NOM BLOG

NOM Commends North Carolina Voters for Overwhelming Vote in Favor Of Marriage Protection Amendment

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 8, 2012

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


"So much for the idea that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Just the other day, gay advocates were predicting victory in North Carolina, but instead marriage won an overwhelming victory." —Brian Brown, NOM president—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today commended North Carolina voters for making theirs the 31st state to enact a constitutional amendment defining marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. The vote of more than 60% in favor of the amendment was an overwhelming endorsement of traditional marriage in this critical swing state.

"We commend North Carolina voters for passing the Marriage Protection Amendment, becoming the 31st state to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "So much for the idea being promulgated by the media and the elite that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Just the other day, gay activists were predicting victory in North Carolina, but instead marriage won an overwhelming victory."

NOM played a major role in the passage of the North Carolina marriage amendment. NOM contributed $425,000 directly to the campaign and raised countless additional funds for the effort. Brian Brown served on the campaign's Executive Committee and NOM National Political Director Frank Schubert managed the campaign through his firm, Mission Public Affairs.

"It should not go unnoticed that our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is gaining support, not losing support," said Brown. "Earlier this week the Gallup poll showed that support for same-sex marriage is down. Actual vote percentages in favor of traditional marriage are rising. In 2008 in California, the Prop 8 constitutional amendment on traditional marriage passed with 52% of the vote. Then in 2009 in Maine, 53% of voters stood for traditional marriage and rejected same-sex marriage legislation. In 2010, 56% of Iowa voters rejected three Supreme Court judges who had imposed gay marriage in that state. And now more than 60% of North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is a clear trend line, and it is moving in our direction."

North Carolina is the first of five states expected to vote on the definition of marriage this year. Others include Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.

"We are at the beginning of a national campaign in support of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brown. "Marriage will be a major issue in swing states across the country, and will be directly on the ballot in four more states this fall. The victory in North Carolina is a wonderful beginning to what we believe will be a clean sweep of states this year. We look forward to this national campaign to send an unmistakable message that the American people believe in preserving our historic understanding of marriage."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann, ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

13 Comments

  1. Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    What apology is that, Pete?

  2. Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Vote much?

  3. Pete
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Popping the extra large bag of popcorn waiting for Brian's post on Obama. I'm sure the National Enquier will be jealous of Brian's tabloid-style writing with hyperboles on steroids! Fly that freak flag, NOM.

  4. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    B73 -

    I don't know the answer to your question. Why don't you ask NOM?

  5. Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Safe to say, I'm feeling gay. 😉

  6. B73
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Overcame, Why don't YOU ask them. I agree with NOM that this anendment was primarily about same-sex marriage. You're the one claiming to be offended by it.

  7. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    B73 (writes)

    Whats so amusing about this is that the 14th amendment legal arguments of ss"m" proponents are the same equel protection arguments be they State or Federal.

    But B73 seems to be saying that he (suddenly) is not confident in his equell protection arguments when it comes to the Supreme Court.

    Ultimently there is no avoiding the central federal question under the U.S. constituion...anymore than they have been able to avoid it under State law.

    Around the office we got to calling these people "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

    The idea that "same-sex "marriage" is inevitable...but not just yet is untenable.

    Justices on either side wont go in for such gamesmanship...such as "claiming an argument in state court to get yourself in a position where you deny such arguments in Federal court.... But only for awhile, because we will be back to assert this nationwide when we feel the political winds are better"

    B73 - I'm not trying to pop your ballon but there is more going on than your aware of. SCOTUS and "living consitutonalism" is already on notice since Roe v Wade. The Justices are in a position were the State Supreme Courts now feel they can override clear Federal Precedent and activist attorneys on the left that they can game the system to this degree.

    I think when you look at it from the perspective of both Judicial politics and seperation of powers you may come to realize that you guys bit of more than you can chew here.

    Sure SCOTUS "could" rule any-old way...Put you have to remeber the pressure they have on them to stay looking ligitamate in the eyes of people who actuallyh know the law and understand that it can only be twisted so much before it breaks

  8. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    B73 (writes)

    "Fitz, I gave you the opportunity that you weren't completely clueless. You failed. I'm not going to take the time to address each and every point you attempted to make so I'll just address what I gather is the main point you're trying to make. SCOTUS is not going to answer a question that's not relevant to the case they're considering. And they're certainly not going to hand down a decision that says that states have the power to define marriage in a manner that restricts the civil rights of citizens and, simultaneously, that state's do not have the power to define marriage in a manner that expands the civil rights of citizens."

    Whats so amusing about this is that the 14th amendment legal arguments of ss"m" proponents are the same equel protection arguments be they State or Federal.

    B73, you seem to be saying that your (suddenly) not confident in his equell protection arguments when it comes to the Supreme Court.

