FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 31, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray at 703-683-5004
Former Governor of Massachusetts 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 Mitt Romney on his victory in the Florida primary.
“NOM congratulates Mitt Romney on his extremely impressive win in Florida." said Brown. "As a major winner-take-all state, this is a significant win for Governor Romney. This also marks the fourth straight state where the winner is a signatory to NOM’s Marriage Pledge. The only candidate who hasn’t signed, Ron Paul, hasn’t won a thing and finished in last place in Florida."
This is Romney’s second state win, having previously won in New Hampshire. Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses and Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina. All three of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination have 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.
“Ron Paul and his radical views on marriage were thoroughly repudiated in Florida, where he is barely receiving 7% of the vote,” Brown said.
“Preserving marriage has become an important issue in the race, and Ron Paul is simply wrong on marriage. We will continue to let voters know where the candidates stand on marriage. “
###
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.
31 Comments
For the record. Ron Paul's views on marriage aren't the reason people aren't voting for him.
It's because his foreign policy is down right suicidal.
"fourth straight state..." Oh the the delusions of grandeur... NOM persuaded all of the mainstream GOP candidates to sign the hate pledge. It's not like there are some other major contenders who didn't sign it and are now losing. In other words, it's completely irrelevant. Breaking news: FL is the fourth state in a row where the winner doesn'r have facial hair which means Americans oppose facial hair.
If a president signs this pledge, and then appoints judges based on its criteria, wouldn't that mean that judge would have to excuse themself from any same-sex marriage case?
One thing going for Romney is he already has experience fighting for marriage already. He fought for man/woman marriage against the radical crowd while governor of MA. He had to battle the state house.
As long as he is in the White House and the GOP controls the House we can be confident that the evil of counterfeit marriage does not go national. He also can be expected to make sure that any judges nominated are their to serve the people and not using the judicial branch to impose the homosexual agenda.
"If a president signs this pledge, and then appoints judges based on its criteria, wouldn't that mean that judge would have to excuse themself from any same-sex marriage case?"
Of course not. A recursal would only be expected if a judge was personally involved in a certian case.
But Son of Adam-
The judge has personally signed a pledge to do this and has a HUGE personal stake in the outcome. Therefore the judge should recuse himself.
Also, NOM, what about all the candidates who signed your marriage pledge who are out of the race, like Perry and Bachmann?
kieran,
How would the highest court appointees by a new president- would affect their ruling on a same sex marriage case-if one ever get that far? Judges are appointed to arbitrate laws created by congress...
not to apply laws on the basis of the President's beliefs.
Oh, so you mean someone like Vaughn Walker was appointed to arbitrate laws created by congress and voted on by the people? Not to apply laws based on the beliefs of who appointed him, or his own personal beliefs? You mean that he shouldn't have recused himself, then? Thanks, leo
My point is if a presidential candidate signs a pledge for a group known for being against same-sex marriage, and that president PROMISES to apoint judges based on certain criteria, then a bias can be assumed. (If a president signs a goofy pledge from a car manufacturer, would he be allowed to try a case about car emissions?)
A judge is supposed to interpret and uphold the law, not legislate from the bench by inventing new rights and new laws to please a special interest group. Those are the kind of judges that the Republican canidates have pledged to nominate in accordance to the NOM marriage pledge. And I quote:
"Nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution,"
By your silly reasoning, that means that these judges should recurse themselves from ALL cases, not just SS"M" cases.
Arthur,"bias" against same-sex sexual relationships should be seen as a constitutional obligation.And issuing any ruling characterizing sexual orientation as offering exemption from the public policies enforcing that "bias" that the general welfare clause should be seen as requiring,should be seen as an impeachable offense for a judge.
That is a very good question Arthur.
It is my understanding that the answer to this query resides within the history and traditions of the United States.
