NOM BLOG

Governor Perry Signs Marriage Pledge!

 

2012 NOM Marriage Challenge

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Governor Rick Perry

Kudos to Gov. Rick Perry for making it clear: he's a marriage champion!

Our purpose in creating the Marriage Pledge was to move presidential positions from vague values statements to concrete actions to protect marriage. With his signature yesterday, Gov. Perry joins Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum as a signer of NOM Marriage Pledge. (Click here to view Governor Perry's signed pledge.)

Each of the frontrunners for the GOP nomination have now signed the NOM Marriage Pledge, going on record with a strong commitment to protecting marriage. Governor Perry's signature makes crystal clear that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, gay marriage is going to be a bigger issue in 2012 than it was in 2008, because the difference between the GOP nominee and Pres. Obama is going to be large and clear.

We've just finished our weeklong Values Voters Bus Tour with FRC Action and the Susan B. Anthony List. On Labor Day, NOM Founding Chairman Robert George will be asking questions of the candidates at the Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina.
And now all the frontrunners for the GOP presidential nomination have signed the NOM Marriage Pledge, promising to defend DOMA, support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, appoint judges who will be faithful to the Constitution, and protect the religious liberty of marriage supporters.

And this is just the beginning! By getting involved early, we are helping to shape the nature of the marriage debate. We have much more in store for the coming year, but need your help to make it happen. Please stand with us today – this next election will have profound consequences for the future of our nation, and with your help we can move the ball forward for marriage in 2012!

Please click here to make a generous gift of $200, $100, $50 or whatever amount is right for you. Or better yet, help sustain us through the next year with a monthly gift of $10, $20 or $50.

Contribute

Together, we are showing that support for marriage is a winning position for a presidential candidate.

Faithfully,

Brian Brown

Brian Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

PS: This is our chance to make sure the Republican Party gets the message loud and clear: The American people, and especially the Republican grassroots, stand firmly on the side of marriage. Protecting marriage isn't just the right thing to do – it's a winning position for politicians, too! Help us communicate this message to the GOP elites with your generous gift today!

31 Comments

  1. catholicdad
    Posted August 27, 2011 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    A most welcome development and a politically astute decision by Governor Perry.

    All the leading Republican candidates are now fully signaling their intention to run on marriage next year.

    It is a profoundly winning issue!

  2. Clara Mizell
    Posted August 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    This is very wonderful. It renews my faith in our political system. There Are a Few Good Men, and Women, left. Thanks to all the Republican candidates, from the bottom of my heart.

  3. MichaelH
    Posted August 27, 2011 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Though I support him making this stand, Rick Perry is actually a fake conservative and should actually be going to jail for mandating Gardasil shots for all preteen girls in Texas in 2007. Not just a morally questionable move, that decision has led to untold misery and deaths.

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/governor-rick-perrys-gardasil-vaccine-‘mistake’-cost-girls-their-lives/

  4. catholicdad
    Posted August 27, 2011 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    I share your concerns about Governor Perry, Michael, for the truly shocking dereliction regarding Gardasil, but also because of other his endorsementsof the cross dressing proabort Giuliani and even- yes, I know it sounds ridiculous- even serving as Al Gore's campaign chairman (although it was a very different Al Gore back then).

    I have a healthy skepticism about him that has been somewhat ameliorated- only somewhat!- by his correct and astute decision to come right out front pro life and pro marriage.

    I will keep an open mind, watching very carefully for signs of Triangulitis.

  5. Roberto
    Posted August 28, 2011 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    The more publicity we can get about nutty marriage views, the more quickly we can move to complete marriage equality in all states!

  6. catholicdad
    Posted August 28, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Roberto: Let me translate for those of us who do not speak lunatic as fluently as you do.....

    Roberto is saying: "the more publicity we get about those who support marriage, the faster we can destroy it."

    Now, this does not make any sense, but this is a pseudo-marriage advocate talking, remember. The guys who have lost thirty one straight elections, and are convinced that more of the same will certainly turn it around for them.

    Which, I believe, is the subject of a certain definition about doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result.

    This insight into the mindset of the pseudo marriage advocates is brought to you as a public service message by those who are sure you would want to protect your children from forced indoctrination at their hands.

    YES to the marriage amendment in Minnesota- NO to civil unions.

    See you at SCOTUS, Roberto.

  7. Louis E.
    Posted August 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Roberto,to favor "marriage equality" is a "nutty marriage view".To favor its prohibition is sensible.

  8. Little man
    Posted August 28, 2011 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    I keep hearing about needing marriage equality. We presently have civil marriage equality in most states - all men can get a license to marry with mutual consent, a woman or vice versa. It is the same (equal treatment) for all - no exceptions. How much more equal can it get?

