NOM BLOG

Press Release: NOM Congratulates Newt Gingrich on South Carolina Win

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 21, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray at 703-683-5004


NOM Logo

Former Speaker of the House has signed NOM's Marriage Pledge

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today congratulated GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich on his victory in the South Carolina primary.

"NOM congratulates Newt Gingrich on his impressive come-from-behind victory in South Carolina." said Brown. "We have had three different victors in state contests thus far — Rick Santorum in Iowa, Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and now Newt Gingrich in South Carolina. What all these states have in common is that they have picked candidates who have signed NOM's Marriage Pledge. They are all winners and NOM supports each of them."

Gingrich, Santorum and Romney have each signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, which commits signatories, if elected, to taking specific steps toward preserving the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Rep. Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican presidential candidate not to have signed the pledge, and he is not considered to have any realistic chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

"It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said. "We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama."

###

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

36 Comments

  1. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Gingrich/Santorum ticket.

    I'll roll with that.

  2. Zack
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    This truly worth noting. If Newt wins Florida, he'll secure the nomination. Now just because he won this doesn't secure him a second win, but it definitely means he'll close the gap substantially.

  3. HBD
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    Does Gingrich's include an "open marriage" clause?

  4. James
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    This is great news indeed.

    Instead of a relative moderate running against Obama as we did last election, we might just have a serial adulterer running on the "family values" platform who was sanctioned by his own party for extensive ethics violations when he was speaker of the house.

    Ethics? What's that? Thanks for your endorsement NOM! It speaks volumes of your own lack thereof ...

    Hey ... as long as he sufficiently hates "queers", right?

  5. Publius
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    I will not vote for Newt Gingrich either in a primary or a general election.

  6. Joe
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Not just a serial adulterer, but a man who demands his second wife accept his "devout catholic" (you've got to love that) mistress into an open marriage, then divorces her when she says no. Oh, and he does this just after she is diagnosed with an incurable disease. And he tells her over the telephone. But NOM has no problem with any of that .... I guess that answers the question - Is NOM pro-marriage or just anti-gay? Anti-gay.

  7. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    ==I will not vote for Newt Gingrich either in a primary or a general election.==

    If not in the general election, if he is the nominee, then that's a vote for Obammy and you're happy with that.

  8. Publius
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    @Mr. Incredible

    I will not vote for President Obama either. I will not be particularly happy if either man wins the election. My one vote will not, unless there is an unlikely tie, decide the election. My one vote does indicate that I support the candidate in question, and in this case I can't support either. Fortunately, a president is not a king. He is not the sole component of the government. I can devote my political energies elsewhere in the unlikely event that Speaker Gingrich becomes the GOP presidential nominee.

  9. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    I'm Conservative,and I may, or may not, like the nominee, but I like Obammy WWWAAAYYYY far less. So, I don't care who the nominee is, I'm voting Republican, if only to get this creep out of office.

  10. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    If you don't vote, or if you vote for some third party candidate, that vote, or non-vote, effectively goes to Obammy as one of the only two, electable candidates.

  11. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    You don't have to vote for Obammy to make your not voting for him count for him.

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Newt's the smartest guy in the room, and he refuses to dumb it down for the opposition. He's made mistakes, but who hasn't? The question is do we grow from our mistakes? I support him.

  13. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I like Santorum, but I will not be unhappy if Gingrich -- intellect without pretense -- is the nominee. However, in the final analysis, I'm voting for the Republican, no matter who it is.

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Chuck Norris wrote in his endorsement for Newt:

    "No man or candidate is perfect. We all have skeletons in our closets. If buried bones become unforgivable bones of contention, the world will never know another Benjamin Franklin or King David. We must remember that we're electing a president, not a pastor or pope. The mainstream media and a billion-dollar campaign coffer are on Obama's side, so we need a veteran of political war who already has fought Goliath, because he will be facing Goliath's bigger brother."

    What really gets me is that if this were a Democrat, or any other politician who endorsed SS"M", he would get a complete pass for everything! Where was your moral condemnation over Bill Clinton's antics?

    Lousy hypocrites!

  15. Gina
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    What really kills me about that last comment soa is that an ACTOR'S opinion holds that much weight with you. "Walker, Texas Ranger" is not the source of all goodness in the political arena, sorry!

  16. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Here, my congratulations are reserved for Brian and the NOM leadership for a strategy that has produced the certainty that one of the nominees for president in the general election will be publicly committed to NOM's list of pro-marriage measures.

