NOM BLOG

NOM Pledges $250K to Fund Primary Challenges to Any Washington State Republican Senator Who Votes to Redefine Marriage

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 18, 2012

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Anath Hartmann at (703-683-5004)


"We intend to hold every legislator accountable for his or her vote on marriage."
—Brian Brown, NOM's president—

Olympia, WA — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's leading pro-marriage organization, today announced that it will spend $250,000 to help fund primary challenges to any Republican legislator who crosses the party platform and votes in favor of same-sex marriage. NOM will also work with pro-marriage grassroots organizations to ensure that the people of Washington have the chance to vote on marriage in November 2012.

"It's fairly incredible that some legislators would try to legalize homosexual marriage so soon after giving same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of marriage through Domestic Partnerships. This effort proves that the question is not one of rights but preserving marriage as a child-focused institution that has served families since the dawn of time," stated Brian Brown, NOM's president. "We intend to hold every legislator accountable for his or her vote on marriage. Any Republican who votes to redefine marriage can count on funding of a primary challenge to them. All legislators need to know that the same-sex marriage lobby wants to destroy the institution of marriage, redefining not just marriage, but also 'husband,' 'wife,' 'mother,' and 'father.'"

NOM has helped mount successful election challenges to countless legislators who supported same-sex marriage in places like Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, California and New York. The group is particularly effective at ending the careers of Republican officials who abandon marriage. For example, NOM is responsible for defeating U.S. Senate candidates Bill Binnie in New Hampshire and Tom Campbell in California, as well as removing sitting state legislators in multiple states.

"In New Hampshire NOM worked with grassroots organizations to flip the state legislature there after liberal democrats legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. NOM played in 119 house races and won all of them. As a result, the New Hampshire legislature is now poised to restore the rightful definition of marriage in the coming weeks," explained Brown. "Our work in Minnesota and Maine also helped deliver a pro-marriage majority to both states. Minnesota will vote on a pro-marriage amendment in 2012 thanks to a bi-partisan majority of legislators in both houses."

NOM will also work to make sure that, if the State Legislature legalizes same-sex marriage, the people of Washington have the right to vote on it and repeal the work of the legislature.

"In 31 states the people have had the right to vote on marriage and every time the people have voted to protect the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The people of Washington State deserve the same right. If the legislature forces through same-sex marriage, they need to know that marriage will be on the ballot in November and the people of Washington will hold them accountable," stated Brown.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], (x130) or Anath Hartmann, [email protected], (x105) at 703-683-5004.

###

23 Comments

  1. kieran
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    So again I ask, how is this not hypocritical of NOM, who criticized Republicans for accepting money in NY for voting for marriage equality? This is out of state money trying to influence in-state politics, something NOM has repeatedly derided in the past.

  2. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    SS"M" advocates are acting offensively. NOM is acting defensively. NOM is defending marriage from the assult of SS"M" advocates who are trying to abolish and replace it with an androgynous. institution with the same name. Big difference.

  3. Garrett
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Now who's doing the "money dance"?

  4. Garrett
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Semantics, Son of Adam. One person's "defensively" is another's "offensively."

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    NY legislators sold their vote to the highest bidder. NOM is holding WA legislators accountable for their vote. Only the corrupt are unable to tell the difference between these two distinct scenarios.

    SSM advocates seek to redefine marriage. NOM is defending marriage. Only the corrupt attempt to confuse the words "offense" and "defense."

  6. Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    In 1856, the Republican party opposed the extension of the twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy, into the territories.

  7. Dawn
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Brown, I am wondering if you have ever heard the quote from an outstanding Catholic, Ferdinand Magellan, "The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church."?

    I am also wondering if you have ever considered if the Church might be wrong about marriage being between one man and one woman?

  8. Marcos
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    So when slavery was abolished through the court and legislature, was it the plantation owners who were on the "defensive" to keep the tradition of slavery?? In Football, the offense AND defense are capable of scoring touchdowns.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Any Democrats who flip in favor of SSM should also be primaried by SSM opponents.

  10. Bill
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Ejercito, the founding fathers saw a country where all men were created equal except for slaves. So tell us why the Republicans went against the founding fathers, they went against state rights and they went against the will of the people? BTW the Bible is pro-slavery. I'm not for slavery, but if the repubs followed NOMs example, that tradition would be alive today.

  11. Rick DeLano
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Great job NOM.

    This is what it's going to take.

    Let the advocates of marriage corruption know that the arguments have all been made, the people have hear them all ad nauseam.

    It's time for political smash mouth football now.

    We'll win this thing once Minnesota and North Carolina vote down marriage corruption, and the four Judases in New York are retired.

    That ought to send a message.

    Loud and clear.

  12. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    "I am also wondering if you have ever considered if the Church might be wrong about marriage being between one man and one woman?"

    When same sex couples are able to procreate with one another, I'll consider the notion that homosexuality is part of God's biological design.

  13. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    "So when slavery was abolished through the court and legislature, was it the plantation owners who were on the "defensive" to keep the tradition of slavery??"

    Yes, they were. Not that slavery and family values are moral twins mind you.

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    "the founding fathers saw a country where all men were created equal except for slaves."

    WHERE IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DOES IT SAY THAT!

  15. Bill
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    The founding fathers wrote more than just the Declaration of Independence. They were slaves owners themselves. Ipso facto.

  16. Louis E.
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Dawn,I'm not religious and don't care what churches think.Sexual dimorphism has evolved in our species and therefore opposite-sex sexual relationships are a norm to which as a reasoning species we should feel obligated to adhere.The existence of marriage as a secular civil institution is justified only insofar as it promotes adherence to that norm.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    "The founding fathers wrote more than just the Declaration of Independence. They were slaves owners themselves."

    Not all of them were. And those who did had qualms about the institution.

  18. M. Jones
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    The founding fathers also never said same-sex friendships could be marriages.

  19. Anita Cox
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    I am so tired of teh gays shoving their disgusting lifestyles down our throats! I've had more than I can take! They are inches away from making me want to puke with their offensive lifestyle! When is enough enough?

  20. Garrett
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    They also never said women could vote, but look where we are...

  21. Little man
    Posted January 19, 2012 at 4:37 am | Permalink

    Dawn: Marvelous joke! :) So funny. Since the Earth is round, therefore same-sex civil marriage is what..? Ha, ha, I hadn't laughed as good all day. Thank you :) By the way, the medieval church at the time of Copernicus believed the Earth was round, according to Ptolemy (Greek who had done some good mathematics) but considering, relatively speaking, the Sun moved with respect to the Earth. Other Greeks had long since postulated a heliocentric system. Once the laws of gravitation were understood much later, it made sense to put the Sun at the center of orbits. With the Moon and Sun being so round, you think the church thought the Earth was flat? Very funny. Even the orbits were considered circular at Copernicus time.

  22. Little man
    Posted January 19, 2012 at 4:45 am | Permalink

    Bill: Yes, Mr. Ejercito is good at answering these kinds of questions. What you are saying is that the founding fathers were not bright enough to realize their own contradiction at writing that all men are created equal, while still owning and directing their own slaves. Is your question honest, or are you looking for anything to criticize? Do you really think the founding fathers so stupid, such that we should then throw away the US Declaration of Independence? Were they themselves enslaved by the British? Why do you think they were saying "all men are created equal"? Ponder on that for a while :)

  23. bman
    Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Dawn->I am also wondering if you have ever considered if the Church might be wrong about marriage being between one man and one woman?

    Dawn, have you looked at the the shadow cast by SSM?

    Its strong proof the church is right.