NOM BLOG

NOM Launches Independent Expenditure Campaign in the 18th Senate District Race in Iowa

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 20, 2011
CONTACT: Mary Beth Hutchins or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)


National Organization for Marriage Continues What It Started In 2010

Des Moines, IA – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced it is launching an Independent Expenditure campaign along with The Family Leader in the 18th Senate District race to support Cindy Golding. Golding, a strong traditional marriage advocate, is running against Democrat Liz Mathis, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage. NOM was a major player last year in the successful effort to remove three Supreme Court justices from office after they redefined marriage in Iowa.

“This is a pivotal election contest in our battle to allowing the people of Iowa the opportunity to vote to restore marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “A proposed constitutional amendment on defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman enjoys broad-based, bi-partisan legislative and voter support, but is being prevented from coming to the floor of the Senate by Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. If Ms. Golding is successful in her election, we are hopeful that Senators will finally have the opportunity to vote on the marriage amendment, and we expect it to pass handily.”

NOM will be supporting Golding with a series of mailers and other activities in in the 18th District. The first dropped today.

The mail piece can be seen here:

Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, www.nationformarriage.org.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, [email protected], x.105 or Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], x.130 at 703-683-5004.

###

30 Comments

  1. Louis E.
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I wish the mailer avoided the term "gay marriage",the issue is SAME-SEX marriage,the identification of persons as "gay" having no role in eligibility to marry despite the claims of the homosexual lobby.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    This is excellent. Thank you NOM!

  3. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Louise; bringing the term "gay" into the argument lends only misdirects the actual issues at hand. Legally, homosexuality is a non-issue in marriage eligibility.

  4. Andrew D
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    There is no dispute between people who are actually trained in law - on both sides of the debate - that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminate against gays. The only dispute is whether the discrimination is justified.

  5. Ash
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    The law doesn't query into sexual orientation, and the gender quota in marriage didn't arise from a discriminatory purpose. No discrimination present!

  6. Andrew D
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Ash, neither of those are required for discrimination to exist. While it's your undeniable right to believe that all lawyers and judges who have considered this issue are wrong, you haven't yet presented any reason to give any weight to your legal conclusions when they contradict the consensus of legal professionals.

  7. SC Guy
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Go for it NOM! Glad to hear it and thanks for your efforts. I was so excited when I heard about this happening in the Iowa Senate. I sure pray and hope that the Dems lose the seat so they can stop Gronstalling the vote on the floor. Go for gold, Cindy Golding!!

  8. Louis E.
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Andrew D,I think that judges who find "discrimination against gays" in this ought to be impeached for utter incompetence.

    The formation and maintenance of opposite-sex relationships is required for the general welfare.The formation and maintenance of same-sex sexual relationships is harmful to the general welfare.The institution of marriage exists strictly in order to implement the public interest in guaranteeing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them.

    That at some particular time certain persons may 1)be afflicted by same-sex sexual attraction,2)be under the misapprehension that same-sex sexual activity can ever be justified,and 3)choose to identify themselves by a word more correctly applied to being happy is no more relevant to the nature of marriage or the reasons for its existence than the mineral composition of Apollo asteroids.
    A standard of conduct is NOT "discrimination" against a set of persons defined by sharing the desire to violate it.Nor do laws describing marriage care in the least if applicants happen to fall under the sorry intersection of unfortunate sets described above.The public interest of course is best served by steady pressure to reduce the number of persons in set 2 and to some extent in set 3,but at this time most of each of those sets appears to be heterosexual.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    (Correcting a message that just went into moderation:those who IDENTIFY as "gay" are not mostly heterosexual,but those who abuse the word to mean something other than "happy" are).

  10. Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    Andrew--"no dispute"?

    the highest state courts in Maryland, Washington State and New York disagreed with you.

    Stay in facts, please!