    In contrast the current President gave reassurances during his campaign both in the Dem primaries and in the last general election but in office he demonstrated mendacity on this issue. His pro-SSM supporters knew better than the electorate that Obama was hiding his intentions so they supported him even though he made those ambiguous noises about agreeing with the man-woman criterion of marriage. The SSM campaign's strategy is duplicitous as is that of the current President (and candidate for re-election.)

    The incumbent has not yet been held accountable for his flip-flop performance on the marriage issue while in office. If he poses as pro-marriage he will have no excuse for a retreat to supposed neutrality. His stand against DOMA gives him no wiggle room.

    Now voters will at least have the opportunity to vote for a more committed candidate who has already benefited from the NOM pledge in debate and in appealing for support among voters.

    The voters in the primaries can weigh each Repub candidate's record and judge his political stick-to-itness on the marriage issue - as a political issue re the marriage pledge all leading candidates are now committed to unambiguously.

    That said, the first task is choosing the winning Repub candidate from among the remaining leading candidates. We may hear soon about short list of VP nominees which, I hope, NOM will make clear must be comprised of pledge signers too. Choice of VP often reflects the winning candidate's assessment of gaps in his own support. Primary winners often choose running mates from the short list of leaders in the primaries. So the odds are good that the Repub ticket will be comprised of pledge signers.

    The next task will be to elected the pro-marriage ticket in the general.

    The work continues in terms of fulfilling the items in the pledge.

    And it should be stressed that a loss for the pro-SSM candidates in the general election ... for all offices .... will set the stage for the next general and for the Dem primaries for all offices. The strategy has to be to make the promarriage pledge the new default in both parties.

    That means holding elected politicians accountable in light of the pledge ... short term and long term. NOM is doing well on all points.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    "What really kills me about that last comment soa is that an ACTOR'S opinion holds that much weight with you. "Walker, Texas Ranger" is not the source of all goodness in the political arena, sorry!"

    Then I guess that discredits all the other ACTORS in hollywood who endorse SS"M". Sorry!

  18. Lefty
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    @Son of Adam

    What really gets me is that if this were a Democrat, or any other politician who endorsed SS"M", he would get a complete pass for everything! Where was your moral condemnation over Bill Clinton's antics?

    Refresh my memory. Who was it who picked that whole fight over Monica Lewinsky in the first place?

  19. OrthodoxJew
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    I cannot vote for Gingrich--a vote for him is a vote for hypocrisy. Gingrich signed the pledge defining marriage as "one man and one woman"? Please! His whole life is the loudest protest against any kind of pro-family traditional marriage lifestyle. (You want his mistress of 8 years as the First Lady?) Yes, I'm against SSM and Obama will probably support it if reelected. But we cannot have a self-righteous serial adulterer hypocrite lead the battle for marriage. It will make those traditionalists who support Gingrich a laughing stock.

    Rick Santorum for President!

  20. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    In terms of the Newt candidacy my thoughts are:

    1) Personal marital history is relevant given that marriage is a public status and given that the promarriage pledge arises from the special reason for the special status of the social institution.

    2) To some extent the pro-SSM attack on Newt reveals the pro-SSM hypocrisy of claiming that SSM is really about personal choice rather than societal approval of the type of relationship known as marriage.

    3) To some extent the example of Newt, personal marital failings and public support for marriage, reflects the conflicted feelings of many of those in the middle of the spectrum on the marriage issue. Such voters feel compromised in terms of political optics. Newt's performance in this campaign indicates that this is a strength for it gives the pro-marriage pledge an entry into that expansive but very soft and ambiguous support for SSM.

    4) Can Newt and his presidential aspirations translate into a turning-the-corner movement in that portion of the electorate that has felt adrift on the marriage issue (and which inadvertently has encouraged the SSM campaign to claim higher and stronger support... supposedly increasing) such that all candidates in races for the various elected offices around the country can gain confidence in the political advantage of the pledge? Newt is articulating the premise for such a turn.

    5) If Newt loses the primaries would his level of support merit him as VP choice? We don't yet know the full level of his support. If on the ticket, would Newt's example ... his articulation of how he has resolved the conflict I described earlier ... be a help or a hindrance to the fulfillment of the marriage pledge? If this would fill a gap in the support of the winner of the primary that would be a very good thing for that. If Newt wins the primary season,then he will obviously have a different sort of political gap in his support and so we can consider potential running mates on that basis.

    The upshot for me is that I cannot rule out a vote for Newt ... primary candidate or general election candidate for president or for vice-president. This comes down to a presidential choice and the marriage pledge has thankfully provided a fantastic clearing away of underbrush on the marriage issue.)

