NOM BLOG

NOM Pledges to Fight Same-Sex Marriage in Maine

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 26, 2012

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


"What part of ‘no' don't gay marriage advocates understand?"—Brian Brown, NOM President

Augusta—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), America's leading pro-marriage group, today pledged an all-out battle in Maine to defeat a proposed amendment imposing same-sex marriage in the sate. Voters previously rejected gay marriage in 2009.

"NOM intends to vigorously fight this attempt by same-sex marriage advocates to impose gay marriage in Maine," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Maine voters rejected gay marriage barely more than two years ago. What part of ‘no' don't gay marriage advocates understand?"

In 2009, voters passed Question One, a "People's Veto" overturning legislation that attempted to legalize gay marriage. NOM spent nearly $2 million on the Question One campaign.

"The people of Maine are not in favor of redefining marriage, as we showed in 2009," Brown said. "Gay advocates are fooling themselves when they say things have changed. Voters still understand that marriage is about more than the desires of adults. They still understand that children need both a mother and father. They understand that same-sex marriage has real consequences for people of faith, small businesses, churches and religious organizations. And they understand that marriage is too important a social institution to be kicked to the curb to satisfy the political demands of a small but powerful and vocal special interest group. We are completely confident that Mainers will oppose this attempt, just as they rejected gay marriage in 2009."

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.

###

27 Comments

  1. Bobby
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    What part of CIVIL RIGHTS doesn't Brian Brown understand? Imagine if American-Americans had simply accepted "NO" and given up.

  2. Sheryl Carver
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Right on, Bobby!

  3. Bobby
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    * That'd be AFRICAN-Americans

  4. Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Bob

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

  5. Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Bob

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

  6. Jo
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    so, can we assume that if the day comes and the people of a state vote in marriage equity we shall hear nothing about NOM trying to push back?

  7. rover serton
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Jo: I'm suspecting no means no, unless that is the wrong answer.

  8. Publius
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Comparing racial discrimination to redefining marriage is a false analogy. The Supreme Court did not buy the argument in Baker v. Nelson, most African-Americans don’t buy it, and the citizens of Maine did not buy it either when they voted on the issue.

    We already have marriage equity. There is no orientation test for marriage. Most courts in the U.S. and around the world have upheld the traditional definition of marriage, as has the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Bill, by bringing up the Vatican, is just showing his animus against Catholicism.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Gee,the pro-SSMers really pounced on this one.

    It is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT to participate in an institution that exists to promote a particular form of relationship while engaging in a relationship that fails to meet the fundamental defining characteristic of the preferred relationship type.

  10. Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Quit trying to equate the plight of African-Americans to gay people today. That argument is outdated. The struggles are not equal, although you'd probably like it to be for your convenience.

  11. Layne
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Louis that makes absolutely no sense.

    Stick to your bumper sticker slogans they're a lot easier.

  12. Jo
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Louis, in the absence of a rational legal basis to bar me it sure is my right to participate in any institution which my tax dollars support.

  13. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Those who claim to be homosexual may do as all the rest of us may do. The law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, includes everybody who is either a man/male, or a woman/female.

  14. Millard Kinnison
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Still trying to use race. Last time I checked, homosexuality is not a race. Homosexuality is a behavior and we were either born male or female...not a man in a womans body or a woman in a mans body. You are either male or female. Oh, never mind. The libtards will never understand it anyway.

  15. Millard Kinnison
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    I see my last post isn't here. How nice.

  16. Fitz
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Jo

    Its "rational basis" not "rational legal basis" - its the lowest standard the law recognizes and is easily met by arguments for traditional marriage.

    Baker v. Nelson however demonstrates that the fundemental right to marriagealone simply does not submit itself to a 14th amendment challenge to begin with.

  17. Randy
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Jo - so, can we assume that if the day comes and the people of a state vote in marriage equity we shall hear nothing about NOM trying to push back?

