NOM BLOG

2012 Could Make or Break Gay Marriage! NOM Marriage News, January 26, 2012

 

NOM National Newsletter

My Dear Friends,

This Baptist Press story is right on the money: "2012 could be make or break year for future of gay marriage."

So much is happening.

First, nationally. As I told the press after the roller-coaster South Carolina primary, "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."

With your help (thank you!), "We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race."

The Associated Press notes: "With a flurry of coast-to-coast developments this week, same-sex marriage is back in the political spotlight and likely to remain there through Election Day as a half-dozen states face potentially wrenching votes on the issue."

And they quoted me saying this: "Brian Brown predicts his side will continue its winning streak and prevail in any state referendums that are held this fall. 'There's a myth that history is on a trajectory moving toward same-sex marriage.There is no such momentum.'"

I don't know if you've had a chance to encounter Thomas Peters, the young writer and activist who is organizing a Next Generation for Marriage project for NOM (more on that down the road). But on the NOM blog he asks a very astute question.

"If gay marriage is so popular...why didn't the President endorse it in his State of the Union address?"

Pres. Obama didn't even mention his ongoing effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Gay-marriage activists want to tell us that gay marriage is popular, and that DOMA is unpopular. "What does the President know that gay marriage activists don't want to admit?" Peters asks.

You and I know the answer to that question.

So does Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who told the New York Times why he is unwilling to let the people of New Jersey vote: "It's a hard dynamic to win at the polls," adding, "At the end of the day, gays are a minority and they can't match the crazies, who are out there and really motivated to vote against it."

It isn't very kind or respectful for a sitting politician to describe so many New Jerseyans as "crazy" for disagreeing with his position, but it's increasingly par for the course.

That kind of rhetoric is one reason the American people are digging in their heels and rejecting gay marriage when they are trusted with the choice at the polls.

Monmouth University pollster and political scientist Patrick Murray admitted as much to the Philadelphia Inquirer when he said that Democrats "don't want to put it on the ballot and have it fail because that would probably end the debate over this for quite some time.... It really is a very complex calculation that supporters of gay marriage would have to do before deciding to put this on the ballot." After the experience in California, Democrats may be wary of polls showing popular support for gay marriage.

The Inquirer noted, "Gay marriage there was banned, Murray said, in part because it was opposed by socially conservative African Americans who turned out in large numbers to vote for Barack Obama."

Meanwhile, gay-marriage activists—in the middle of a huge economic and budget crisis—have launched a calculated effort to try to quickly push gay marriage bills through the legislatures in Washington state and New Jersey.

Why? As I told the Philly Inquirer, "There's one reason why they're putting this bill forward: They want to raise money on it."

Our own Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute testified in Olympia, WA, as the Seattle Times reports: "Marriage attaches mother and fathers to their children and to one another."

As Christopher Plante added: "This is a decision to be left to the people."

Here you can see Christopher Plante fighting back on the Christian Broadcasting Network against 70 big-city mayors pushing for gay marriage.

 

NOM today released a statewide survey which shows Washington voters are not in favor of redefining marriage and want the Legislature to be working on other problems.

"Governor Gregoire is leading legislators off a political cliff with her focus on redefining marriage in Washington," I told the press. "Having approved civil unions, voters do not support redefining marriage and clearly do not want legislators doing so."

In fact, when reminded that Washington State has a civil union law for gay couples, 57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage. 72% of voters think state lawmakers should work on other issues rather than same-sex marriage. A nearly identical number—71% of voters—believe the people should decide the marriage issue; only 9% think legislators should decide the matter.

The survey found low job approval for both Governor Gregoire and the state Legislature. More people view Gregoire's job performance as only fair or poor (56%) as compared to excellent or good (34%). The numbers are even worse for the Legislature—66% say their job performance has been only fair or poor while just 17% say they have done an excellent or good job.

NOM has promised at least $250,000 to defeat any Republicans who vote for gay marriage, but let me tell you, the Democrats are going to face some pretty cranky voters too if they keep pushing pet personal priorities over the people's business.

Meanwhile, New Jersey's plain-spoken, outspoken Gov. Chris Christie astonished the media—but not us!—by doing what an honest leader should do, following through on his campaign promise and reiterating that he would veto a gay marriage bill.

 

Gov. Christie says, emphatically,

"I support giving New Jerseyans the ability to give voice to their support or their opposition to this issue.

"...I would hope that the legislature would be willing to trust the people, the way I'm willing to trust the people.

"This issue is too big and too consequential not to trust the people who will be governed ultimately by any change in law or maintenance of the current law."

We salute Gov. Christie and echo his call to trust the people of New Jersey with a decision so profound as the fundamental revision of our marriage laws.

Can you take a moment to thank him here?

When our guys stand tall for marriage, they need to hear our appreciation!

Thank Christie here!

Thank you for all you make possible.

Please pray for me, and for all the people and pastors and other leaders who are fighting for marriage in the states of Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Minnesota—and all across this great nation.