  21. Posted January 22, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Speaking as a married Catholic of three, this is an absolute farce. Gingrich's antics do far more to denigrate the sacrament of marriage than signing some politically expedient 'pledge' can do to help it. Does the request to his wife for what amounts to an open marriage amount to 'defending marriage?' And to those who play the 'we all make mistakes' card, remember, we are talking about an adult grown man who cheated on his wife, not some youthful indiscretions.

    Sorry that Ron Paul didn't sign your marriage 'pledge'; he's been busy living that pledge every day for the past 50 years that he and Carol have been married.

    Peace be with you.

  22. Zack
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    @Lefty

    Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his affair. Not because he had the affair.

    This political slandering gets us nowhere. The guy who I want for president won a crucial primary last night and I'm grateful. Yes Gingrich has had a history of infidelity but I'm willing to look passed that just as the left was willing to look passed JFK's sexcapades and Bill Clinton's. Even John Edwards, a top tier Democratic candidate back in 2008 cheated on his wife till the day she died.

    But Newt Gingrich is all the rage.

    All they can do is character assassination. I will gladly vote for this man if it means the economy gets back on track.

  23. SC Guy
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    I am a South Carolina voter and I attended an event that was addressed by both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. I got to meet/shake hands with both candidates and there's something about seeing and hearing them in person that's different from TV and the Internet. When I left the event that night I knew Newt Gingrich was my candidate, even though Rick and his wife were very nice to me. So yesterday I cast my ballot for Newt and anyone who has noticed me on the NOM blog knows that I am 100% for traditional marriage and values. I urge my fellow conservatives to vote for Newt whether you are in Florida or elsewhere. He's miles better than Mitt Romney who I do not believe Mitt can be trusted on marriage.

  24. Publius
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    @SC Guy

    Newt's first two wives believed he could be trusted on marriage.

    Mitt, in contrast, has been true to his wife.

  25. Andre Mitchell
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    It is amazing that this organization would endorse someone who would bring an 8 year mistress into the white house as the first lady over someone who has stayed married to the same woman.

  26. OrthodoxJew
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Publius and cannot understand why SC Guy wants to entrust the highest office in the world--and the task of defending "marriage"--to a serial adulterer, lyer and all-around sleazeball. I wish more folks like you voted for a truly honorable man who supports our values in word and in deed--Rick Santorum.

  27. SC Guy
    Posted January 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    @Publius

    Do you have evidence that Mitt has never cheated on his wife? That's what is claimed but we don't really know for sure, do we?

    @OrthodoxJew

    Your allegations of Speaker Gingrich are based on his past and I don't see it in the way he is now. Sure he has a past but we all do and I just don't buy your argument that he's a 'sleazeball' and clearly most conservative South Carolinians didn't, either.

    As for Rick Santorum, I have met him and while I liked him, he just didn't strike me as the kind of guy who's ready for the job of the presidency. He is too pushy and attack-oriented and I think that would backfire on him big time in the general election.

  28. Layne
    Posted January 23, 2012 at 3:45 am | Permalink

    @SC Guy: So now a candidate's past is irrelevant?

    Where were you four years ago when the press was 24/7 devoted to Jeremiah Wright/Bill Ayers/Birth certificates/Saul Alinsky (whoever that is..)?

    It's so funny how a Republican runs for President and his three marrriages and ethics charges are off the table.

    But when a Democrat runs it's open season?

    I love Republican consistency. Good luck voting for Newt. Now there's somebody who upholds the traditional marriage model of one man, one mistress.

  29. Randy E King
    Posted January 23, 2012 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    Apples to Oranges Layne.

    The Newt attacks are based on events that happened 15 years ago; whereas the facts made of Obama's sorted history where/are fresh and ongoing. Newt may have been a scoundrel if you view selective aspects of his past inaccurately; whereas Obama is a scoundrel who is waging war on the source of our freedom.

    One man is a sinner; the other one is a traitor. You would think marriage corruption supporters would have more compassion for the sinner...

  30. Publius
    Posted January 23, 2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    @SC guy

    While it may be impossible to prove a negative, I met Mitt years ago in a church setting, I know people who have known him very well over a very long period, I know of his abiding commitment to his faith, and I know of the scrutiny he has received over the years from the press. He and Rick Santorum rightly have the confidence of their wives.

  31. SC Guy
    Posted January 23, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    @ Publius

    When I and my family met Newt the other day, he seemed genuine - something that none of us feel about Mitt Romney. Obviously, Newt's past is a concern but he's been very upfront about it and and shown a lot of remorse about it. I think that says something.

