NOM BLOG

No More

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Sean Fieler is a good man. An investor and philanthropist, he supports dozens of good causes, including NOM's work to protect marriage.

But he knows his support for NOM and for marriage could make him a target for gay activists, just like we saw happen recently to Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-fil-A.

Sean could have kept his support for marriage private.

Instead, drawing inspiration from Dan Cathy, Sean decided to become one of the first signers at KeepTheRepublicAndMarriage.com and "out" himself as a public supporter of marriage.

Sean said no more to intimidation of good Americans. He refuses to be silenced or intimidated:

Gay marriage activists are successfully using fear and intimidation to silence the majority of Americans who want to preserve marriage as God created it, the union of one man and one woman. To stop this cycle of fear and intimidation, we need courageous Americans to step forward and make their support public.

Every American has the right to hold their own beliefs, including pro-marriage Americans like you and me.

That's why I'm calling on YOU to join with Sean and trumpet your public support for NOM's work in defense of marriage by signing KeepTheRepublicAndMarriage.com.

Our Founding Fathers fought to bequeath to us a republic where everyone would enjoy the right to exercise their liberty to speak their mind, organize, and support causes they believe in, without fear of harassment and intimidation.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman what type of government the American people were going to have, he said, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

As proud Americans we know our challenge today is to keep the republic. And to do that in 2012 means keeping marriage and securing our right to publicly protect this sacred institution!

Please join me, Sean, and countless others who refuse to be silenced and intimidated. Sign up at KeepTheRepublicAndMarriage.com and add your name to the list of brave Americans fighting to keep the republic and what it stands for.

Together, united, we are strong enough!

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

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.

16 Comments

  1. HV
    Posted September 27, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Just out of curiosity, does this stance apply to SSM supporters? Will NOM be calling off its Starbucks boycott?

    Sorry; I forgot that free-speech rights only apply to those opposed to SSM . . .

  2. Donna
    Posted September 27, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    I would love to add my name but I am unemployed and have no money to pay to have my name put on a list. There is no option to sign without making a donation.

  3. Dottie Mounts
    Posted September 27, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    God help us if we allow same sex marriage to become the norm ! We MUST do all we can to stop this maddness!

  4. Publius
    Posted September 27, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    HV,

    Everyone is free to voice their opinion and to patronize or not patronize businesses they like or don’t like. That is free speech and free enterprise. It was when city officials in Boston and Chicago indicated they would block Chick-fil-A franchises from opening in that a red line was crossed. No city official threatened Starbucks at the behest of the NOM. That is the big difference that you are willfully ignoring.

  5. Posted September 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    I believe and always have always will in a man and woman marrage.I BELIEVE IN GOD and he is comming back!!!!

  6. ROGER BYE
    Posted September 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    THANKS FOR YOUR COURAGE

  7. Paul McMichael
    Posted September 28, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Worth repeating until people get it:

    "What is inconsistent is for NOM to call for a boycott of Starcucks and General Mills for taking a position on SSM that it doesn't like (on the grounds that corporations shouldn't be involved in social issues) and then to laud Chick-fil-A for taking a position on SSM that it does like."

  8. Publius
    Posted September 28, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Chick-fil-A as a corporation never took a position. Their private owner did. There is a difference. There is also a difference between a public corporation with many stockholders, some of whom are unhappy with the management, and a closely held private entity.

    No government that I am aware of ever threatened Starbucks. Some in the gay lobby did cheer on the dubious government efforts of the cities of Chicago, New York, and Boston to block Chick-fil-A franchises.

    In any event, I don't represent the NOM, and I am happy to see every consumer make their own choices.

  9. John B.
    Posted September 28, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    I'm not sure you people really understand what a "republic" is, since you keep complaining about what our elected representatives do, and try to circumvent them by demanding that "the people" be allowed to vote directly on legislation and other people's rights. This is the antithesis of the republican (i.e., representative) form of government established under the U.S. Constitution and guaranteed to the states under Art. 4, sect. 4.

  10. Publius
    Posted September 29, 2012 at 2:07 am | Permalink

    John B.

    A republican form of government is not incompatible with the initiative, referendum, and recall provisions that are in many state constitutions, provisions that became popular during the progressive era. Are you really saying these provisions are unconstitutional? Seriously?

