, truth and love will NOT prevail. The constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees will, however.

  3. Louis E.
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    As long as courts misconstrue equal protection guarantees as meaning that practices the general welfare requires be discouraged have to be treated as unobjectionable because of absurd claims that desire to engage in those practices enrolls one in a protected class,we will need constitutional amendments to prohibit such interpretations.

  4. James Spencer Miller
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    I am an American Citizen, I hold A US Passport, and have used to go to Europe and Australia. I just do not understand why this group is SO afraid of SSM! Heterosexuals can get married as many times as they wish! Yet, loving SS couples are not afforded the exact same rights a Heterosexuals receive. Our Cause is not to get a "White Wedding" in a Church, but just to get the same equal rights as you do. All American citizens should have that right! Being Gay IS NOT A CHOICE! No matter how much you all want it be! Stop listening to your Preachers, and listen to your hearts, love is love...BTW this world has over 6 Billion people, so the Human Species is NOT at stake here! Sorry, but, your Bible is just mythology, same as the Greeks , Romans, and Egyptians! It is time to think for oneself here, and ask your self why I am so against this? Just saying!

  5. Randy E King
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    SSM is not a marriage; and that's the point. As an engineer I know that in order to marry two parts one part must have a male connector and the other part must have a female connector.

    If you would like to connect two parts with similar surfaces you must bond said parts by their pre-defined faying surfaces, but we know this bond is incapable of ever becoming a marriage - the joining of opposites.

    Were the laws of engineering written out of animosity to SSM?

    In the world of engineering the words "May" and "Must" are absolutes; these absolutes also apply to the rule of law.

  6. Mylar2001
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put up for a popular vote in the Deep South, I think we all know how THAT would've turned out. Sorry, but the right to marry one's spouse should not be a popularity contest.

  7. John Noe
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    We are not afraid of SSM but realize it is not good for our society and civilization. We have made great arguments for this cause and the other side cannot refute this. The other side does not want equal rights since they already have it, but wants special rights for themselves.
    Remember homosexuality is a choice freely taken by those who chose it. The right to practice this sexual act does not ential you to escape the responsibilities. No one but yourself stopped you from getting married.
    The Bible is not mythology but the spoken word of our almighty Creator who designed our bodies and knows how the sexual organs work. Science and biology have only confirmed waht the Bible says. The sexual organs are to be used with only one partner only and that partner must be of the opposite sex.
    You have the right to marry your spouse of the opposite sex. You do not have the right to make up your own laws as you want them. This issue has no comparison to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  8. SC Guy
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Good to see people standing up for what's right in New York. The 'Republicans' in NY who voted for this drivel need to be held accountable for their sins.
    On a positive note, a PPP (Democratic firm) released a survey this morning for blue-trending Virginia that finds that a solid majority oppose SSM:

    The poll finds that just 35% of Virginians support legalizing SSM while 52% believe it should be illegal. Interestingly, the poll finds that even a plurality of the 18-29 group (43%-37%) oppose gay marriage. The link is here:

    Other recent polls by PPP have found that Floridians oppose gay marriage 53%-37% while Pennsylvanians oppose it by 51%-38%.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    That spouses MUST,ABOVE ALL ELSE,be of opposite sexes is not a matter of a popularity contest.It represents the entire socially useful purpose of there being any such thing as marriage.
    Whether or not homosexual ORIENTATION is a choice does not absolve ANYONE from the responsibility NEVER to engage in homosexual ACTIVITY.
    And I say this as someone who thinks God does not write books and the Bible has plenty of flaws.

  10. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    SSM is an enabler of homosexual identity politics. Technically speaking, SSM makes no demands on sexual orientation; I venture to say most supporters of NOM would be as vehemently opposed to two same-sexed heterosexuals entering into a marriage, as they would be to two same-sexed individuals who happen to be sexually attracted to the same-sex, entering into a marriage. I also believe NOM supporters would be very supportive if a man and a woman, who consider themselves attracted to the same sex, were to commit to marriage with each other.

    SSM is about neutering matrimony--not about sexual orientation politics.

  11. SC Guy
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Another interesting survey by PPP and just released shows that New Jersey is surprisingly closely split on SSM:

    47% say it should be legal while 42% say illegal. Not too bad, imo, for a left wing state like NJ.

  12. Jpk020
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    So Louis you admit it shouldn't be a popularity contest yet you insist on voting?

  13. NY Fireman
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    I'm dismayed at how few of you see this issue for what it really is. Consider:

    What do driving a car, carrying a handgun, operating a home renovation business, and getting married have in common?

    Nothing - except the government, the state, require you to get a *license* - permission from the government! - do all of them.

    Can ANYONE seriously attempt to defend that state of affairs as regards marriage, the most important, intimate, personal, and spiritual event of a someone's life? When, why and how did we cede that authority to the state, and why on earth do we continue to accept it?

    Far too many people are fighting entirely the wrong battle here. Here's the answer: recognize this for what it is - a first amendment, freedom of religion matter. The very notion of a 'marriage license' is an offensive oxymoron.