If a jurist is appointed based of his commitment to the traditions and historic truths the United States is founded on then they would not be required to recues themselves from cases that are a direct assault to this understanding, but if the perspective jurist is dedicated to re-defining the history and traditions of the United States - no matter the motivations - then that individual must recues themselves in all such instances.
Louis E-
You still haven't given a reason as to WHY one should be, to quote you, "Anti-gay" (from a much earlier comment). Your logic of "there's no reason NOT to" isn't really a reason, it's just circular logic.
Kieran, Louis never gives any proof. He just states an opinion and gives the 'it is right because I said so" excuse. It's pointless to ask him to back up his statements with, you know, facts.
Advocates of same-sex civil marriage also just give an opinion, with no proof. So what are they complaining about? We all have one vote, and the right to vote our value system. What the problem?
People in favor of same-sex marriage have shown a lot more proof as to why than those who are against it (Prop 8 trial anyone?). But Littleman, I think we can all agree that Louis is notorious for making some asinine statement and NEVER backing it up. It's like an old man sitting on a porch shouting racial slurs.
This was a funny thread to read but come on guys, when it comes to a match of wits NOMers are poorly armed.
I for one will not be voting for Mitt Romney if he is the ultimate GOP nominee. Of course I won't vote for Barack Obama but I will just leave the ballot blank or vote for a minor conservative candidate.
Before Florida, I may have considered Romney but having seen what a mean-spirited liar and extremely dishonest person he is, I simply will not be able to support him. Being rich isn't a sin but being an arrogant, oppressive rich person is and if Gingrich or Santorum don't make it to the ballot, I will not be voting Republican for President - only for Congress and the legislature.
I have now completely ruled Romney out. I do not and can not believe a word that comes out of his mouth so I cannot in good conscience entrust him with my vote for president.
Arthur,the facts are all on my side and "saying so" is irrelevant.Anyone who looks at the Prop 8 trial as other than Judge Walker stipulating falsehoods as facts and throwing out precedent that required him to dismiss the case is not well acquainted with facts.
Mitt Romney has signed NOM's pledge, and personally believes in 1man/1woman civil marriage, and he would 'try' to adhere by the pledge, if US President. But what if he doesn't? He has been shown to lie profusely when the pressure gets rough, and simply to achieve political power. What if he, like Christie in New Jersey advocates for civil unions for same-sex partnerships, with all the privileges of civil marriage - essentially civil marriage under a different name? Mitt Romney has gotten NOM's support just by signing a piece of paper. At least R. Paul is honest enough not to feign supporting NOM's pledge. The New Testament says:
Matthew 7:18-20
New International Version (NIV)
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
What facts, Louis? WHAT FACTS? Looking at the Prop 8 trial, what was the judge SUPPOSED to do? The defense team offered no, NO, evidence?
I will not be voting for Mitt Romney - not after what he said and did in Florida. He's just a liar and very dishonest after what he did down there. So it's a blank ballot on the President or for a minor conservative candidate for conscience sake. Santorum or Gingrich I would vote for but not Romney. Absolutely not.
Arthur,the judge was supposed to look at Baker vs. Nelson and tell the plaintiff that the question of a "right" to same-sex "marriage" had been permanently settled in the negative.
SC Guy:
You may not be voting for him in a primary, mine is March 6th, but at this point and momentum he has the nomination just about sown up.
If it is between Obama and Romney who would you vote for?
Hey, King Arthur: Mr. Louis E. has his opinions based on homosexuality's consequences to society on a statistical average, and the lack of logic (yet, lots of analogies) on the part of same-sex marriage supporters. Note that it is not 'gay' marriage that is being legislated in some States, and legislated against in others. If you think more proof or less proof is the important factor, then you don't know anything about legal proof. Though i cannot speak for NOM, or the moderator, EVERY person commenting here on NOM's comment threads has the option of a) simply stating an opinion (which is already a comment), or b) providing reasons or c) references to support a point. From my daily reading, most of the raw opinions on NOM's threads which pass moderation or automatic content filters are submitted by people who support same-sex civil marriage, whether they are of homosexual persuasion or not. NOM has content, and is not out to insult anyone. But if someone gets offended, that's their problem. It is not against the law to offend someone, nor could it be. Like everything having to do with civil marriage re-definition, it is a matter of predicted consequences.
