FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 15, 2011
Contact: Mary Beth Hutchins (703-683-5004 ext. 105)
NOM will begin advertising in Iowa to communicate with Iowa voters who is pledged to stand with them to defend marriage
WASHINGTON — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich has signed the organization's presidential marriage pledge, leaving Ron Paul as the only major candidate not to have signed the pledge. The pledge, which commits candidates to take several concrete actions as President of the United States, has been signed by Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann. NOM also announced it would launch advertisements in Iowa to publicize those who are pledge to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"We commend Newt Gingrich for signing NOM's presidential marriage pledge, committing himself to play a leadership role as president to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Mr. Gingrich joins all the other major candidates who have made a similar commitment, save for one—Ron Paul. Now we will embark on an intensive communications program to inform Iowa voters who will stand with them to preserve marriage, and who has abandoned them on marriage."
Preserving traditional marriage is a major issue in the presidential campaign. In 2010 Iowa voters removed three justices of their state Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who voted to redefine marriage in Iowa and thus imposing same-sex marriage. NOM's marriage pledge commits the candidates to:
Support an amendment to the United State Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman;- Appointing Supreme Court Justices and an Attorney General who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution;
- Vigorously defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court;
- Establish a presidential commission on religious liberty; and
- Advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.
"Many of Ron Paul's supporters in Iowa believe that he is on their side when it comes to preserving traditional marriage, but he isn't," Brown said. "While Paul says he personally believes in traditional marriage, he has refused to sign our pledge and, worse, has said that marriage is strictly a private affair and that government has no role in regulating marriage. This is a dangerous position with profound consequences for society."
Left to its logical conclusion, if marriage is strictly a private affair as Paul has said, homosexual, polygamous and incestuous marriages among adults would be considered just as valid as traditional marriages. Moreover, should the United States Supreme Court decide to redefine marriage to impose same-sex marriage, just as they imposed their will on abortion, Paul would do nothing about it.
"NOM is not going to endorse a candidate in Iowa, but we will be making it clear through online ads, telephone calls and other actions that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann stand with Iowans on defending traditional marriage, and Ron Paul does not," Brown concluded.
(Related: see Ron Paul answer Brian Brown's question about supporting a federal marriage amendment)
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of NOM, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com at 703-683-5004 ext. 105.
###
28 Comments
How many $ 1000 plates at the Gingrich fundraiser did your "generous contributors" have to shell out to get his signature? He brags that he gets $ 60,000 a lecture and will be the best President money can buy.
Hope there's enough left over to keep you guys living the high life. After all, fighting against human rights is a very profitable game.
Good. Now let's hear about it in the debates. Let's hear about the 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate in the Black community and the 40% overall out-of-wedlock birthrate and how that's working out for single mothers and their children.
Let's hear about how Liberal policies of no-fault divorce and welfare laws discouraging fathers from marrying mothers have increased the number of kids without moms and dads and put more single moms and kids on the government dole.
Let's hear how the Liberals want to further denigrate the institution by redefining marriage as no longer being a union between a man and a woman. That marriage has nothing to do with the protection of children yet-to-be born and parents' responsibility to take responsibility for their actions.
Come on, Newt, this is an opportunity to educate the public that every attack on marriage hits the taxpayers in the wallet, subjects children to becoming orphans, and let's men who impregnate women off the hook for the upbringing of their children.
Adoption laws protect children who have already been deprived of one or both parents. Marriage laws protect children who have the chance to be raised by both parents.
Excellent points, ResistSSA. I'm glad Newt signed. Now I would like to hear him analyze the issues you laid out. Although there has been talk here and there, I would like to hear Newt, and other conservative intellectuals, discuss the issue of marriage in-depth; that is, the societal purpose of marriage and how ssm, in particular, is part of the decades long efforts of liberals to destroy the institution of marriage.
Let's talk about Brian's $200,000+ paycheck last year spreading this garbage.
Yes, let's talk about how NOM spends its money, because that doesn't sound like a weak attempt to sidetrack the conversation at all...
As Ash said, ResistSSA, you have excellent points! Family and marriage have been degraded for too long, and it effects everybody. I wish that the Me Generation would open their hearts and realize that the needs of children and future generations are more significant than their own desires. If our culture actually valued selflessness and responsibility, we wouldn't be having so many of these kinds of problems.
Excellent points, Laura. And nice way to steer the conversation back to the appropriate focus
(not that I'm bothered by Brian making $200,000. I'm sure his salary is commensurate with his position as president of a large, advocacy nonprofit.)
Is John Huntsman not a "major" candidate? He's out-polling some on your list and has been in every debate.
How are Newt's previous marriage promises working out?
This is good news. Virginia just determined that same sex marriage and adoption severs the link to a biological parent.
Final Vote in Virginia: Same-sex Couples CANNOT Adopt. Scientific and data research supports that a child does best with biological parents.