    Why should they? The SSM activists didnt care about what the voters of California said not once, But twice.

  18. Posted January 26, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    So, Bobby, exactly which same-sex couples should be granted the right to marry, and why? Do you really mean ALL same-sex couples?

    From whence does the right for a same-sex couple to marry, come?

  19. Leo
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Bill,
    Your commentary would be laughable if it wasn’t so outrageously stupid....

  20. bman
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Bobby->What part of CIVIL RIGHTS doesn't Brian Brown understand?

    There is no civil right to have an alternative form of marriage publicly recognized by society.

  21. Wayne
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Bobby:

    As a Black man, I can say that the African-American community will NEVER EVER accept any so-called comparison between our legitimate Civil Rights struggle with homosexuals. We reject that nonsense!

    You cannot equate the color of my SKIN with the perversion of your SIN. That says it all. Even gay radio pernality Dan Savage has admitted that the gay community is in error to try to make that comparison (Larry King Live 2009).

  22. Sheryl Carver
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    So because you are Black, Wayne, you speak for every Black person? Fascinating.

  23. phc
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 2:08 am | Permalink

    Louis: "It is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT to participate in an institution that exists to promote a particular form of relationship while engaging in a relationship that fails to meet the fundamental defining characteristic of the preferred relationship type"

    There is a lot of truth here, Louis, but it is confusing to those whom have been led by propaganda to a completely different concept of marriage.

    Let me see if I can help translate a little bit.

    " an institution that exists to promote a particular form of relationship "
    Society supports marriage to promote it. It does this because it has a vested interest in the unique contributions the committed lifetime union of a man and a woman can give back to society, mainly procreation of the next generation of said society, and the best possible environment for that generation to grow up: with their fundamental right to their mother *and* father provided.

    "the fundamental defining characteristic of the preferred relationship type"
    Marriage is the "preferred relationship type" which is what is being sought by some for couples of the same sex. "The fundamental defining characteristic" of marriage is Man/Woman. There is no such thing as marriage without a wife. No such thing as marriage without a husband. If a union does not have a husband *and* a wife, it is not marital. That is what marriage *is*, the union of a man and a woman.

    Louis is exactly right.
    Everyone has a right to marry. Even felons, who have had other rights removed from them have the right to marry. Having the right to marry is granted to us as *individuals*. It is not the couple that has the right, but the individuals entering into the union who have the right.
    However when a person chooses to be in a loving committed union with a member of the same sex, they have made a willful decision to *not* be in a marital union because a marital union is a union with a member of the *opposite* sex. Their choice for a partner is *same* sex. That is their choice, and every one has a right to make such choices. We do not however have a right to claim to be something we are not and require every one else to acknowledge that we are when we are not, not even to mention to support us as if we were.

    Since society supports the marital union because it supports society back with the potential of procreation *and* providing children with a mother *and* a father, if a union cannot provide society this support, then society will not and should not support the union.

    It is not a matter of inequality because same sex unions do not support society equally as the marital union. The very nature of their union deems it impossible for them to do so.
    Marriage to society is more then just a name.

  24. Layne
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 3:05 am | Permalink

    Wayne:

    No offense, but I have plenty of LGBT African-American friends that would disagree with you, not to mention Congressman John lewis and the late Coretta Scott King.

    What would you say to them?

  25. Leo
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 4:37 am | Permalink

    @ Sheryl Carver, Layne, your igorance show.... and yes, you black african american frriend got it wrong... you guys arre sick!

  26. TC Matthews
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    One group of people I am particularly pleased to have the support of is the section of LGBT population that doesn't follow the radical leadership, but heartily supports marriage and family as defined--- between a man and a woman.

  27. Jason
    Posted January 29, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Homosexual behavior is NOT a civil right,
    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/allen-west-you-cannot-compare-me-and-my-race-to-homosexual-behavior/politics/2011/08/10/25261