NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Endorses Wendy Long for US Senate in New York

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 25, 2012

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Wendy Long will provide principled, conservative leadership for New York, and American, families."—Brian Brown, President NOM—

National Organization for Marriage

WASHINGTON, DC—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced its endorsement of Wendy Long in the race to challenge incumbent US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

"Wendy Long is a brilliant attorney, accomplished leader and dedicated wife and mother who will provide principled, conservative leadership for New York and American families," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "She understands that New Yorkers hunger for committed leaders who will uphold American values like traditional marriage, fight to create jobs and force government to live within its means. We are proud to endorse her."

NOM is the nation's largest organization dedicated to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The group strongly opposed redefining marriage and has pledged to spend $2 million on issue advocacy, and in support of candidates, who will fight to give voters a say in determining the definition of marriage in New York."

"Kirsten Gillibrand has abandoned families on important issues like the definition of marriage," Brown said. "She has come to symbolize everything that's wrong with Washington—cultural arrogance and recklessly spending money we don't have, saddling families with a mountain of debt. In Wendy Long, we have a candidate who will fight hard for families in Washington."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], or Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

25 Comments

  1. Fedele Razio
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    We need freedom knights, we need marriage knights.

    Fighting for defending and restoring the legal recognition of the unique dynamics and benefits the union of a man and a woman has for the kids and the community is fighting for freedom, for reality, for the future of human kind.

  2. Posted June 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Would Ms. Long support something like this?

  3. Jon
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    @Dovie, is that serious or a joke?

    Section 1 - Marriage = One man, one woman.

    Section 2 - "YOU CAN'T LEAVE BRO!"

    Section 3 - "This is an amendment."

    Section 4 - "This won't take effect immediately, for some reason."

    Article 5 - "Seriously, don't change this. Like, no, I mean it, this should never, EVER change."

    Honestly, this is a joke, right?

  4. Posted June 25, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Dovie:

    Yes, a Federal Marriage Amendment may become necessary, although its necessity can probably still be avoided given a crushing defeat of pseudo-marriage this November in MN, WA, MD and MN, and of course the defeat of Barack Obama.

    Potential wobblers with the Republican Party might, even under this scenario, create conditions under which the FMA might become necessary.

    Obviously, God forbid, should Obama win reelection the FMA would become the single and sole objective of the marriage defenders.

  5. Posted June 25, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Dovie:

    Yes, a Federal Marriage Amendment may become necessary, although its necessity can probably still be avoided given a crushing defeat of pseudo-marriage this November in MN, WA, MD and MN, and of course the defeat of Barack Obama.

    Potential wobblers with the Republican Party might, even under this scenario, create conditions under which the FMA might become necessary.

  6. Son of Adam
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    It's time we stopped messing around. We're playing for keeps.

  7. Zack
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately Wendy Long won't win.

    Gillibrand mentioned on the Senate floor that Food Stamps help the economy and cited the multiplier effect to prove it....that wild assumption has been proven false time after time again. I wish Long the best of luck, but I have little confidence in her winning only because of the political demographics.

    I'm putting more of my attention in Elizabeth Emken challenging Fienstein.

  8. Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Jon:

    Live serious (rather that than dead serious).

    There is historical precedent for each of those clauses.

  9. Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Jon:

    Section 1 — while you may disagree with it — is the desire of nearly every social conservative.

    Section 2: Tell that to Rick Perry, who has expressed secessionist sentiments.

    Section 3: similar language is found in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments.

    Section 4: The 18th, 20th, and 22nd amendments did not take effect immediately.

    Section 5: The Constitution forbids any amendment depriving the States of an equal vote in the Senate without their consent.

  10. Deb R
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    I wish this endorsement came earlier. She may lose votes because her stance on Traditonal Marriage was not as clear as her opponent George Maragos. I may have to reconsider my vote after this endorcement!

  11. OrthodoxJew
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    Dovie E.
    You have successfully defended the language of your proposed amendment. I don't see what the problem with it would have been; all five "defenses" you have written seem like they are fairly straightforward and obvious.
    And, yes, we need a Federal Amendment because we can't have different definitions of "marriage" in different states any more than we can have different definitions of "slavery" in different states.

