FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 30, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
"We will rally supporters of traditional marriage to make sure they realize that the outcome of the presidential election may determine the future of marriage in our country"—Brian Brown, NOM president—
Washington, D.C.—Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) stated that the reported decision of the Democratic National Committee platform committee to include a redefinition of marriage in their national platform will make marriage a defining issue in the 2012 elections, especially in the presidential election. NOM pledged to rally supporters of marriage to make sure they know that reelecting President Obama could result in the end of marriage in America.
"The Democratic party has been captured by extremists from both coasts like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi who are determined to redefine marriage in our nation," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "It's ironic that they hope to kill off the institution of marriage at their convention in Charlotte, because North Carolina like 31 other states, just voted overwhelmingly in favor of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The marriage amendment passed with 61% of the vote in North Carolina and enjoyed a plurality of support among Democrats and an overwhelming support of African Americans. We will rally supporters of traditional marriage to make sure they realize that the outcome of the presidential election may determine the future of marriage in our country."
The definition of marriage has been on the ballot in 32 states and every state has voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This includes deep blue states like California, Maine, Oregon and Wisconsin. A survey last year by the Alliance Defending Freedom found that 61% of Americans believe that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman.
"The DNC is leading Democrats off the cliff. Voters in virtually every one of the presidential swing states have voted for marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brown. "If the DNC gets its way the marriage amendments adopted in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and elsewhere will be overturned. That makes the definition of marriage a key issue in these swing states, and we fully intend to make sure that people realize that the outcome of the election is a proxy for the survival of traditional marriage in our nation."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@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).
29 Comments
"It's ironic that they hope to kill off the institution of marriage at their convention in Charlotte"
No one is trying to "kill off the institution of marriage"-- for no one is trying to stop straight people from marrying. This kind of overblown rhetoric isn't just widly misleading but fragrantly dishonest; Brian Brown should be ashamed of his fearmongering.
The GOP, with guys like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mark Kirk, and to a lesser extent Mitt Romney, is no great shakes either.
But the Democratic has degenerated completely from the conservatism it once embodied.
LETS DO THIS NOM, MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT...
BRIAN BROWN DO WHAT YOU DO BEST BY ALL POSSIBLE MEANS NECESARY! WIN FOR THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE.
OBAMA AND THE DNC MUST BE DEFEATED, NOT JUST AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT IN EVERY STATE, PERIOD. THE DEM's IDEOLOGY MUST BECOME THE IDEA OF A BAD TIME IN HISTORY...
Dovie E.
I share your sentiments fully.
What we really need is a "family values" party. The current Republican Party pays lip service to family values in order to get the votes of blue-collars who have traditional values but the party leaders have been pushing values-issues to the back-burner. Mitt Romney only mentioned his (supposed) support for traditional marriage once since the general election season kicked off, and that was when he was addressing the NAACP, where 95% of his audience will be voting against him anyway!
Isn't this what you wanted?
The DNC could be renamed the "Homosexual Agenda" whose main goals are the persecution of people of faith and to abolish religious liberty.
Watch for the MSM to downplay what a ruckas this will cause at the convention & even the fact that it is now in the party platform.
Blue collar whites, the Union rank & file and the entirety of its black & hispanic base is against this.
Its a major schism in democratic ranks and so must be covered up.
To report on it, much less report accuretley sould be to bring up an issue that drives the wedge in their ranks and moves people twoards Romeny.
Ergo - down the memory hole.
I have heard about this yet, but somehow I doubt their is anything to be added to the democratic platform about "redefining" marriage. Probably something about marriage equality or expanding marriage to include same sex partners. I am sure you are mistaken.
You say that it is "ironic that they hope to kill off the institution of marriage at their convention in Charlotte". Again, you must be misreading. They want to make it available to people who have historically been denied access.
This is not the first time a political party dealt with marriage in its basic platform.
The Republican Party did that in 1856. Guess what their position was.
Reformed:
"You say that it is "ironic that they hope to kill off the institution of marriage at their convention in Charlotte". Again, you must be misreading. They want to make it available to people who have historically been denied access"
PLeas provide us with the " Historiical Data" you mentioned in your post, denying homos access to marriage.?