    But the issue is really not about getting married, for anyone can marry within their religion (look at the polygamists in Texas, who marry within their religion. It is about getting automatic status as a "relative", and the right to bring an alien for USA citizenship, and tax deductions that constitute a special kind of support for natural marriage, to compensate for helping engender the next generation, and making it more probable that each child is reared and educated by their genetic father and mother. Adding same-sex marriage to the definition of marriage is an excruciating financial proposition, as if the government had extra money now. It is illogical, and at the very least untimely.

    So, don't believe the loose language in the slogan "marriage equality". It is marriage inequality they really seek. They are a bunch of habitual liars.

  9. Ben
    Posted August 28, 2011 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    @Louis E. to Roberto - You took the words right out of my mouth.

  10. M. Jones
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    I have to say hats off to Brian and Maggie who fight religious persecution on a daily basis while standing up for Gods truth about marriage. I just can't understand why homosexuals are so intent on the destruction of marriage. No one is stopping them from living as they choose. Do they hate God, or perhaps real biologically intact families, or just traditional marriage.

  11. Peter
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 1:29 am | Permalink

    Goodbye Perry... You just lost every independent vote in the country and handed Obama 4 more years!

  12. Posted August 29, 2011 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    M. Jones:
    "I just can't understand why homosexuals are so intent on the destruction of marriage."

    They're not. Does that help you understand?

  13. catholicdad
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    No, actually, David. It doesn't. Probably because the assertion is at odds with the facts.

    Marriage, by its nature, is the union of the two complementary genders of our species (you might have noticed, David, that we are in fact a species subsisting in two complementary genders?) and it is the intention of those- homosexual andy otherwise- who support the pseudo-marriage movement to destroy marriage by falsely redefining its nature.

    This deadly bit of insanity contains within it all sorts of additional evils, chief among which would be the attempt to employ our legal systems in direct repudiation of the will of the People.

    It is the immediate and imperative duty of every citizen to assist the advocates of pseudo-marriage in coming to their senses.

  14. Posted August 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    @Little Man "But the issue is really not about getting married, for anyone can marry within their religion (look at the polygamists in Texas, who marry within their religion."

    But actually, the polygamists in Texas were rightfully PROHIBITED from marrying "within their religion" and society should not allow polygamous marriages even if the couple doesn't seek legal recognition of them. It is an unethical situation for a man to conceive children with more than one woman, it is one of the ten commandments not to commit adultery and rightfully against the law in most states.

  15. Posted August 29, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    catholicdad:
    "No, actually, David. It doesn't. Probably because the assertion is at odds with the facts."

    The facts are that no supporter of same-sex marriage is trying to destroy marriage.

  16. catholicdad
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    David: The facts are that every supporter of same sex "marriage" is trying to destroy marriage, by redefining it in contradiction to its nature.

    As has already been exhaustively demonstrated.

  17. Posted August 29, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    catholicdad:
    "The facts are that every supporter of same sex "marriage" is trying to destroy marriage."

    I'm not. Why on earth would I want to?

  18. M. Jones
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Does society have any right to enforcement through its laws of what rightly determines as moral codes of conduct? Or will incest become OK too?

  19. catholicdad
    Posted August 29, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    M. Jones: Society has the unquestionable right to enforce moral codes of conduct. The battle consists in how those codes are determined- more precisely, who determines them.

    The People are sovereign, under God, in our Republic, but the woeful dereliction of the People in allowing our judicial and legislative branches to be corrupted in service of establishment of a state secular religion has led us to this moment of truth.

    May God prosper the work of those who intend to defend marriage.

  20. Barb
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    Great stuff, catholicdad. Your contributions to this blog are excellent. Keep up the good work!

  21. catholicdad
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 1:43 am | Permalink

    Thanks kindly, Barb, and right back at you.

  22. Louis E.
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 3:21 am | Permalink

    David Brider,since marriage serves no useful purpose other than to guarantee to male-female relationships the preferential treatment that their being opposite-sex entitles them to,you are certainly seeking to destroy it...your reasons,I will leave to you to state,but be under no illusions as to what you are doing.

  23. Posted August 30, 2011 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Louis E:
    "David Brider,since marriage serves no useful purpose other than to guarantee to male-female relationships the preferential treatment that their being opposite-sex entitles them to..."

    I'd have said that the "purpose" served by marriage is that it enables two mutually consenting adults who in love with each other to make a formal declaration of their intention to spend the rest of their natural lives together. That's certainly the purpose of my marriage.

    "...you are certainly seeking to destroy it...your reasons,I will leave to you to state,but be under no illusions as to what you are doing."

    No, I have no desire to destroy marriage. Unlike you, I don't see marriage as being so totally inflexible as to not be able accommodate same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.

    I mean, if you think about it, the two desires - 1.) to allow same-sex couples to get married as well as opposite-sex couples, and 2.) to destroy marriage, are totally contradictory. You can't have the one without failing to achieve the other.