  12. Posted June 25, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    OrthodoxJew:

    In my humble opinion "Jon" is part of the pro-deviance movement. However, it is not MO to say "you're a hater, I need not answer you". :)

    Rick DeLano:

    A marriage amendment, even with the strictness of North Carolina's, would be worthless even if adopted by every State. The reason is that State constitutions are not difficult to amend. I agree with you and NOM that the pro-deviance movement is far weaker than polls show, but to be honest, I do not think we would be successful in every State, such as my current State of New York (although my true home of Florida HAS adopted the requisite amendment).

  13. Posted June 26, 2012 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    @ Zack:

    "Unfortunately Wendy Long won't win."

    You know this, because you extrapolate present conditions linearly into the future.

    It is exactly the kind of thinking that crashes stock markets and loses culture wars.

    But should Wendy lose by ever so much, her candidacy is highly important and useful in the overall campaign to defeat the Cuomosexual coup against marriage in New York.

    Every once in a while, there comers a moment where certainties rapidly collapse, where what was certain yesterday becomes impossible today, and where the American people finally wake up and act.

    So, Wendy- damn the torpedoes and fight hard enough to be ready when the storm really hits the financial markets, and the opportunity to do the impossible presents itself.

    As a warrior, you understand completely that this is how battles are won.

  14. Bruce
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Rick DeLano:
    "And, yes, we need a Federal Amendment because we can't have different definitions of "marriage" in different states any more than we can have different definitions of "slavery" in different states."

    Should this federal amendment defining marriage that you support so strongly address other issues as well? Different states have different ages of consent; shouldn't those be the same across the country? And states also have wildly different laws regarding if and under what circumstances 1st cousins may marry. Some states even demand that the individuals demonstrate infertility in order to marry. Doesn't that jepordize all other marriages since it de-couples procreation from marriage? Why stop with just one man/one woman?

  15. Randy E King
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Bruce,

    They only need to base marriage laws on self evident truths. There happens to be nothing about same-gender relations that could ever be considered to be a self evident truth.

    Just saying. ;)

  16. Zack
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    @Rick

    I agree with you.

    I take back what I said actually. Upon further research I've found that she is a freshman senator on the Junior seat. I thought she was the senior senator...nevermind then.

    There is a good chance Gilibrand could lose. Though I wouldn't count her out, the Democrats get desparate when they notice their candidate is losing. With Boxer and Brown, they had to exploit an illegal immigrant out of fear of losing.

  17. Ash
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    @Bruce,

    "Some states even demand that the individuals demonstrate infertility in order to marry."

    I assume you're referencing laws which state that a person can marry a blood relative if they demonstrate infertility. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    "Doesn't that jepordize all other marriages since it de-couples procreation from marriage?"

    How does it decouple marriage from procreation? Please explain the rationale for this law if it is not a concern about procreation.

    Better still, explain how this law could rationally apply to same-sex couples.

  18. Bruce
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Ash:
    "How does it (first cousin marriages) decouple marriage from procreation?"

    I'm referring to the fact that five states permit first cousin marriages only when one or both particpants are infertile. When those of use who support same sex marriage have pointed out that older people and infertile people are permitted to marry, those on the other side have said (not particularly plausibly) that there remains at least the possibility of procreation. That's not the case with these five states, where it's clear that these people are permitted to marry ONLY if there's virtually no chance of procreation. Hence, this "de-coupling" which some on your side claim is so dangerous to the institution has already happened.

  19. Bruce
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

  20. Ash
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    @Bruce, what I'm saying is that I don't see how the cousin-laws you are referring to represent the de-coupling of marriage and procreation. If anything, they reaffirm that marriage is related to procreation. As I asked above, how would you explain the rationale for these laws without procreation? Why don't these five states allow people to marry their cousin regardless of infertility? And on what rational basis would the state prohibit a woman from marrying a female relative regardless of age or infertility?

    Nevertheless, I believe that some discussion items must be clarified.

