Victory! NOM Achieves Stunning and Historic Wins for Marriage


All I can say is:  Amazing.  Last night NOM helped win stunning and unprecedented victories for marriage. And we know it was because of your support.

As you have heard by now, for the first time in the entire history of judicial retention elections in Iowa, the Supreme Court justices were defeated.  And not just one, but ALL THREE judges up for retention who forced same-sex marriage on the state were resoundingly defeated by roughly 54 percent.  Amazing.

As I said last week speaking next to Congressman Steve King in sunny Des Moines, a victory in Iowa will send shockwaves through the political establishment. The people have spoken and they will not tolerate judges imposing same-sex marriage on the voters.  Period.
And now those shockwaves are beginning to be felt.  I'm getting calls from reporters around the country shocked that the people of Iowa stood up against activist judges.

NOM was pleased to partner with Iowa for Freedom, the Iowa Family Policy Council, the Campaign for Working Families, and Citizenlink in this historic victory.  As we have done in state after state, NOM was the largest single donor to the effort, giving roughly $600,000 to the effort.  God bless all of our supporters for allowing us to achieve this historic victory.

What you may not have heard are the other historic victories you have allowed us to achieve.  We also ran issue ads, mailings, automated calls, and text messages in key state legislative races throughout the country, spending nearly $2.5 million nationwide. We were involved in scores of races across the country, most importantly in Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine. I can't get into all of the races in this short time but I want you to know this one fact: roughly 80 percent of the pro-traditional marriage candidates we supported won their races.  80 percent.

What does this mean?  In New Hampshire, we flipped the state legislature. And not only flipped it, but it now looks like we have veto proof majorities in both legislative houses.  Though Governor John Lynch was able to keep his governorship, we will now fight for a vote on a constitutional amendment and a repeal of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.  And we look forward to the legislature overriding any veto that John Lynch might attempt.

In Iowa, the House is now in Republican hands and the governor supports allowing Iowa a vote on a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.  We will fight for a vote in Iowa and I am confident that we will win.

In Minnesota, the Governor's race is almost surely going to a recount.  Our efforts highlighting Mark Dayton's support of same-sex marriage played a big role here.  But in another historic victory Republicans have taken both houses of the Minnesota legislature.  Same-sex marriage will not pass this legislature.  And we are now positioned to get a vote on a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.  This is huge.

In Maine, same-sex marriage will not be forced on the people under this new legislature..  The legislature is now strongly in pro-marriage hands, and Paul LePage, a great supporter of traditional marriage has won the Governorship.  Amazing.

I could go on, and I will give you more updates.  Right now I'm rushing between interviews and trying to make clear to the reporters I'm speaking with what we all know, but the professional prognosticators want to deny: marriage played a major role in the elections this year and won big.

While there were some setbacks--Andy Pugno's loss for California assembly and John Lynch's victory--I can honestly say that I believe this election is a turning point in the fight for marriage.  We now have the ability to roll back same-sex marriage in Iowa and New Hampshire and pass a constitutional amendment in Minnesota.

I know that we have a great team here, and have been focused and strategic in winning the fight for marriage.  But what I really know is that all we do is because of you.  Your prayers, tireless work, and generous donations keep us going, and it is an honor to stand side by side with you in the fight to protect marriage.  Amazing!



  1. Susan McVicker
    Posted November 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    I feel like crying or shouting or SOMETHING! How wonderful to see people stand together and do RIGHT!
    ~from Ohio

  2. Brian
    Posted November 16, 2010 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    You guys do realize it should be "a Historic" not "an Historic"

  3. Don
    Posted November 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    True, Brian! Who would have thunk it? ;-)

  4. TC Matthews
    Posted November 16, 2010 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Brian, interesting you should bring that up. I was having a discussion with my mother about grammar the other day and uses of 'an' came up over cookies and milk.

    A well known grammar rule says that we should use an before vowel sounds; for example, an accident, an item, an hour. We use a otherwise: a book, a hotel, a university.

    Notice that we say an hour, not a hour. The choice of a or an is based upon the sound of the word, not the spelling. Hour sounds as if it starts with a vowel sound (ow); hence, we use an.

    Following this rule, we would say a historic, not an historic because (for most speakers) historic doesn't start with a vowel sound.

    Words of three or more syllables that start with h are treated differently by some speakers, though. (This may be because of the tendency of some regional accents to drop initial Hs.)

    Here's another example. Which of these pairs of sentences sounds better to you?

    * We can't agree on a hypothesis.
    * We can't agree on an hypothesis.

    A quick bit of Googling reveals that — as of December 2008 — the phrase a hypothesis is used on 2.22 million pages (80%), and an hypothesis on 538,000 pages (20%). Similarly, a historic gets 70% of the popular vote, and an historic only 30%.

    There is a clear preference on the web in favour of a hypothesis and a historic. Even so, a significant minority uses the other form. This supports the view that both forms are widespread. Which form you use seems to be little more than a personal preference and perhaps a matter of accent.

    In summary: A historic is more common in online writing, but both usages are sufficiently common to be considered correct.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.