Dear Marriage Supporter,
President Obama's announcement of support for same-sex marriage last week is already escalating the attacks on DOMA.
The day after President Obama's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid immediately tagged along, announcing his newfound support for the cause du jour.
But he didn't stop there.
As Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid controls the senate calendar...and he told the press this weekend that he wants to see an up-or-down vote on the federal Defense of Marriage Act yet this year.
This could move fast, and there are a lot of Democratic Senators who haven't publicly declared their position on same-sex marriage, but are coming under increased pressure to toe the Obama line and support same-sex marriage. It's Obama's new plan to paint the Republican party as bigots, but he needs Democratic senators to fall in line.
Please take a moment to send a message
to your senators urging them to protect DOMA today!
And the Senate isn't the only place where marriage legislation is ramping up. In the House, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) spearheaded a successful effort to amend the Department of Justice appropriation bill to ensure that no DOJ funds are spent attacking DOMA or any of the state marriage amendments. The amendment passed on a 245-171 vote, with 7 Republicans betraying marriage and their party by voting no.
Congress needs to hear from you!
The 7 renegade Republicans include Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY), Nan Hayworth (R-NY), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Steven LaTourette (R-OH), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and Lee Terry (R-NE).
There is simply no excuse for anyone in the GOP to back away from marriage. Not only is defending marriage the right thing to do, but it's a winning political issue as well. In a swing state like North Carolina, 61% of the electorate just voted to defend marriage. Republicans can scarcely afford to back away from marriage in this critical election year.
Some are pushing the argument that this election is only about jobs and the economy. But while these are important issues, the future of marriage is no less important.
Mitt Romney and Reince Priebus, head of the Republican National Committee, understand this, and NOM applauds them for quickly and strongly responding to President Obama's announcement with a powerful affirmation of marriage. These men understand that marriage—and pro-marriage voters—are critical to the success of their party. The GOP needs pro-marriage voters to turn out in force this November, and their willingness to publicly defend marriage will make a difference in how marriage supporters invest their donations and volunteer hours this November.
This is a critical issue—and President Obama has made it a centerpiece of the 2012 election campaign. Please take a moment to send a message to your representatives in Washington by clicking this link right now.
Then use the buttons below to forward this message to your friends or share on Facebook or Twitter!
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
24 Comments
Stand up for DOMA and Stand up for Religious Liberty!
Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage is another step in the creation of an authoritarian fascist state.
Humans are adaptable creatures, and their behavior is shaped by combination of all forces in society. As same-sex marriage is legitimized, it will occur more frequently, and there will be fewer traditional families. There will be fewer and fewer young men with connections to women and children.
Most of those willing to risk their lives in revolutionary struggles throughout history were young men, in part because they were risk-takers and were physically capable, but in larger measure because they were willing to risk everything to protect the women and children in society from a brutal government. When young men do not have wives or children or realistic hopes of having them in the future, they will not feel very connected to women and children and will lack the passion necessary to risk everything to fight against a brutal government. They will more likely accept the meager benefits of working as the muscle for the tyrannical state, as that will at least give them the feeling of some power and control, which is something they will lack in their private lives.
“There is simply no excuse for anyone in the GOP to back away from marriage.”
Except that there are so many new and revived rich economic markets to be had with this cultural change. So much easy money to be made. Which would all go to help boost the economy... And we know the lovers of a brute free market society will easily go to war; or now sell their children and parents, mothers and fathers, for money. The republicans are going to have to be very gutsy on an individual and personal level if they want to hold the line for us on this one. Now its a question of honor.
Maybe they could find encouragement, and a good solid way of looking at the problem when crunch time comes. From one of their political colleagues, the president of a foreign country who has to deal with this same problem. He says to the money people, as they put brutal pressure on him and his country: - I would rather eat grass than accept same sex marriage in my country in exchange for your financial help -. We're going to need character like that in the halls of our state capitals and the nation's congress, in order to straighten this whole mess out.
I don't know. Money, or honor and the people ("the right thing to do"). Which one will the GOP chose.
