NOM BLOG

We Only Have One More Day!

 

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today is the last day to take advantage of our $500,000 matching challenge.

Please make a year-end donation IMMEDIATELY to help us reach our goal and enter the New Year with the resources we need to counter the assault on marriage that is being organized RIGHT NOW by same-sex marriage radicals.

Remember, your donation will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a generous supporter, doubling the impact of your gift!

We have a plan. Several states are being targeted by our opponents for advancing same-sex marriage legislation . . . and NOM will be making sure that the voters in those states know what their legislators are doing, and that those legislators know how their constituents feel.

But we need funds to counter the other side's onslaught of deception and lies.

In November, we were outspent by almost $23 million in the four states where marriage was on the ballot. We CANNOT allow ourselves to be overwhelmed again by such a drastic financial disparity.

Your immediate contribution will help us mobilize defenders of marriage at the grassroots level to send a message to legislators around the country: your constituents are watching, and they will remember how you vote on same-sex marriage come election time!

We have a ways to go to reach our goal of raising $500,000 for marriage, so please make a donation right away.

Follow this link to make an urgent donation of $50, $100, $500 or more—and every dollar you give for marriage will be doubled to fund our grassroots campaign.

Can I count on your help in this critical hour?

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.

27 Comments

  1. David in Houston
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    So whoever has the most money can make the public vote for their side, regardless of how the person feels about marriage equality? Apparently, all the straight people that were against same-sex marriage in Washington, Maryland and Maine voted against their beliefs because there were so many pro-gay marriage commercials on TV. Makes perfect sense.

  2. Quinn
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    it's NEVER been about "equality'. it's about abnormal people & their supporters (like you) that want to force those of us who oppose the radical homosexual agenda.

  3. Quinn
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    & we will fight that agenda no matter how long it will take & we WILL NEVER give up that fight either!

  4. Tribune
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    There should be a much strong attack on the illogical reason for homosexual "marriage". There is so much that can be used. Not using the word "gay" , for homosexuals, is a start.

  5. Enver
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Same sex marriage isn't normal for the United States of America as I know.

  6. Jeanette Exner
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Congratulations in advance too all the Gay couples who will be getting married in Maryland after we ring in 2013! Your happiness is our happiness.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Rather; not bastardizing the word "Gay" so as to lend an appearance of legitimacy for promiscuity.

    The word "Gay" was first used as a noun in the 1970's and only in reference to men doing men. Prior to it was always used as an adjective; now it is being used as a blanket reference to all deviants in an attempt to lend a greater appearance of authenticity to their agenda.

  8. Quinn
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    @Jeanette - your side's happiness, not our side.

  9. Quinn
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    @Tribune - I do have another word or two, but I would probably be banned from this website.

  10. DN
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    NOM is all about free speech - I say you exercise some right here :)

  11. Son of Adam
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    If money doesn't make a difference, Dave, why go through the trouble spending any amount of money at all? The fact of the matter is that money is a useful tool in promoting misinformation, and that is what was used in Maine, Maryland, and Washington state.

  12. Zack
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    NOM we don't have the deep pockets like the left does. They own the media, entertainment, the pop culture. Heck, the richest membors of congress are all Democrats and the worlds richest people are leftist in their thinking. They'll always outspend us. The left thinks that their way of thinking is mainstream, but they're wrong. They live in a bubble surrounded by like-minded individuals, never challenged, never questioned, never having to actually think. Yes 2012 was a dissappointing year and I'm sure more are to follow, but lets not lose sight of the bigger picture here, we surround them! We see the world for what it really is, they see it the way they want to see it and THAT makes all the difference. We have to do a better job of getting our message out.

  13. Jeanette Exner
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    DEAR ZACK:

    What message would THAT be, exactly? Churches aren't being forced to marry Gay couples, any more than they are being forced to marry Muslim or Atheist couples. No married heterosexual couple ever got divorced because the Gay couple next door decided to tie the knot. People aren't "turning Gay" because marriage is now becoming an option in many states. And unless the Constitution only applies to people who are heterosexual, there is no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    Frankly, you don't HAVE a message, at least not one based on any kind of logic.

