National Organization for Marriage Joins Washington Referendum Fight


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 13, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)

"We're committed to giving Washington voters the right to decide the definition of marriage in their state, just as 31 other states have been able to do."—Brian Brown, NOM President

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, DC—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest and most influential group working to support traditional marriage, today announced it is joining with allies in Washington state to qualify a referendum blocking legislation that attempts to redefine marriage in the state.

"Preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman is worth fighting for," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Marriage is a cornerstone of society that not only unites a couple to each other, but ensures that any children born of their union will have the best opportunity to be raised by their own mother and father. We're committed to giving Washington voters the right to decide the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in 31 other states have been able to do."

Governor Christine Gregoire today signed Senate Bill 6239 into law. Shortly after, a coalition of groups under the umbrella Preserve Marriage Washington—which includes the Family Policy Institute of Washington, Stand for Marriage Washington, and NOM—filed the referendum. SB 6239 does not take effect until June 7th. If the coalition is successful in collecting 120,577 voter signatures by June 6th, the law will be stayed and will not take effect. Voters will then decide whether to approve or reject the law in November.

"Every state to vote on marriage has decided to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said. "This includes deep blue states like California, Wisconsin and Maine. We are confident that Washington state voters will do likewise, and we look forward to working with our allies on this important referendum battle."

Marriage supporters can request petitions at


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

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).


  1. SC Guy
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    I just wanted to thank NOM for taking the fight to Washington State. It's going to be a battle there - make no mistake about it - but that is one of the great things about the United States. We fight for our values.

  2. RCW
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, SC Guy, for fighting for "your values." It would be nice if you recognized that others have values as well. One of those values is to "live and let live." When have you ever been harmed by a same-sex marriage? Why is it that prisoners sentenced to death are allowed to marry, but not same-sex partners? And why should people like you have a veto over who may call themselves "married" or not?

  3. Zack
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Permalink


    Personally....I dont see why a state that gives EVERY single right and benefit that comes in a marriage to a same-sex couple would want to pursue in changing the word "Marriage". This was never about rights in the first place as anyone who gets the same thing can just say they're married. Why government needs to recognize it as such shows that this is about validating a lifestyle.

  4. Zack
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    And hope it all works out NOM.

  5. james2
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    I strongly believe that all citizens should have equal rights under the law.

  6. Doctor No
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Lifestyle choice is not a criteria for a new right. It is also not a criteria for redefining marriage.

  7. ChuckGG
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    RCW - Thanks for your support. The handwriting is on the wall but these groups do not see it. Same-sex marriage is a legal, civil rights issue having zero to do with religion. And, this endless talk about referendums! The civil rights of any minority should not be put to the whims of the majority. And, despite what Mr. Brown has stated in interviews, SSM is exactly the same as Civil Rights, Women's Voting Rights, and Equal Access laws. With the divorce rate at around 50% and the number of couples who are married at under 50%, it looks like marriage could use some support from all of us. I find the objections to SSM to be nonsensical.

  8. John Noe
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    We are all with you SC Guy and let us take up the fight. I sure wish now that we had started the voter drive in these states before the politicians could change things. That way we took care of business.

    I am sure that if we had not had those voter initiatives in the 31 other states where we already won ,the rich billionaires supporting the perverse homosexual lifestyle would have already bribed the liberals there. But by already voting it cannot be changed unless through the people. Notice the sodomites have only won through the courts or by bribing and buying off politicians.

    This is why I would like to see other states like Pennsylvania for example vote on this anyway before the courts knife the people in the back or the rich folks show the politicians how much bribe money is avialable for them if they will just stick it to the people.

  9. Joel
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    How is Wisconsin a deep blue state? The only thing that's liberal about Wisconsin is madison even the Milwaukee metro area isn't that liberal because of the rich republican suburbs.

  10. Sean
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    Oh guys lost again. NJ just passed marriage equality :)

  11. Zack
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Permalink


    It's going to be vetoed. No victory there.