    Certainly, I know of know advocate for same-sex marriage who also wants to destroy marriage as a whole. If you can find me one - just *one* - who's ever stated the destruction of marriage as their purpose, then you might have a point.

    Or, you could look at the actual facts of the matter. The Netherlands has had same-sex marriage since 2001, Belgium since 2003, Spain and Canada since 2005. If legalisation of same-sex marriage is going to destroy marriage, then why does marriage continue to exist in those nations? After ten years, one would expect some of the rot to have set in, if it's going to, and yet...nothing.

  24. Lefty
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    @David Brider

    Why is it then that people who think that marriage is obsolete, or that it should be disestablished or even abolished, typically also support SSM?

  25. catholicdad
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    David says:

    "The Netherlands has had same-sex marriage since 2001"

    >>See:

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf

    excerpt:

    "After ten years of same‐sex marriage, approximately 9 out of 10 gay and lesbian people in the Netherlands have still not chosen to enter a legal marriage.....At a minimum the data from the Netherlands does suggest that the hopes of those making a conservative case for gay marriage that it will strengthen marriage generally and dramatically increase the stability and fidelity among same‐sex couples‐‐are likely to be disappointed."

    David again: Belgium since 2003,

    >> See:

    http://www.flanderstoday.eu/content/i-dont

    excerpt:

    "In 1970, 90% of women, 86% of men aged 30-34 were married
    In 1991, 79% of women and 72% of men were married
    In 2006, 55% of women and 44% of men were married"

    David: Spain

    >> See:

    http://www.nomblog.com/1053/

    excerpt:

    "Spain has about 30 million people in 2008 over the age of 15. If 3 percent of the population is homosexual, that would be about 900,000 gay and lesbian adults. So 20,000 gay people have chosen to marry so far -- about 2 percent of gay adults. Why so few?"

    a commenter adds:

    "Spain has exprienced a prolonged and steady decline in the number of marriages annually, but that decline had stopped in the mid and late 1990s.

    The SSM campaign accelerated in the early 2000s and the decline in marriage resumed apace."

    David: and Canada since 2005.

    >> Actually, Canada started reporting pseudo-marriages in the statistics in 2003.

    See:

    http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=3005

    Headline:

    "Marriage in decline despite inclusion of same-sex unions"

    David asks: If legalisation of same-sex marriage is going to destroy marriage, then why does marriage continue to exist in those nations? After ten years, one would expect some of the rot to have set in, if it's going to, and yet...nothing.

    >> Quite to the contrary. The ongoing decline of marriage in the West (of which pseudo-marriage is an advanced symptom, not a cause, btw) has been accelerating since the pseudo-marriage assault began securing its first breakthroughs.

    And of course, maladies take time to ravage their host fully.

    Marriage was sick for a long time before it contracted the potentially fatal disease represented by the pseudo-marriage assault.

    The defeat of pseudo-marriage, while absolutely essential, will mark only the beginning of the restoration of a marriage culture.

  26. Ash
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Good point, Lefty. As extensively documented by David Blankenhorn in his book, "The Future of Marriage," people who have professionally disliked marriage, are almost always in favor of same-sex marriage.

  27. catholicdad
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Why in the world has my point by point response to David Brider failed to appear??????????

  28. catholicdad
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Look, NOM. I won't take the time to respond on a point by point basis if it is simply going to be swallowed up in whatever algorithm controls access here.

    Why on earth would you let the challenge sit there unanswered?

  29. Louis E.
    Posted August 30, 2011 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    David Brider,downgrading marriage to something any two longterm roommates can do is destroying it.To be only for opposite-sex couples is its essential nature and its entire purpose.It HAS BEEN destroyed anywhere SSM is legal,there is only a monstrous impostor usurping its name,and serving as part of the problem that the existence of same-sex sexual relationships constitutes rather than the solution of necessary pressure toward the breakup of such relationships by deserved penalty.

  30. Posted August 31, 2011 at 5:23 am | Permalink

    catholicdad:
    It's alright, I'm used to posts taking ages to appear. When I've got a spare half hour or so, I'll put together a proper reply to your large post.

  31. Posted August 31, 2011 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    Lefty:
    "Why is it then that people who think that marriage is obsolete, or that it should be disestablished or even abolished, typically also support SSM?"

    I'm not sure that anyone does. Wanting to abolish marriage and also wanting some people to be allowed to be married doesn't really make sense. If you know of anyone who genuinely holds such contradictory positions, I'd be fascinated to know who they are.

One Trackback

  1. [...] Elected Officials Search NOM BLOG Home » Election Watch 2012 » Recent News Coverage of NOM's Marriage Pledge « Previous Entry Next Entry » [...]