  11. Andrew D
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Maggie, those courts ruled that the laws passed the applicable level of scrutiny. In other words, that whatever discrimination existed was justified. I'm not aware (despite having read some of the rulings) of any of these courts saying that the law did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If you know otherwise, please provide a citation. For my part, let me give you a quote from Paul Clement, who is defending DOMA: "The overwhelming majority of same-sex marriages will be between two individuals who share the same sexual orientation and, therefore, it is reasonable to regard DOMA as drawing a line based on sexual orientation."

  12. Louis E.
    Posted October 20, 2011 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    Sexual orientation should be considered of no relevance to the compelling state interest in guaranteeing that relationships between persons of opposite sexes receive preferential treatment.

  13. Andrew D
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    Maggie, additionally, here's a quote from Hernandez v Robles, the NY Supreme Court case I assume you were referring to, that, contrary to your claim, agrees with me:

    "However, the legislation does confer advantages on the basis of sexual preference. Those who prefer relationships with people of the opposite sex and those who prefer relationships with people of the same sex are not treated alike, since only opposite-sex relationships may gain the status and benefits associated with marriage. This case thus presents the question of what level of scrutiny is to be applied to legislation that classifies people on this basis."

  14. bman
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    Andrew D->I'm not aware (despite having read some of the rulings) of any of these courts saying that the law did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If you know otherwise, please provide a citation.

    When courts uphold bride-groom marriage law under rational basis review, it means they chose that level of review because the law in question was not based on invidious discrimination.

    That is one of the things the court looks for before it decide the level of scrutiny.

    Thus, the mere fact the majority of courts decided to use rational basis scrutiny means they did not detect invidious discrimination.

  15. bman
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    Andrew D->...here's a quote from Hernandez v Robles, the NY Supreme Court... "However, the legislation does confer advantages on the basis of sexual preference. Those who prefer relationships with people of the opposite sex and those who prefer relationships with people of the same sex are not treated alike, since only opposite-sex relationships may gain the status and benefits associated with marriage."

    This is similar to saying marriage law does not treat persons alike who prefer polygamy.

    It simply means the two groups are not equally advantaged by the law.

    That is not the same thing as an invidious discrimination.

    Equality at law does not require the law to treat all groups equally alike.

    Rather, it requires that rational laws be equally applied.

  16. M. Jones
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 4:22 am | Permalink

    Rational basis review, is any reason one can think of for treating people differently. Rational basis with a bite, a slightly higher standard of review, would then look at invidious discrimination present at the laws enactment.

  17. Randy E King
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    Each of those courts noted that procreation is a rational basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman. No Federal appeals court has disagreed with these finding for over one hundred and fifteen years.

    It is not against the law to discriminate against an activity that has no social value what-so-ever.

  18. Andrew D
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    bman, you realize that not all discrimination is invidious discrimination? My whole point, if you read my original comment, was that there's a dispute about whether the discrimination is just or unjust, but not about whether discrimination exists at all - in response to posters claiming that sexual orientation was a non-issue because the law didn't inquire into it explicitly.

  19. Louis E.
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Discrimination in favor of right over wrong behavior (which is something to enforce,not prohibit) is not discrimination against wrongdoers as people.

  20. leo
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    All of these intellectuals gatherd in one area, spead your knowledge, help those who are weak minded and confused, just make sure they can understand you.... @ Louise I don't agree with everything you say, but you are spot on when it comes to same sex attraction relationships, and you should spread your brand of persistence to make your point...GOOD JOB!

  21. bman
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    Andrew D->bman, you realize that not all discrimination is invidious discrimination? My whole point, if you read my original comment, was that there's a dispute about whether the discrimination is just or unjust, but not about whether discrimination exists at all -

    I agree the word can technically be used for a reasonable or unreasonable discrimination.

    If someone is said to have "discriminating tastes" that generally implies they prefer quality, but if its said a law discriminates, it generally implies unreasonable discrimination.

    Your statement, "...laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminate against gays..." would have implied "unreasonable discrimination" to most readers based on general usage.

    That is why I specified the kind of discrimination in my reply, to clear up the ambiguity and the false impression your post created.

