Which one should I cut?


Dear Marriage Supporter,

Email Header Image

Please help us overcome a looming shortfall!

Increasingly virulent and frequent attacks from the same-sex marriage lobby have depleted our emergency funds, and we need your help!

As 2011 draws to a close, everyone at the National Organization for Marriage is excited about the election year ahead, which we believe will be full of huge victories for traditional marriage.

But unless we raise additional funds quickly, we will be faced with hard decisions about where to begin scaling back our efforts for next year. NOM does not have the resources to accomplish everything we need to do...and with the many new and critical marriage battles upcoming in 2012, this is the exact wrong time for us to have to scale back.

Friend, will you make one emergency year-end gift of $25, $50, $100 or even $1,000 if you can afford it, to NOM right now to help us eliminate our budget shortfall before the end of the year?

Simply click here and make the most generous gift you can right now.

We're in a position to overcome our financial shortcomings because a generous donor has stepped up with a pledge to match every gift between now and the end of the year up to $1 million. Your gift of $50 instantly becomes $100. A gift of $500 is worth $1000 to help protect marriage in 2012!

Donate Now

My staff and I just took a hard look at some recent projections about what the same-sex marriage lobby is planning to spend between now and Election Day, 2012.

And it is clear their entire strategy is to flood America's airwaves, mailboxes, and email in-boxes with vicious attack ads against anyone who stands in their way.

Their goal is gay marriage in all 50 states, and they will do whatever it takes—and spend whatever amount—to make that happen.

We have a plan to fight them at every turn, but without a significant year-end infusion of support, we may have no choice but to scale back our election year programs.

What should I do?

  • Should I abandon a state like Maryland, New Jersey or Rhode Island, where marriage is under fire?

  • Should I scale back our efforts to repeal same-sex marriage in a state like Iowa, New Hampshire or New York?

  • Should I stop our Washington-based lobbying efforts to protect the Defense of Marriage Act (there is new legislation to repeal DOMA) and just hope for the best?

  • Should I scale back our plans for the presidential election, letting President Obama off the hook for the lies he will tell on the campaign trail?

Obviously, I don't want to do any of that!

So please—right now—make the most generous year-end gift you can afford to NOM of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more so we can close our budget shortfall.

Thank you in advance.


Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

P.S.I know we've asked a lot of you this year, and believe me, your generous help for NOM is greatly appreciated. We've done SO MANY good things together to protect marriage—society's most vital and enduring institution for good—from being destroyed.

But heading into the all-important 2012 election year, NOM is facing difficult decisions, and I am counting on your urgent help.

So please, double the impact of your gift by making one secure online donation $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to the National Organization for Marriage today.

Thank you and God bless you!

Donate Now


  1. Louis E.
    Posted December 13, 2011 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Ash,the pro-SSM lobby crumbling in 2012 would be superb.

  2. Rob
    Posted December 14, 2011 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn't give you a nickle if you were starcing. NOW deserves the slow death it is experiencing.

  3. Scott Lumry
    Posted December 14, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Could you please explain why I should find it necessary to put extra money into an organization that is having funding problems when that organization seems to be spending those dollars attending the "too darn expensive for my pocket" fundraisers of GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich, Brain.

    I thought our dollars were going toward fighting marriage equality, not fancy schmancy political insider food fests for beltway Washington politicians.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 14, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    NOM isn't fighting "marriage equality." Marriage is already equal. NOM is fighting same sex marriage. Perhaps Scott just exposed himself as a mouthpiece for the opposition?

  5. Scott Lumry
    Posted December 15, 2011 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Perhaps Scott just exposed NOM as an organization with few actual supporters (at least when it comes to their funding) and the tendency to spend what funds they do get at high priced Washington insider fundraising events for Newt Gingrich.

    And, sorry Barb, I interpret the institution of marriage according to the constitution as understood by constitutional scholars. See this article: which I take to mean it is marriage equality that we are fighting.

  6. Louis E.
    Posted December 15, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Scott,any reading of the 14th Amendment as protecting classes of persons defined by desire to engage in specific conduct is so catastrophic that a new amendment to abolish that interpretation would be urgently needed.To claim entitlement to defy any standard of conduct one would merely declare oneself a member of a class "the people who don't want to do that".There must be no "equality" between right and wrong,and "being gay" must offer no defense against public recognition of the innately greater usefulness to human society of opposite-sex over same-sex sexual relationships.

  7. Donna
    Posted December 15, 2011 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    I will continue to support NOM financially and any other way that I can to protect the true meaning of marriage; one man and one woman. Anyone who redefines marriage is not a supporter of NOM.

  8. Pat
    Posted December 18, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Louis, honey, you're fighting against gay people who desire to be treated the same way for engaging in conduct that straight people would be treated for engaging in the same conduct.
    This is not a complicated fact, and it is the entire basis of what you are trying to do; it's kind of like being a calculus teacher who can't count to 1. Learn. This. Fact.

    But anyway: Brian, I have to ask, how can something in *support of yourself* possibly be defined as a "vicious attack ad". You, who are trying to harm people and lie a heckuva lot toward that end? Vicious attack, sure, I'll buy that. People protecting themselves and trying to advance their own cause to the detriment of none? Yeah, that can't possibly be defined as remotely resembling an attack, let alone a vicious one.

    To answer your questions, yes. Yes to all. You should stop doing those things and move on.
    And maybe, just maybe, there could be some repentance.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.