Get rid of DOMA and let religions who want to bless same-sex marriage do so! Religious freedom means religious freedom for all, not just some!
Great plan, Jum. Then the values that support the natural family will be condemned as a civil and human rights violation by the government - values that countless people believe were ordained by God. Religious liberty cannot be sustained under such a hostile political envoronment.
Adam, what are you talking about? I don't know what a natural family is, but all families should be protected by legal marriage. We're talking about the welfare of children! Plus we need to protect religious liberty in America.
Good luck, NOM. There's no way to defend DOMA.
What does DOMA have to do with religious liberty? It may take a little more time, but is destined to die, as it should.
Emails sent.
God bless Rep. Huelskamp and the other marriage/DOMA defenders in Congress.
DOMA was a Clinton compromise when faced with a potential marriage amendment to the U.S. Constituion. As we can all now see; there is no compromising with the Godless.
I've also sent the emails.
Poor old Jim doesn't know what a natural family is. Must've been sleeping when the teacher talked about the birds and the bees.
That was easy.
Congratulations NOM on your defeat of HRC in North Carolina. It should have been a portentous sign to Obama to lie low when faced with the demands of this intense minority that backs him.
Barb chamberlain. U need to accept the fact that your husband would rather be with another man then u. I can spot a bitter wife of a closeted gay man.
@Jim
" We're talking about the welfare of children!"
Which is why children deserve a mother and a father. If such a desired union cannot be found then of course any loving couple will suffice. Do you believe a religious adoption agency should be punished for choosing a heterosexual couple over a same-sex couple?
"Plus we need to protect religious liberty in America."
Religious liberty is what's at stake here. Look at the state of New York which legislatively legalized gay marriage but enacted religious protections for religious facilities. You think those will last? What's to stop a gay couple from suing because they feel they're being discriminated against? Just because the law says so doesn't mean it wouldn't be subject to change once litigated. This is how same-sex marriage was judicially imposed on in the first place. A couple thought they were being discriminated against and sued the state law and it was overturned.
Truth is, the 1st amendment is longer valid in this now post Christian America and that's just how the progressives like it. There is nothing legally stopping people from suing a church if they refuse to bless a couples union as a Marriage.
typo: no longer valid*
The fact remains that doma will fall in the courts. There is no substantial Augument for it. Just like prop 8.
Fact is DOMA will prevail in the courts, and will be so strengthened at the Federal level it will not be threatened again, no matter who the president is or what political activist. It would be political suicide to even touch this subject again.
The GOP needs to talk about the inextricable link between marriage and the economy. Rick Santorum spoke about this in his campaign, and Romney needs to adopt it.
A 70% illegitimacy rate in the AA community and an overall 40% illegitimacy rate in the country translate into more children and single women on the government dole.
continuation of my previous comment:
Conversely, the unification of men and women and their offspring forms an economic unit that helps assure independence from government. And this economic unit expands as the bloodline is extended from generation to generation.
Zack, anyone can sue. It's just that those religious protections will prevent those lawsuits from going anywhere in court.
DOMA should be read as required by the Constitution,since same-sex sexual relationships being treated as unobjectionable grievously harms the general welfare.
@Bryce
No they won't. If a church rejects to marry a gay couple and they sue, the couple can argue that some churches would have approved but they didn't. So the law basically gets overturned.
In California, the state legislature went 12 days without pay because the state controller said the budget they drew up wasn't balanced. Under the law passed in 2010, if the legislature didn't pass a budget by the deadline, then for every day it was late they couldn't get paid. Well they sued saying the controller went beyond his constitutional duties(which he did, but he was right in doing so) and the pay barring law was overturned in the courts. So now the legislature gets to decide whether or not a budget they wrote is balanced.
The point I'm making is that these religious "protections" are designed to fail.
Hi, Zack. Churches have been denying people of marriages for the entire history of our country. My cousin had to lie to his pastor when he got married because he was living with his fiance before the wedding. His church would have denied to marry them had it known.
...and that's totally okay. Churches totally have that right.