  22. bman
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 5:07 am | Permalink

    Oh, and here is a link to show the majority of high courts have ruled in favor of bride-groom marriage contra SSM.

  23. Little man
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    Andrew D: 'There is no dispute between people who are actually trained in law...' Here you set yourself up as an authority. 'that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminate against gays' Why don't you read the briefs being presented by Mr. Clement in actual court cases, representing BLAG, and advisory group of the House of Reps.? Isn't Mr. Clement actually trained in law? There are no laws discriminating against gays in particular. There are laws discriminating against granting same-sex couples marriage or civil union licenses. You are confusing the two categories, but... it's typical, since you are not actually trained in law, or don't seem to be.

  24. Little man
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    Andrew D.: I can't believe you are trained in law and believe judges and Congress would go about using a term like you propose: 'just discrimination'. I've read Clements briefs, and he never uses that term (and he is highly trained, plus smart.) If just discrimination applied in a case, it would, by definition, not be considered discrimination. You drastically want to find a way to use the word discrimination somehow to describe treatment of "gay couples". Actually, the reverse is true. Plus legislation is not about "gay couples". It is about same-sex partnerships (friendships), who already have their rights, plus some extra change, since they don't engender the next generation. Get real.

  25. Andrew D
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    bman,
    "Your statement, "...laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminate against gays..." would have implied "unreasonable discrimination" to most readers based on general usage."

    Not to readers who bothered to read the next sentence: "The only dispute is whether the discrimination is justified." Regardless, my point doesn't depend on specific words:

    There is no dispute between people who are actually trained in law - on both sides of the debate - that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples treat people differently depending on their sexual orientation. The only dispute is whether the differential treatment is constitutionally permissible.

  26. Louis E.
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Andrew D,it says terrible things about our legal training system if people can be certified as "trained in law" while framing the debate in those terms.People's sexual orientation is of no relevance to the purpose of marriage,which is to promote the specific practice of male-female relationships.Not wishing to do something that has a specific definition,regardless of why one does not wish to do it,is not being forbidden to do it.

  27. Ash
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    bman: "Oh, and here is a link to show the majority of high courts have ruled in favor of bride-groom marriage contra SSM."

    That's the best kept secret in this debate, bman. Thanks to the work of the wonderful people at iMAPP, marriage supporters are now informed enough to counter those who try to say the have the legal aspect of this debate wrapped-tight. It's amazing how many of them on Facebook try to make it seem as if we're losing in court left and right, when, in reality, we've had more victories.

  28. bman
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    Andrew D-> "Not to readers who bothered to read the next sentence: "The only dispute is whether the discrimination is justified."

    In practical terms, your previous sentence framed the word "discriminate" where most would expect it to have a negative sense. You said, "..laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminate against gays...

    With that impression now in place, your next sentence would be interpreted to mean, "The only dispute is whether the [invidious] discrimination is justified [by those with bias or prejudice]."

    Of course, now that you have better described your intent, one can see the items in brackets were not necessarily implied.

    The bottom line question, however, is not what you actually meant, but whether your post would have had a misleading effect for most readers.

    I have explained above why I think it would.

  29. Andrew D
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    Louis E., on the contrary, our legal training system gets this one right. What would be terrible is if our courts were governed by the dogmatic, illogical thinking that your comments on this site advocate. A lot fewer people would want to live in a country like that.

  30. Little man
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Andrew D.: You are pretty much already corrected, so you can't talk about dogmatic, illogical thinking. Even in your revised statement, you are still incorrect, and it doesn't take a lawyer to see it: 'laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples treat people differently depending on their sexual orientation' Nope. You cannot see the error in your statement. Louis E. already spotted it. There's no passed legislation that mentions "sexual orientation" - it is always about same-sex couples admitted into civil unions, or State marriage. There's no category of sexual orientation in any court case or legislation, because sexual orientation is not verifiable. With all your knowledge of law, if you start with vague or spurious notions, you'll end up with unenforceable law, of which we already have a lot. Thanks for trying, anyway.