NOM-NY PAC Endorses, Contributes to Chuck Swanick in Senate Contest Against Mark Grisanti


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 27, 2012

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

National Organization for Marriage

“Mark Grisanti’s political career will be ended over same-sex marriage, and he might take Dean Skelos with him.” - Brian Brown, NOM president -

Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage’s New York PAC today endorsed Democratic Senate challenger Chuck Swanick over incumbent Republican Mark Grisanti, announced a $5,000 contribution to Swanick’s campaign. NOM also pledged to use all its energies to defeat Grisanti’s reelection bid to the Senate. Grisanti was one of four Republican Senators who betrayed voters by breaking his word about support for traditional marriage. Grisanti had previously solicited and accepted a $4,000 contribution from NOM.

“Mark Grisanti betrayed us and the people of his district when he broke his word and voted to redefine marriage last year,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Four years ago Grisanti promised us he would defend marriage in the Senate, and we gave him a $4,000 contribution in response to his personal solicitation. Today we are endorsing Chuck Swanick, who truly will fight for marriage, and our $5,000 contribution to Mr. Swanick begins in earnest our quest to drive Grisanti from elected office.”

NOM-NY PAC joins the Conservative Party in endorsing Democrat Swanick, former chairman of the Erie County Legislature and a politician with a strong track record of supporting marriage in a district expected to be heavily Democratic. Many political observers believe that if Swanick defeats Grisanti, GOP Senate Leader Dean Skelos will lose his majority in the Senate.

“In response to those who say that electing Mr. Swanick could cost Dean Skelos his majority in the Senate we say, ‘we don’t care,’” Brown said. “Mark Grisanti’s political career will be ended over same-sex marriage, and he might take Dean Skelos with him. But that is Skelos’ own doing for having allowed the same-sex marriage bill to come to a vote in the Senate. We are committed to electing a pro-marriage majority, not protecting Republicans like Mark Grisanti who betray our core values.”

NOM said it intends to participate in legislative contests throughout the state as part of its $2 million commitment to make sure the voters of New York are able to vote to restore marriage in New York. In addition to Grisanti, the group plans to oppose Senators James Alesi, Roy McDonald, Stephen Saland and Shirley Huntley, and support those who voted against redefining marriage such as Ruben Diaz.

“We are on a crusade to reclaim the people’s right to vote on marriage. We will work with legislators of any party, like Chuck Swanick and the courageous Democratic Senator Ruben Diaz, who will stand for the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We’re committed to achieving a majority for marriage, not any particular partisan majority,” Brown concluded.


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.

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. Katie
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what NOM would do if Grisanti's opponent was also for same-sex marriage. Who would you endorse then, NOM? 🙂

  2. Rick DeLano
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    This is exactly the kind of political hardball I was hoping to see in New York.

    I am very heartened by this, and I think it makes it necessary for me to find a way to get another contribution to NOM.

    As long as they intend to fight, in the trenches, smash mouth football, to take out the four Republican traitors, I am with them.

    The message must be sent to the legislators el;sew here who imagine they can betray us and we will forget.

    The message here from Brian and NOM is:

    We won't forget.

    The Republican Party of New York betrayed civilization itself.

    I sincerely hope it is crushed, that it falls and never rises again.

    Such would be the perfectly just and appropriate fate for an organization which, at the moment of truth, betrayed its entire base and its entire reason to exist in the first place.

  3. Reformed
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Is it true that NOMs appeal to the Supreme Court regarding Maine's disclosure law was rejected? What does this mean?

  4. The.Truth
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    And yet you scoff at and wonder why these Republicans needed a bit of assurance of financial backing if they voted for what they knew was right. In fact, your threats came first. And you have never failed to make good on those threats.

  5. The.Truth
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    By the way, have any of you read If NOM will let you.

    I am curious what your thoughts are.

  6. Andy Rodger
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    I read your link... So, someone disagrees with NOM. Big deal. Here's the bottom line. SSM is immoral. We as a nation (or on a state by state basis) have to decide if we are going to hold to a moral standard as a culture or if we are going to say we are free to do what ever we want.
    Each choice has repercussions. As for me and my house we shall serve the Lord. Meaning we will vote against SSM and love LGBT people at the same time.

  7. Rick DeLano
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Well, Truth.

    My thoughts are that we have a judiciary profoundly committed, in certain of its constituents, to the end of freedom and self-rule in America, and the imposition instead of a state religion, based on a truly radical notion of individual "rights".

    I expect we will win at SCOTUS but if we were to lose, then there would be no possible basis upon which to expect anything other than a second civil war in this country, and sooner rather than later.

    My thoughts.

  8. The.Truth
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Well that is a bit more hyperbolic than I expected Rick. A second civil war!! Come on.

    I think SCOTUS will side with marriage equality advocates by as much as 7 - 1.

    But remember THE PEOPLE always have the last say in this country, and they are welcome to change the Constitution (by a super majority as our founders designed it). I do not think that would happen either. And if the people do not do that, are you not okay with that?