  11. Publius
    Posted September 29, 2012 at 2:22 am | Permalink

    A right does not come into legal force until the sovereign ratifies it, and in the U.S. the people are the ultimate sovereign, although they act through their representatives. Even the Bill of Rights did not come into force until it was ratified, i.e. voted on, by the states.

    Democracy is the surest bulwark we have against tyranny. No country with a dictatorship has or tolerates democracy, but virtually every dictatorship has courts. Many a dictatorship calls itself a “democratic republic,” but real democracies can govern justly only with the consent of the sovereign people. The will of the people may be tempered by constitutional balances and requirements of due deliberation to prevent mob rule, but it should never be discounted or disparaged. Here the people rule. (See http://www.amazon.com/Here-People-Rule-Constitutional-Manifesto/dp/0735102562)

  12. John B.
    Posted September 29, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    It's a common misconception that the USA is a democracy but the word "democracy" (nor any variant of it) appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. We are a representative republic.

    Meanwhile Publius is glossing over the fact that the Bill of Rights was never subjected to a popular vote. It was ratified by elected representatives, in Congress and in the state legislatures. This is true of all amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which is why it's amusing to see NOM always crying "let the people vote" while at the same time supporting a "federal marriage amendment" to write a ban on same-sex marriage into the Constitution.

  13. Publius
    Posted September 29, 2012 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    The constitution starts out with “We the People.” We are an indirect democracy that has become more democratic over time. Senators were once appointed by the states. Now the people of the states elect them directly.

    The constitution states that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.

    NOM has not, to my knowledge, ever called for a direct national vote on marriage. It has called for state referenda, which most states allow, and properly so. That is a distinction you are willfully ignoring. Moreover, the calls for referenda are usually in the context of the people exercising a check on an otherwise unrestrained and unchecked judiciary.

    Federal amendments can be proposed the by democratically elected congress or by democratically elected state legislatures and ratified by states, which could be by direct state votes of the state so chooses.

    It is simply unwise, unjust, tyrannical, and dictatorial to find ways to permanently thwart or bypass the will of the people. The left used to shout “power to the people.” Progressives used to champion initial, referendum, and recall to check the power of well-financed special interests. Both the left and the right traditionally encouraged democracy overseas. We fought World War I to “make the world safe for democracy.” But the left no longer believes in democracy for, say, Iowa.

  14. Publius
    Posted September 29, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    The root of the word democracy is demos, meaning people. I count nine instances of the word people in the constitution including the amendments. It is prominent in the Preamble, a brief statement of fundamental and guiding principles. It appears in Article 1, Section 2, which establishes the House of Representatives as the “People’s House,” and the in Bill of Rights, where it appears five times. In the 10th amendment rights are reserved to the people. The people did not give up their inalienable rights when their representatives ratified the constitution.

    Likewise with the states, the Supreme Court of California recognized the right of the people to amend their constitution, because that is a right reserved to the people in their constitution, not a right granted by the government or the courts.

    Do you seriously maintain that the people of the states do not have the power to amend their constitutions? Yet the No on 8 forces, desperate to suppress democracy, argued just that in trying to keep Proposition 8 off the ballot. The San Francisco-based, pro-gay marriage California Supreme Court held that the people could indeed amendment own constitution. To declare otherwise would violate rights reserved to the people and clearly spelled out in their constitution.

    Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever a government deliberately repudiates that principle, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. My forefathers sacrificed to bring forth and maintain this country on such principles, against all opposition, foreign or domestic. I will not surrender those sacred rights to anyone, nor let them go without a war in which I would pledge my life, my fortune, and my honor.

  15. Ash
    Posted September 30, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    Excellent posts, Publius.

  16. Pluto
    Posted September 30, 2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    There is no inconsistency between the Chick-fil-a position and the Starbucks position. Private citizens always have a right to boycott for any reason. However, the government cannot "boycott" (by choosing to prevent a business from obtaining permits) on the basis of the political position of the corporation. I do not see any effort by Christian politicians to prevent Starbucks or General Mills from operating in a locality because of their political positions (or Christian groups calling for this action). If they were to do so, this would be wrong, and inconsistent.