    1) The comparisons made between infertile/old people and same-sex couples is incorrect. To prevent infertile or older *individuals* from marrying is not the same thing as saying that *everyone* can marry, but they must marry the opposite sex.

    As it stands today, gay and lesbian *individuals* are allowed to marry, just like infertile or older *individuals.* Some gay and lesbian individuals don't want to abide by the same rules as everyone else, and so they demand that same-sex *couples* be included in the marriage paradigm, asserting that a denial of such claims is comparable to preventing infertile *individuals* from marrying.

    2) I believe you are conflating two separate issues. When the infertility argument is used by SSMers, they are arguing that if we permit infertile *individuals* to marry AT ALL (in the same way that gay and lesbian individuals can marry today), then we must allow same-sex *couples* to marry.

    But the cousin-laws you are referring to are not even dealing with whether a woman over 50 or an infertile person is allowed to marry AT ALL. It's addressing whether, under certain circumstances, these people can marry their cousin.

    (I apologize for the caps. I understand that they signify yelling, but I am not aware of how to italicize or bold words while typing on this blog.)

    Basically, in summation: you're comparing arguments for the prevention of infertile *individuals* to marry *anyone,* to laws which say that everyone has the right to marry, but some people may get *extra* permissions if they meet such-and-such requirement.

    The cousin-laws you are referring to are far more similar to state with laws which permit teen marriage without parental consent under certain circumstances.

    In Maryland (and 13 other states), for instance, teenagers are allowed to marry with parental consent. All teens are treated equally in that regard. No teen, if they meet all the requirements and have parental consent, will be prevented from marrying.

    However, *special* allowances for marriage are made for teens who can prove pregnancy--they do not have to have parental consent, or the requirement may be waived by a judge.

    To me, this is very similar to the cousin-laws of the five states. All teens are permitted to marry if they follow the rules (parental consent, opposite-sexed, consanguinity, etc.). But some teens, if they meet a certain criteria (pregnancy) get *additional* allowances; in the same way that all adults in those five states are permitted to marry, but some adults get *additional* allowances if they can prove infertility, etc.

    I'd agree with the possibility of procreation argument. To me, it's not wise to even allow people who are medically infertile to marry a blood relative, because infertility changes. There are women diagnosed as infertile who go on to have children. I guess it makes sense only if the woman had a hysterectomy.

    But again, in debating the wisdom of these laws, we must keep in mind that we are not discussing anyone's right to marriage. Everyone in those states has such a right. We are discussing whether we can/should give *extra* allowances to those who can "prove" infertility.

    The elected officials of these five states believe so; others don't; and some states allow cousins to marry no-holds-barred.

  21. Randy E King
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Bruce,

    The courts have already addressed your infertility meme and have unanimously dismissed it as "nothing more than a theoretical abnormality that has no effect on the traditional intent for marriage; procreation."

  22. Ash
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Bruce, my response to you is in the filter.

    I say this because when I make note of the filtering of a particular comment, sometimes the result is that it appears sooner rather than later.

    But I can always think of exceptions to this rule, which is why the NOM Blog puzzles me so.

  23. Bruce
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Ash, we agree on at least one thing: how the NOM filter works.

  24. Bruce
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Ash,
    Wow. You actually believe that the fact that some states require proof of INFERTILTY between first cousins before they can marry STRENGTHENS the link between marriage and procreation? I do appreciate the fact that you actually read what I wrote and responded with a measure of thoughtfulness, but we clearly live in different universes.

    That said, you seem to think I'm making a grander argument than I'm actually making. I'm neither criticizing nor defending the states which have these laws. I also don't believe it's the most compelling argument for same sex marriage, but it soundly refutes one of your side's main arguments against it.

  25. Ash
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Bruce, yes, I do believe the cousin laws strengthen the link between marriage and procreation--or, I should say, reinforces the link.

    I'd ask again, what is the rationale for such a law apart from procreation? Why not let two cousins marry regardless of infertility? And on what rational basis would one prevent a woman from marrying any female relative, regardless of whether the woman is over 60?

    The cousin laws would make zero sense if marriage is not concerned with procreation.