I'm all for defending marriage but with the economy in the gutter it's no longer my #1 priority. After reading some Hayek and Rothbard at the suggestion of Glenn Beck, I'm convinced that Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands the nature of the economic crisis and can steer us back towards prosperity. Let's worry about marriage as God intended when we have jobs again, yes?
Ron Paul 2012! The only candidate who truly believes in limited government and states rights. And has the principled record to prove it.
wmforr: you say: 'fighting against human rights is a very profitable game.' What human rights, the ones you invented? We are talking US Constitution, not here say. Do you know how much money there is to make by telling a social class they should donate for their supposed human rights? You are being taken for 'a ride'.
Gingrich is astute - he lets the other candidates test the ground in pledging NOM's pledge list, since he can sign it at a later date. Gingrich is a past Speaker of the House - that is no small accomplishment. Best of all is his experience dealing with partisan behind-the-scenes politics in Washington, where leverage is essential for success or survival. None of the other GOP runners have been Speaker of the House, and handled bill after bill in Congress. Gingrich is the most able candidate against Obama. People think adultery has only to do with lack of will power. But, If they were Speaker of the House, surrounded by gorgeous, intelligent women, they probably wouldn't last even one day. Here's the Christian standard: Matthew 5:28
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a [married] woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (parenthesis, mine.) Who wants to throw the 'first stone' now?
Paul can take the Log Cabin vote away from Romney now. Good.
Not a big fan of Newt, but I will vote for any Republican not named Romney or Paul, most likely.........
The man is human and entitled to forgiveness. As a Christian I'll grant him that.
M.Jones: What does "forgiveness" have to do with anything? Nobody's saying he should be punished. But forgiveness doesn't erase the past. That's just the easy way out for people who don't want to address that this man is a hypocrite with serious character flaws and bad morals.
I'm with Phillip on this one. You will have to show a history of faithfulness to your wife if you want my vote. If you can't remain faithful to the most basic of relationships, how will you resist stronger temptations of power and money in government? Newt may be there, I think we need to determine how we know someone is faithful and for how long. Is 10 years enough time? 20? How long has Newt been with his current wife?
ups! (here say) = hear say
Phillip: In order to answer your comment, i first need to figure out the contradiction in your statement.
There are no guarantees in life. Any candidate can fall prey to temptation. Look, why don't you vote for your saint, and then find out he hasn't learned the hard way, from experience. I think people can change their ways, by grace. I mean, look at the Apostle Paul: he didn't commit adultery. He committed murder of one of the first deacons of the Christian church, and persecuted many other early Christians simply for their beliefs. Yet, we read his epistles often, learning from a very humble, yet knowledgeable servant. Who to trust? Someone who has learned from his mistakes, or someone who will learn from his mistakes once exposed to a level of temptation common people don't ever experience. If one is ugly and uninteresting, one can more easily be married to the same person for many years. One might not get another chance.
Little Man and M. Jones - I could really care less about what Newt does in bed with whoever he wants. That is between him and his wife. I felt the same way when Clinton got busted. However, unlike Clinton, Newt is now trying to get the pro-traditional marriage crowd by saying how much he supports marriage. All the while, he has shown a PATTERN of belief that is quite to the contrary. I truly hope that people are not gullible enough to see this thin-veiled attempt to lure in a block of voters. As a Christian, we are to certainly called to forgive, but in this case, that is not our responsibility. It belongs to God, his wife, and those he hurt by his actions. However, it is our responsibility to elect a leader that is not going to say how much he supports marriage and then continues with a clear PATTERN of adultery. Mind you, he has already made this pledge twice before God and those who witnessed his weddings.
So you all are telling me the guy on his third wife will "stand to defend marriage" but the guy who's been married to his high school sweetheart for 54 years doesn't? face->palm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislation
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - Barry Goldwater
Alex,his own marriage may be a success,but he's refusing to enforce the necessary definition for others.
The point you fail to understand is that the federal government has no right to legislate an official definition of marriage into law, and Ron Paul (even though his own personal definition of marriage is between one man and one woman) sticks up for the Constitution and the country's founding principles of separation of power.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Alex,are you prepared then to see states guaranteed the right to define marriage as they see fit?...or do you want them to have no recourse against demands that they allow same-sex marriage?
The Constitution does not need to be amended over this. http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/RP-Marriage-SJim.jpg
Alex,as long as any judges claim there is a 14th Amendment issue impeding the enforcement of DOMA or state laws like Proposition 8,there is no alternative to a Constitutional Amendment explicitly prohibiting such interpretations.
Alex, you’re concentrating on Federal Govt job description, rather than voter’s referendum to amend the constitution… The Govt is ruled by the people, for the people, and the majority rule… And most certainly when it comes to same sex marriage, the masses have it RIGHT! Surely we're not that dumb to allow 3% of the majority to tells us how to think, what to try and who to try it with, or to abandon our deeply held morals and beliefs just to make them feel go, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!