Great work, Brian and NOM.
They have just handed us the winning issue in this election.
Interesting that proposition 8 was won largely because of the black christian turn out generated by Obama's historic election four years ago. Now that he's switched his vote to pro-ssm, the vote will be just the opposite, his downfall. Interesting how that plays out. You can only kick your base so much before they leave you behind.
This should be a wake-up call to all African Americans that they need to abandon the Democratic party. Obama and Democratic party has destroyed this country. I am black and a proud Republican.
you nom people are sick
It looks a lot like the Democrat's knew they were heading for an across the board landslide defeat so they decided to go for broke.
Reformed (writes)
"I have heard about this yet, but somehow I doubt their is anything to be added to the democratic platform about "redefining" marriage. Probably something about marriage equality or expanding marriage to include same sex partners. I am sure you are mistaken.
"You say that it is "ironic that they hope to kill off the institution of marriage at their convention in Charlotte". Again, you must be misreading. They want to make it available to people who have historically been denied access."
As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had -
“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1
"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2
"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3
Maintaining that marriage's -“'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it”-and that a an -“examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4
1,2,3,4,- Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”5
5 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
NO resonable informed person on EITHER side in this debate maintains that this is not a redefinition of marriage..
Yet our advesaries arguments are predicated on their confusion or bad faith maintinance that whta they are doing redifines this primary social instituion, fundemental consitutional right.
Fitz, it's about equality. Plain and simple. That's why the DNC supports expanding the definition of marriage. That's why they will continue to get my vote.
@OhMyWord
It is about changing the meaning of a word so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to sexual depravity; which is why the democrats have lost my vote.
You champion the Godless and I stand in defense of the children you seek to exploit.
The Dem platform has been intent on destroying the family for decades, replacing it with the nanny-state. Guess they think it's time to put the final nail in the coffin by redefining marriage altogether, thereby completely severing the link between children and their mother and father.
They'll learn soon enough that this is a costly mistake.
Leo,
I think your basic trap with that question is outlined by Fitz. I understand that you feel it is ok for your daughters to marry a man, but not your son (excuse the obvious assumption) and you dont see the discrimination in that.
The liberal platform is one of destruction and divisiveness from the top down.
However, I actually hope they do embrace marriage corruption in their platform, as it will alienate a vast number of Hispanics, African Americans, and others who do not want to be associated with a party that glorifies the corruption of the traditional definition of marriage.
In other news, the Democrat party has basically become extinct in states like Missouri and have lost members in conservative states like Alabama and Pennsylvania and across the country prominent Democrats are finally ditching the plantations and starting to think for themselves.
Even here in California, a friend of mine has decided that the Democrats don't represent her values anymore and is switching parties.
It's heart warming to know that the values voters are finally waking up.
I suggest a big enough turnout at Chick Fil A this Wednesday to get it back up on Drudge.
You never know which event is going to crystallize a general unease into a sudden, expanding, viral political *fact*.
This anti-Chick Fil A gangster fascist assault on the First Amendment seems to be the one.....
This message will not bode well Pro Traditional marriage NC.
I believe that the Democratic party will end by 2014...
Great news that the Dems are adopting homosexual "marriage" in their platform!!!
We can't let the Dems destroy marriage, to redefine it from what it has been since the beginning of civilization and even before. There's no such thing as a "marriage" between two women or two guys; it's an oxymoron. Everybody knows that.
Go Romney!
Oh Randy, the hypocrisy. Exploiting children? Really? You (and the rest of the NOMers) are the ones always talking about how marriage and children are inextricably linked. And how we have to protect the children! That sounds like exploiting children to deny gay couples the equality they need! So funny...
Whose children are we exploiting today, by the way? Mine? Yours? Maybe all the children in Peoria? Please, enlighten me. And be specific!
Sadly, the Democrat Party was also the last refuge of racial bigots; they now embrace gay identity politics as supreme over marriage and much else.
The asserted supremacy of identity politics is a scurge on the politics of the country. It was so with white identity politics; it is so with gay identity politics. For some reason, perhaps the hand of history, the Democrats get on the wrong side far too often.