  9. The.Truth
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    That should have said 7 - 2 .

    6 - 3 is more likely, and 5 - 4 is almost a given.

  10. Zack
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink


    The DOMA ruling exposed nothing except this ineptness to defend the law. Not only does he fail to control the border but he fails this as well.

    And as for your ruling. No it would most like be a 5-4 decision. The conservative judges have upheld DOMA in years past and there is no reason why they would change their minds now.

  11. Zack
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    typo: this administration's ineptness*

  12. Rick DeLano
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Truth, you are completely free to crystal-ball the SCOTUS from your worldview- I do the same from mine and come up with symmetrically opposite numbers 🙂

    But I certainly do not think it hyperbolic in any way at all to suggest that the American people will never submit to a redefinition of marriage, against their will and without their consent, by a radical judiciary completely out of control and bent upon the imposition of what amounts to a state religion upon America.

    I just don't think that's happening there, Truth.

    But then again, it's all irrelevant at this stage.

    We have to win and defeat you guys in MN and NC first, and then we will have made a very clear case to the SCOTUS that it were an unwise thing in the extreme to attempt to impose this radical notion by fiat.

  13. John Noe
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    We can see TT talking his usual trash on here. He seems to be very confident that although unable to win fair and sqaure at the ballot box their activist judges friends will bail them out.

    I see a strong backlash against this sort of thing as overreaching judges continue to thumb their nose at we the people and do as they damn well please.
    DOMA was passed with bi-partisan support and is very constitutional.

    It looks like instead of DOMA it is time for an FDA. An amendment to the constitution making marriage between a man and a woman.

  14. The.Truth
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Hey Zack,

    You are mistaken on a couple of fronts here.

    The Obama administration is not defending this statue. In fact I think they even filed briefs stating they ALSO believe the law to be unconstitutional. It is being defended now by a very high priced right wing attorney. For the kind of money his firm is getting they better not be inept.

    Also the Supreme Court has never ruled on DOMA before.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    The reason this will not end in a civil war is because when push comes to shove those that self identify - the only possible way to know - as "homosexual" will simply deny that they ever self identified - the only possible way to know - as "homosexual." - I heard you said you were a homosexual; no I did'nt...

    The same thing happened with the Mason's back in the mid 1800's. When the people started purging their government of Masonic influence it suddenly became impossible to find a Mason.

  16. Layne
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Truth, haven't you been reading Michael Ejercito's epic posts? SCOTUS upheld DOMA back in 1971 in Baker v Nelson, even though DOMA was -25 years old. Lol..

  17. Randy E King
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    What SCOTUS did in Baker was to affirm that it was not unconstitutional to limit marriages to a union of opposites.

    It stands to reason that if it is not unconstitutional to limit marriage to one man / one woman pairings than a law duly codified by the legislative and executive branch that limits the federal recognition of marriage to one man / one woman pairings could not possibly unconstitutional.

    I know this might be difficult for someone who believes it is rational to rub their reproductive organ against same gendered partners to comprehend, but you are just going to have to pull up your big boy panties and deal with it.

  18. AM
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    The NRA has been very successful achieving it's goals by supporting candidates, republican or democrat, who support 2nd Amendment rights.

  19. Layne
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link, Truth. Excellent read, as well as the articles linked within it. Its like Media Matters for the equality movement! Excellent find! 🙂

  20. M. Jones
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    I feel a little sorry for the SS"m" extremists come November and a GOP landslide. What will it be like, when pseudo marriage is abolished with a Federal Man-Woman marriage amendment and Religious Freedom is restored to the public square. The future is bright for real marriage and those that support what God intended.

  21. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 27, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Thank you NOM. You've given all marriage supporters a voice, and you've formed coalitions with the many organizations that were fighting on their own. Together we have the strength to win these fights.

    Count on my continued support.

  22. Zack
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 4:04 am | Permalink



  23. Posted February 29, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    The DOMA ruling exposed nothing except this ineptness to defend the law. Not only does he fail to control the border but he fails this as well.

    It also exposed the judge's ineptness.

    And the Ninth Circuit in Witt v. Department of Air Force merely found, in the context of military policy where judicial deference “is at its apogee,” that the military’s policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” would fail even rational basis review.

    op. at 18, citing 527 F.3d 806, 821 (9th Cir.2008)."


    We next turn to Major Witt’s Equal Protection Clause claim. She argues that DADT violates equal protection because the Air Force has a mandatory rule discharging those who engage in homosexual activities but not those “whose presence may also cause discomfort among other service members,” such as child molesters. However, Philips clearly held that DADT does not violate equal protection under rational basis review, 106 F.3d at 1424-25, and that holding was not disturbed by Lawrence, which declined to address equal protection, see 539 U.S. at 574-75, 123 S.Ct. 2472(declining to reach the equal protection argument and, instead, addressing “whether Bowers itself ha[d] continuing validity”). We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of Major Witt’s equal protection claims."

    Witt , 527 F.3d at 821

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.