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    Big thanks to NOM for taking up the fight. Count on my continued support.

  13. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    I am all for live and let live, but any concession, as in civil unions, is now taken by the Left as any argument against any compromise. Anything we now allow in private must be given, according to the Left, full validation by everyone under penalty of law. Hence lawsuits against photographers and bakers, firings of clerks, then revamping school curricula, and then hate speech laws, and so on. All of which the people will not be allowed to gainsay.

  14. MBOMOW
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    Marriage is between one man and one woman. The gays have DP already and all the rights. Who says separate is not equal? Separate is equal!

  15. Sean
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    @Zack, sure sure. Eventually it'll be legal regardless of the veto. You guys never seem to get it. Rights for all will always win. Trying to prevent the right to marry the man or woman you love will fail because it's against equality. And equality will always win. It did in Canada, in parts of Europe, in Mexico City. It's going to happy, and you guys will either have to get use to it, or leave because hate won't be welcomed much longer.

  16. Nick
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    Marriage is a natural law of humanity, traditionally codified by virtually every civilization for regulating the wise and lawful use of intimacy between a man and a woman for the purpose perpetuating the species and upholding civil society. From inception, our country has been a nation built upon moral law by generally moral, responsible people. A sad season when society wilfully abandons virtue, our moral compass fails, and we're left to a loss of direction and acceptance of "rights" without moral responsibility. Our laws will forever be a reflection of the health of the human condition.

  17. Randy E King
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink


    All of the places you noted are being challenged; and those challenges will never go away. Keep in mind that you cannot depend on your children to pick up your banner after you fall; whereas the opposition can and will.

    Natural law is not on your side; and your hate for those that disagree with your ridiculous assertions will not go unanswered.

  18. Arthur
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    The law in California was just overturned with the courts saying once someone was given a right it cannot be taken away. Can't that same court decision now be used in Washington?

  19. Publius
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    The Left can only conceive of disagreement as hate. This attitude is why traditional marriage continues to win at the ballot box. The Left’s argument is that you should redefine marriage or you will be called hateful. But once marriage is redefined, their next demand will be to change what is taught in schools or you will be called hateful. Then will come the hate speech codes and lawsuits against individuals and firms. This is not live and let live, it is a culture war.

  20. Nelson
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    You should all watch Governor Gregoire's speech, very touching.

  21. M. Jones
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    So many state referendums that will preserve and protect marriage. Extremists are going to have a very sad day come November, when the voice of people get to have their say on the real meaning of marriage.! There will be a resounding NO to pseudo marriage from the state of Washington to Maine! Then to make sure marriage is protected for all, a federal constitutional marriage amendment that will forever restore marriage to the traditional meaning its always been understood to be.

  22. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Zach, as the ninth circuit aptly pointed out, it is not simply about all the rights benefits privileges and obligations, it is also about equal dignity and respect.

    As they noted, nobody gets on their bended knee and asks " will you register a domestic partnership with me".

    Why not just give gay couples all the rights benefits and privileges of marriage, and call it 'immoral nasty gross marriages that we disapprove of'. You could still say gay couples have equal rights, we just call it something different. Who does that satisfy?

  23. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Honey will you enter into with me what is the state calls "immoral nasty gross marriage that we disapprove of", so we can get the right benefits and protections of marriage?

    Oh sweetie! I thought you'd never ask!

  24. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Doctor no,

    Gender, if not sexual orientation, is a protected class under the constitution. Given any individual, it is unconstitutional to say only someone of a specific gender is allowed to marry that individual, without giving a valid secular justification as to why.

  25. The.Truth
    Posted February 14, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    M. Jones I detect a hint of desperation in your post there.

    You know as well as I do what the final outcome of this will all be. Marriage equality is growing, and any temporary barriers erected will be so temporary, that we'll barely know they ever existed.