Louis E.
I will agree with you that the case of Baker v. Nelson should have been used as a precedent to render a verdict in the case. However a judge does not have to follow it, especially when the US Supreme Court never heard or ruled on Baker v. Nelson, they chose to dismiss the case, so in reality any judge can rule on a similar case, and eventually it will make it back to the US Supreme Court for review.
Romney is worse than NObama because he is courting the Republicans. Imagine is NObama was re-elected by both Republicans and Democrats symultaneously. Anyone can speak negatively of NObama. It doesn't take a genius. But NObama fears Gingrich, so Romney is getting $ from the same NObama's $ source. Given a choice between NObama and Romney, i just don't vote. What for? Same illusionist.
The very notion that Walker made a legitimate unbiased decision based on the law is a joke - more than that. It is a LIE!
Judge Walker did not just ignore the contrary precedents; he pretended they do not exist.
Judge Walker ignored every contrary fact presented to him—pretending they, too, did not exist. (The media is retailing this Big Lie).
Judge Walker ignored enormous evidence to the contrary to make the fantastic imaginary claim that "a union of husband and wife" has NEVER been a core part of marriage in our nation's history and traditions.
Walker pretended he never saw the deep scholarly evidence that opposite sex unions are different and children need mothers and fathers.
Judge Walker even believes he can make the future into a fact, ignoring the testimony of anti-Prop 8 expert witnesses that gay marriage is a monumental change, that will change the meaning of marriage in ways impossible to predict.
7 million Californians were making a reasonable judgment. Walker’s decision is anti-federalist at its core.
Judges are not supposed to put voters’ motivations on trial. Walker ignored this precedent too.
Walker's opinion defamed the whole country, including Pres. Obama, and the majority of judges who have found our marriage laws survive rational scrutiny.
http://www.nomblog.com/1586/?doing_wp_cron
John N.,
If it was between Obama and Romney, I would leave the ballot blank or vote for a minor conservative party candidate. I will NOT vote for Mitt Romney. He's a future Richard Nixon or something - he's a little bit like the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in the Bible. He's heartless, dishonest and foolishly self-confident. Can't vote for the guy.
That said, I will vote Republican for Congress, etc. But if Romney is the nominee, my ballot for Prez won't be GOP or Dem.
Sorry to hear that SC Guy, remember I am the one who lives in MA where this whole SSM bs began. It was imposed by the courts. Gov. Romney did call a special session to have us vote on this matter. Even the court that gave SSM said that we could vote. But there was not much he could do with the Dems controlling all of the rest of the statehouse.
This is why I would vote for him. I understand how tough it must have been being a Republican governor of a deeply blue state. He was a red speck in a blue state house. As he once said being a Republican governor of MA is like being a meat eater at a vegetarian convention.
SC Guy & Little Man:
If people like you sit home just because you don't like Romney you might as well hand it to BHO and his marxist friends. He is the worst president ever. He will have nothing to stop him from implementing every crazy socialist, greenie, job killing, debt increasing, spendthrift policy he can think of. I honestly believe he will kill America for good.
Please reconsider your plan of not voting if Romney is the Republican candidate. Perhaps the VP choice will be more to your liking and he will run after Romney is out. In every election, national, state or local vote for the most conservative candidate you can get. Eventually both houses of congress will be made up of a few dems, a fair amount of RINOS (essentially dems at heart) and an ever increasing majority of conservatives who can bring this country back from the brink and prevent us from becoming Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, etc.
Please, even if you have to hold your nose to do it, don't abandon the rest of us.