    Ultimently there is no avoiding the central federal question under the U.S. constituion...anymore than they have been able to avoid it under State law.

  9. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    (cont)
    Around the office we got to calling these people "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

    The idea that "same-sex "marriage" is inevitable...but not just yet is untenable.

    Justices on either side wont go in for such gamesmanship...such as "claiming an argument in state court to get yourself in a position where you deny such arguments in Federal court.... But only for awhile, because we will be back to assert this nationwide when we feel the political winds are better"

    B73 - I'm not trying to pop your ballon but their is more going on than your aware of. SCOTUS and "living consitutonalism" is already on notice since Roe v Wade. The Justices are in a position were the State Supreme Courts now feel they can override clear Federal Precedent and activist attorneys on the left that they can game the system to this degree.

    I think when you look at it from the perspective of both Judicial politics and seperation of powers you may come to realize that you guys bit of more than you can chew here.

    Sure SCOTUS "could" rule any-old way...Put you have to remeber the pressure they have on them to stay looking ligitamate in the eyes of people who actuallyh know the law and understand that it can only be twisted so much before it breaks

  10. Fitz
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    (cont.)

    Around the office we got to calling these people "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

    The idea that "same-sex "marriage" is inevitable...but not just yet is untenable.

    Justices on either side wont go in for such gamesmanship...such as "claiming an argument in state court to get yourself in a position where you deny such arguments in Federal court.... But only for awhile, because we will be back to assert this nationwide when we feel the political winds are better"

  11. MarkOH
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    Fitz
    Thanks for bringing up Hernadez v Robles. It just proves my point. It, like Loving , were defeated at the state level. Loving was upheld at the SCOTUS level. As will marriage equality. Course, your attempt to compare equality supports with those pushing for racial segregation is, well, just silly.

  12. Posted May 10, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    Why is it silly, exactly, Mark?

    It seems to me that Fitz made a very powerful point in this regard.

    Now you can wave your hands and call it silly, or you can refute it.

    Office pool!

    I'll take "wave your hands" 🙂

  13. Chairm
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Sadly there are pro-gay bigots among the SSMers who comment here.

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Each marriage includes both a man and a woman -- and thus the human race is unified on the basis of what marriage actually is.

    There is no heterosexual requirement for eligibility to marry and no such requirement has been proposed in any state that has affirmed marriage as the union of husband and wife.

    There is no homosexual requirement for eligiblity to SSM anyplace where SSM has been imposed or enacted. And no such requirement is proposed by SSMers who emphasize homosexuality in their complaint against the marriage law.

    Their complaint against the NC marriage amendment is that its affirmation of marriage is somehow a form of unjust discrimination based on sexual attraction.

    That is nonsense.

    Of course, sexual attraction is not a trump card for other types of relationships and other types of living arrangements which are not eligible for marital status. But the homosexual emphasis is the SSM campaign's proposed trump card for changing the marriage law.

    They would describe it as romantic love but that, too, is no trump card for other types of relationships and other types of arrangements.

    So what do they mean, really?

    According to SSMers, the man-woman requirement means that the prototypical husband and wife duo is comprised of a man who is sexually attracted to women -- and a woman who is sexually attracted to men. Thus, the SSMers implicitly (and increasingly expressly) acknowledge that the marriage law integrates by sex (man and woman) and by sexual attraction (attraction to women and attraction to men). Yet they oppose the social institution that integrates even as they hide behind the profoundly flawed racist analogy.

    The racists abused marriage to segregate by racists categories that are irrelevant to the union of husband and wife. The anti-miscegenation system segregated the sexes via a racist filter; it undermined responsible procreation via that same racist filter. The identity politics of white supremacy was the supposed trump card. It was about elevating an identity group unjustly.

    Today, given the SSM campaign's homosexual emphasis and their demand that the man-woman criterion be abolished from the law, the SSMers show that they favor segregation both by sex (man-man or woman-woman) and by sexual attraction (male-only or female only). Indeed, they go so far as to demand that the law treat the integrated relationship type as the moral and lawful equivalent of the segregated relationship type.

    They do so to elevate the gay identity group unjustly above the rest of the types of relationships that are ineligible to marry. Gay identity, not sexual orientation, is the proposed trump card.

    The SSM favoritism of the gay identity group today is the analogous with the supremacy of the white identity group of the past.

    As Fitz noted above, they have in common the misuse marriage for a nonmarriage purpose.

    The one-sexed type of relationship is presumed to be the gay-identified subset of all possible one-sexed relationships. Why? It is not to promote SSM among the openly homosexual adult population where even same-sex householding is a very marginal practice. It is not to promote the norms of marriage in a gay context -- sexual exclusivity and the rest. Nope.

    The purpose is to innoculate the gay identity group and to crush dissent with their asserted supremacy over the constitution, over the principles of good governance, and over justice itself.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.