Together, we will never stop speaking the truth in love, and fighting for God's truth about marriage.

God bless you,

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

 

P.S. Now is not the time to stand on the sidelines! When you give to NOM you are playing a role in the crucial, ongoing fight for the truth about marriage and family life. You are helping to secure marriage for your children, your grandchildren, and the generations to come.

Donate Now

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

12 Comments

  1. Lefty
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    The demographics of Trenton strongly suggest that voters there would vote against SSM if they had a chance. Someone should ask Gusciora's constituents whether they think they're "crazies" who can't be trusted with a vote, like their own assemblyman says.

  2. james2
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Let's ask Governor Christie if we can all vote on the legal rights of morbidly obese people!

  3. Rick DeLano
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    NOM, while I have had my reservations about the strategy since the defeat in New York, I'm ready to face up to the facts you set forth above.

    This is the year.

    This is it.

    Donation en route.

    We will win this as long as it is about the children.

    Even adults mush minded enough to be hornswoggled by the non sequitirs and emotional appeals of the marriage corruption movement can never, ever, ever, be hornswoggled once they realize what same sex pseudo-marriage laws would mean for their kids....

    Forced indoctrination, under compulsory education laws, into a homosexualist fantasy world where gender is irrelevant and children have no right to expect society's laws to protect their interest in being raised by their own mother and father.

  4. bman
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Rick Delano->Forced indoctrination, under compulsory education laws, into a homosexualist fantasy world where gender is irrelevant and children have no right to expect society's laws to protect their interest in being raised by their own mother and father.

    A well articulated synopsis.

  5. Louis E.
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    James2,false claims that anything is the "legal right" of a class of people defined by wanting it have to be struck down by whatever means necessary.

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

    Rick DeLano
    What bman said. That was well articulate and right on the money.

  7. Rick DeLano
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    James2: I do not know of any movement of morbidly obese people demanding a redefinition of the law of gravity so as to render them thin.

  8. Little man
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    We have to remember that the people who wrote the US Constitution lived through many situations where people had severe differences of opinion. For them it was a matter of life and death, as revolutionaries. Today, it is not a matter of life and death. They developed, therefore, a system of government that was unique, and was the first time it was tried (though some notions copied aspects of the French Revolution). I saw in a movie that the French King decided to send money to the revolutionaries in the English colonies, as a maneuver against the English. He ran out of money, and caused his own decapitation and his wife's. The US Constitution does not expect us to agree all the time, but is a system which permits people with drastic differences of opinion about political and legal matters to live in relative peace. I have learned from the same-sex civil marriage debates that i am not interested in having anything to do with the 'crazies' who support same-sex civil marriage or civil unions. I have one vote, and my influence. I don't need to seek people of homosexuality, not advocates of it. I don't need them in my life, though i was for a time okay with mutual projects. No more. According to my limited experience, about 70% of them are emotionally unstable. 30% of them are wonderful persons, and very stable. Unfortunately, 70% of them make the other 30% look bad. I've seen how their advocates reason. I have seen enough. I won't discriminate, i will shy away from them, and vote accordingly on this coming series of elections.

  9. AJ
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 2:15 am | Permalink

    Traditions are not unmade by the traditions of others. If your habit is to celebrate birthdays at a park but mine is to celebrate it at a pizza parlor it does not redefine your own tradition, even though both are equally legal.

    It is still two families having a lovely time and expressing love among one another.

    So far as the idea that children will, en masse, be wrenched free of parents or respect of them -- it's fantasy. In fact, liberalization of families is what created our current family structure. Until even as recently as the 30s and 40s there was no emphasis on having a father at home. My grandfather, well-raised and highly intelligent, had a father who would spend days out in the oil fields, like many families of the time.

    It was a radical thing to tell couples they should spend as much time with their children as possible, and even then push back was strong. It was coddling, it was giving them too much attention. People lamented the end of nanny culture and the rise of the nuclear family.

    If we're talking tradition, then why this emphasis on fathers being at home at all? Even Jesus told fathers to leave their wives and children if they had a higher calling to come unto him. And many a man would spend days away earning a living, an agreeably lesser purpose than that.

    All things considered, I prefer a house of love :)

  10. Randy E King
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Excellent Rick!

    Sexual depravity is older than the Christian Bible; why would anyone want to redefine the very nature of a historic depravity with such a rich history; are those that partake in said depravity ashamed of "who they are?"

  11. Publius
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Googling "obesity" and "discrimination" produces a large number of hits. Governor Christie is no doubt aware that his weight makes him a less attractive candidate to most voters. I have considerable sympathy for the obese and am opposed to discrimination as a general rule, but to pretend that weight is irrelevant and to launch a propaganda campaign to promote that thesis would be a bad idea.

  12. Louis E.
    Posted January 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    AJ,
    I can not in good conscience marry in my home state while same-sex "marriage" remains legal here;I have lost my right to participate in an institution I can respect.Only if it serves to secure preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships can marriage be something I'd want to be a part of.