    Put marriage back in the churches and synagogues and temples and even the atheist ceremonies, where it belongs. The state, and the law, should ONLY recognize, and perform, civil unions. For any and all consenting adults who want to enter into one. Get the state and the government and the politicians the heck out of the marrying business altogether, where they have no business being in the first place!

    My marriage is not your business, it's not the states business, it's not the peoples business, and it depends on no politicians or popular votes - it's MINE, between me, my wife, and God.


  14. TC Matthews
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Voting is not about popularity. It's the democratic way to decide how society will live. Welcome to the United States of America-- Land of the Free. I would rather vote than have you unilaterally decide for me what rules my family will live by.

  15. TC Matthews
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    NYFire, I would agree with you except for the need of the innocents.

    Marriage is an institution not just between you, your wife and God, it's also between you and your children and God. The state has a legitimate interest in promoting the healthiest position possible for society's children-- a stable home with a mom and a dad who love them and each other, and who are committed to one another for life. Children don't get to choose where they are born, they come to homes of all kinds, and when they do, they come, powerless to defend themselves or their interests. Parents have a responsibility to their children, but society has a responsibility as well, to encourage responsible procreation within the bonds of marriage.

  16. Marty
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Well said Randy E King.

    All the laws in the world cannot make separate "equal".

    Is Mother Nature a heterosexist bigot?

  17. Matt
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    I think children should be free from the fairy tale of the prince charming myth. Our race is not monogamous and therefore preparing children for that fact could reduce shock when the fairy tale goes south by more than 50%.
    Same w sexual orientation, we must drop that same fairy tale that everyones straight, it's a false teaching and the children are suffering for it.
    I think it's high time we get our noses out of books and listen to the facts and to our suffering.
    If we want to love God so much, our first lesson is loving our neighbor we might not like.
    The kids are safer and more stable with marriage gay or straight. Support it and our children will prosper. Suppress and you saddle kids with your prejudice for decades to come. I think St Peter may have some difficult words for those that deter living stable homes.
    I for one, am not about to chance it.

  18. BobbyRay
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Good point Marty!

    That is exactly why GLBTs deserve full marriage equality...because separate is never equal. Heck...some people are still trying to get away with calling real marriages fake ones. Hence why the courts keep ruling DOMA unconstitutional, and laws like prop 8.

    You are allowed to think whatever you want about gay families, but you aren't allowed to treat their legal civil rights differently than anyone else.. That includes CIVIL marriage rights.

  19. Ms. Broker
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    I find it a little hard to see how children can prosper if they are taught that SSM is a good thing. First of all, it puts them outside the will of God. Secondly, it indoctrinates them and plants a seed that might not be there otherwise. Now, little johnny is going to be taught that he can marry one of his little male friends and since up to a certain age children bond more with their own sex, now you've got exactly what the gays want. A home-grown homosexual.

  20. John N.
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    NY Fireman: There is a serious flaw in your argument. You did not ask why the government is in the marriage business in the first place. The marriage licenses are priviledges granted by the state and the benefits are priviledges granted by the state as incentives to procreation.
    Remember you can marry whomever you want and you can marry your wife in your church and you do not need a license to do so. If you have felt so strongly about this you and your wife could have exercised this option.
    The marriage license and the benefits that come with it are only fairly recent. The state was encouraging responsible child rearing and procreation. It said if you get a marriage license from us we the state will confer benefits to you. The only motive for the state in confering these benefits was incentives to procreate. WITHOUT THIS THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE STATE TO BE IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS.
    Why is this important? There is a societel need and benefit to us all in promoting procreation. The offspring continue the society, replace us workers when we retire, and pay the entitlement taxes. You see NY Fireman, I John N. and all others benefit from your marriage even though I do not even know you. Because your offspring replace me when I retire and will pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes when I retire.

    This is the purpose of the marriage license. This is also why SSM must be fought and rejected.

  21. Randy E King
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    Less than four percent of those that declare themselves to be same-sex enthusiast claim marriage as their right.

    Of those "married" fewer than half have other peoples children in their households; hardly a convincing argument for changing the definiton of the word marriage.

    Supporting the changing of our sacred institutions to accomodate an organized horde of miscreants will send the absolute wrong message to our children; it will tell our children - not theirs - that right and wrong is dependent upon how much money you have.

    3% of 300 Million = 9 Million

    4% of 9 Million = 360,000

    50% of 360,000 = 180,000 Potential

    80% of population -truly- married = 240 Million

    50% of 240 Million = 120 Million

    Seeking to harm 120,000,000+ just so 180,000 can feel better about the choices they made is pure insanity.

    (180,000 is 1/10th of 1% of 120,000,000)

  22. Rover Serton
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    REK. the dumbest math I have ever seen! A POE all the way.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    In the world of the same-sex enthusiast 1 + -1 = 2.

    Hey Rover was that a "so what?" defense; a "no it isn't" defense, or were you trying to shake things up a bit by providing the all so clever "No it isn't, but even if it was; So what?" defense?

One Trackback

  1. [...] we mentioned in our newsletter last week, Gov. Rick Perry's clarification shows that this debate matters deeply [...]

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.