    Additionally, I read an article by Matt Towery, a high profile political pollster who has known Newt for many years and he says that while he's not at liberty to say a whole lot, he knows that Newt's marriage to Marianne was doomed from the start and that both sides were responsible for the marriage's termination.

    Don't be sanctimonious. Ronald Reagan's first marriage ended in divorce and both he and his wife Nancy were known to be sexual sinners in their younger, wilder years in Hollywood. It's implied that George W. Bush was like this when younger too with his drugs, etc. What matters is what is the person like now?

    If it's true that Mitt Romney hasn't fallen into the sexual deviancy of so many high fligh corporate executives (who manage to hide it very well), then good on him. But even his staunchest supporters have to acknowledge that he doesn't strike you as completely genuine in his beliefs.

    And as I said, I liked Rick Santorum when I met him but he just didn't strike me that he was up to the job of the presidency. The debates have shown this too. He's too petulant and attack prone compared to Newt's vast library of knowledge and ability to think on his feet. So for me, I'm rooting for Newt Gingrich.

  32. Publius
    Posted January 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    As Maggie Gallagher put it

    “Truth matters. Frankly, this divorce was not a personal tragedy for Newt Gingrich. A tragedy is something that happens to you. This divorce was his decision, motivated apparently by his growing preference for his mistress over his wife.

    If he can successfully emerge as the darling of evangelicals and defeat Mitt Romney and win the White House well, then there was nothing tragic about it at all for Newt Gingrich.

    Divorce is tragic for the children, tragic for the discarded spouse. For the person who wants out, for Newt Gingrich it was just a useful tool.

    I don’t know how many Americans care about marriage that deeply any more, but I do.

    Gingrich ideological eloquence rallies the base as we watch him debate, but his personal history is going to repel ordinary married mothers without strong ideological convictions to tug them the other way.

    In November, Newt Gingrich is going to appear to much of the country as a deeply nerve-wracking, un-reassuring man to trust to in a crisis.

    And for those of us who care deeply about life and marriage, it's not just Gingrich’s past, it is his present that is a problem.

    … if Newt Gingrich had a core, I thought it was free market economics. But Gingrich showed himself willing to abandon that too when he attacked Bain.

    The guy who abruptly dumped on private equity for political gain is exactly the same guy who traded a Marianne for a Callista.

    Newt hasn’t changed.”

  33. Posted January 23, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Jeff Jacoby exposes Gingrich.

    "On his website, Gingrich describes himself as an internationally recognized "expert on world history, military issues, and international affairs." He would like to be regarded as a man of deep learning and principled ideas. He is coming across so far as a politician who will say anything to score cheap points."

  34. Chris Bieber
    Posted January 23, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    How utterly sad to see this group clutching at straws and shilling for "good' representatives of American culture and faith and the sanctity of Gods gift of marriage....actually a mocking.

    Your worship of the Words of Paul over the words of Christ ie Rom 13....has led you to this pathetic attempt to "play ball'.. Worshipping the gods of War and Politics..with NO comprehension of the latter..and a worship of of the former...and now this.

    The Country.....do we as a nation or as His Church deserve His continued hand of protection?????

    With our trackrecord and the descending handbasket we are in we "deserve" Newton and his globalism and Statism!!!!!!.

    Very sad to see this........

    Chris
    a Reagan soldier, a freedom fighter and widow.

  35. John J. O'Sullivan
    Posted January 23, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    Did someone from The Onion somehow hack into this website? It's the only explanation for this press release. This is nuts.

    I shan't be voting for Gingrich for a number of reasons. His weird serial monogamy is one of them. I'll support the one man whose morals, faith—and marital example—follows through: Ron Paul.

    -j

  36. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    Apparently Newt will have to rise to a very high standard of political success as candidate for the nomination and as candidate for president if he gets into the general election.

    Think of the Gospels and the examples of individuals turning their lives around and achieving so much good.

    With his personal marital history Newt will be on the hook to perform exceedingly well publicly in favor of the marriage pledge. It is not some expedient tool but a list of goals that will need all the effective leadership in all the leverage points in our political system.

    On the other hand there are two good men still competing for the nomination and voters need to assess which of the last three are capable of doing the most for the pro marriage cause.

    But he also has to win first.

    Of course even a candidate who loses but who unabashedly promotes the goals in the pledge will push us closer to achieving those goals.

    Now is the time to make your influence felt. It is the season for advancement of the pro marriage cause. The President is our one and only generally elected national representative. Whoever fills that post for the next four years must have our cause on his mind one way or the other.