NOM Launches Billboards Holding Senators Accountable For Their Vote To Redefine Marriage


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 30, 2011
Contact: Mary Beth Hutchins (703-683-5004) x. 105

"You're Next" Campaign Serves Notice That Senators Will Follow Weprin To Defeat

New York, NY—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that it has launched a billboard campaign in the districts of state Senators Mark Grisanti, Stephen Saland, James Alesi and Shirley Huntley to hold them accountable for their vote last June to redefine marriage in New York. NOM previously ran billboards in the district of Roy McDonald.

The new billboards say of the individual state Senator, "You're Next" in reference to the defeat of David Weprin in the 9th Congressional District. NOM funded a major independent expenditure campaign in the Weprin race, making his vote to redefine marriage a decisive issue in his defeat in a district Democrats have held since the early 1920s.

"Just like David Weprin discovered earlier this month when he faced voters after redefining marriage, Mark Grisanti, Stephen Saland, James Alesi, Roy McDonald and Shirley Huntley will soon discover that the people of New York will not sit idly by while the institution of marriage is redefined without voters having any say in the matter," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "NOM and our Let The People Vote" coalition will not rest until these legislators are turned out of office and the people of New York are allowed to vote on the definition of marriage."

NOM has committed $2 million to the "Let the People Vote" effort, including $40,000 on the billboard campaign. Previously NOM funded mailers into the districts of the state Senators, organized rallies in four cities that drew over 15,000 demonstrators and helped defeat David Weprin in the recent 9th Congressional District special election.

The billboards urge people to visit the website. The "Let The People Vote" coalition was formed to bring together many diverse religious and ethnic communities around the central issue of traditional marriage to demand that New York voters, just like voters in 31 other states, be given the right to decide the definition of marriage.

For more information visit



  1. Roberto
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Can you imagine if all this billboard money was spent to help the poor and the sick??

  2. EvolveAlready
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Silly Roberto - NOM doesn't try to give things to people, they fight to take things away.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    re: Roberto and Evolve:

    Moderator, both of these people need to go.

  4. Louis E.
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    When people steal what they're not entitled to,taking it away is essential,no matter how much they whine lies about having a right.

  5. Ash
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    These billboards are great! Of course, some gay groups are claiming that the billboards incite violence, and are actually referencing the Gabby Giffords shooting. *Yawn*

  6. Mark
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    @Roberto: How much of your $$$ goes to help the poor and the sick? Yea, thought so! Pony up your $$$ before you tell others how to spend theirs. Friggin' liberals!

  7. Randy E King
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 9:39 pm | Permalink


    How do you take away that which was never there?

    Strange you would hide behind a ficticious name that signifies something you could never do due to the very nature of your depravity.

  8. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    These billboards are brilliant!

    I'd love to see the look on the faces of these corrupt politicians as they drive by them.

    It's the perfect message. Folks who don't know what it means will think about it all the way to their destinations, then they'll immediately look it up and learn the scoop.

    Genius NOM!

  9. Randy
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    Roberto - Cant you imagine how much money and time it took to debate SSM in NY when the state of New York could have fed the poor and the homeless instead? Thats what I thought.

  10. Daughter of Eve
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    "NOM doesn't try to give things to people, they fight to take things away."

    Can you find an instance where NOM is fighting against your right to marry someone of the opposite sex (excepting for your sibling, of course, or you mom or dad)?

    Upholding the opposite-sexed standard of marriage is not taking something away. You can't take something away that never existed in the first place.

  11. tom
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 3:17 am | Permalink

    doe it exists right now in the state of new york and you are trying to take it away

  12. j. fox
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    New York It's a temporary aberration and
    a blip in the history of time

  13. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    "Gay" marriage exists, or "same-sex" marriage exists? Please clarify.

    And yes, if SSM could be repealed, that would go far to return us to a state of equality.

  14. RC
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    These billboards are ridiculous - destined to be totally ineffective.

    Keep it up, NOM! I love seeing you waste money.

  15. Louis E.
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Why isn't Addabbo in the press release?...he took over a longtime Republican seat a few years ago,and I wrote him in (primary and general) for Attorney General because he opposed SSM,until he flip-flopped this year.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Rapists, murderers, and thieves exist; should you create special protections for them as well?

  17. Little man
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    No matter what is said in this comment thread, the billboards are "up" and having their effect. So, so called Roberto and EvolveAlready have the task of placing a silly comment on every NOM post, just to get the usual readers who comment to go all out, countering their silly comment, so they can laugh "their head off" :) Best, is to simply skip their usual silly comment, which NOM has agreed to post. One liners without crude words usually go right through the NOMblog filter. Silly, but effective tactic.

  18. Louis E.
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    (I have a couple of messages sitting in moderation at the moment,including one on this thread,and remain mystified as to the criteria).

  19. leo
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    I am a NOM support, and I remain mystified why I am not able to post comments on its website, yet its opponents are always posting comments they gets through by the usual blogger

  20. Ash
    Posted October 1, 2011 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Louis, I'm puzzled by the moderating criteria as well. I have 2 comments on subsequent threads that are in limbo.

  21. Louis E.
    Posted October 2, 2011 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    (Worse,I think the moderator takes the weekend off).

  22. Little man
    Posted October 2, 2011 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    I wrote a comment on how the blog moderation filters work, but (of course) it didn't get posted :) There is a real person moderating - that's the good aspect. As long as people stay on the subject of the post, comments have a good chance at being posted. Like my wife said: "how can you take away from someone, what they didn't have in the first place?" What happens when someone states you robbed him? Are we guilty until proven innocent?

  23. Rev Roy
    Posted October 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    The problem is that people are using one word for two entirely different things.

    One thing is a holy state of relationship established by the Creator in the beginning.

    The other thing is a contractual arrangement with numerous benefits and privileges, established by the government over the last two centuries.

    The Creator we know as God; the government we know as Caesar. Jesus told us to not mix the two.

    Friends, we should simply be campaigning to be sure our Caesar isn't treading on the things of God -- that is, we should be fighting to get the government's contractual arrangement called that -- "contractual union", or something. Let marriage be handled by God's representatives, not Caesar's.

  24. Little man
    Posted October 3, 2011 at 12:23 am | Permalink

    Rev Roy: I have heard such a stand before. Marriage is sacred, and let the government do whatever. That is a secluded perspective. There's no question what sacred marriage is in the R. Catholic perspective. The question is what secular civil marriage will be, according to legislation, and according to whom we the voters elect. Leave the solution of the question to others outside the church, and you will be left outside the secular definition and purpose of civil marriage. Civil marriage is about assisting a special type of partnership (1man/1woman), which, if not assisted, will generate all kinds of problems in society - one the average engendering 99% of the next generation.

  25. Louis E.
    Posted October 3, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Roy,I'm not a religious person.I do believe in an Infinitely First Cause that can be referred to as "God",and take it too seriously to pretend it writes books or founds official fan clubs for itself.Thus,a civil marriage is the only kind open to me in good conscience...and ONLY if it is exclusively opposite-sex.

  26. Leehawks
    Posted October 11, 2011 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Does anyone know how you find a comment that may have been lost to moderation and later posted? Is there a search option by poster name?