  14. Randy E King
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    @Janette,

    There is no such thing as a "Gay" couple; promiscuity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself.

    There is no mention of the right to bastardize marriage under the U.S. Constitution, but marriage has been clearly defined under federal law as the joining of opposites.

    This applies equally to all. You are not being denied access to marriage; you are being denied the power to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage.

    You are not fighting for the return of right that was taken from you; you are fighting for the right to remake this nation in your image.

  15. Son of Adam
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Calling NOM anti-gay is like calling Jews anti-Christian or Democrats anti-Republican. NOM is for promoting the values that support the natural family embodied in real marriage. Not to specifically target homosexuals.

  16. Son of Adam
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    No DN. It's the Westburo Baptist Church who holds that distinction.

  17. DN
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    meh - I think that's a cop-out, Son of Adam. Westboro gives moderate anti-gays cover. "Oh I don't hate [rhymes with bags - again I'm quoting a NOM commenter]. I just think that [rhymes with bags] deserve XYZ."

    If it makes a person feel better to think they're not anti-gay because they don't lobby for executing gays, for beating them severely, for denying them employment, for throwing them out of their apartments, or for denying them marriage rights - but hey I'm not as bad as Fred Phelps! Well that's a pretty low freaking bar. I mean, come on. "I'm not as bad as Westboro" is your best defense?

  18. Son of Adam
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    No one's denying homosexuals marriage rights, DN. They just don't have the right to have marriage redefined for them. No one does. And putting that view in the same category as killing and beating up homosexuals as a rationale for hating on organizations like NOM is the cop out.

    Also, I can't be held responsible for what other people post on this blog any more than you can when SS"M" supporters call people who support natural marriage even worse names in their own messages.

  19. KAK1958
    Posted January 1, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Again, this whole argument seems to just be about the word marriage. Even though gay and lesbian couples currently live together, own homes together, travel together, have joint bank accounts, are each other's beneficiary and maybe even raise children together. In other words, they are essentially a "married" couple. As far as I can see, changes coming from legal marriage would only be apparent to the couples themselves (e.g. access to additional benefits, tax filings, etc.) But to the outside world, nothing about that relationship would really change.

  20. Zack
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 2:25 am | Permalink

    @Jeanette

    "What message would THAT be, exactly?"

    Exactly my point. The left lives in a bubble. So much so that they can't comprehend any opposing view point.

  21. Zack
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 2:27 am | Permalink

    @DN

    "That's the way it works on this blog: no matter how even-handed, cilvil, and respectful a comment is, it will get moderated into oblivion if it *at all* disagrees with NOM."

    You're not the only person here who has trouble seeing a post making its way on the blog. I am a conservative, yet my posts no matter how civil they are sometimes can't make it past moderation.

  22. Son of Adam
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 3:50 am | Permalink

    "As far as I can see, changes coming from legal marriage would only be apparent to the couples themselves (e.g. access to additional benefits, tax filings, etc.) But to the outside world, nothing about that relationship would really change."

    Tell that to those who find themselves fired, sued, and coerced to leave their livelihood over that definition, KAK1958. It if a very dangerous and disturbing thing when the government becomes big enough to redefine terms. Ever hear of newspeak from the novel 1984?

  23. Son of Adam
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 3:52 am | Permalink

    That is true, Zack. For instance, I just wrote a civil reply to KAK1984, and it failed to show up. So you are not alone, DN.

  24. DN
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    Zack and Son of Adam,

    I know NOM supporters have trouble with their comments, but I've been entirely banned several times from this site and so have a lot of other people. The notion that NOM will ban people for merely opposing a position they take is not new.

    I've seen this kind of rationalization before, so let me ask you this - is your success rate with your comments somewhere around 80%? 50%? How about zero percent - because for three years now, that's been my success rate. I have no idea why they're letting anything at all of mine go through now, after having banned me from two different computers and my phone.

    And Zack, as for you being conservative... supporting marriage equality *is* a conservative position. Getting government out of your life? Conservative position. Letting more people pursue happiness? Conservative position.

  25. Son of Adam
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Legalizing SS"M" doesn't cover any of those conservative positions, DN. Redefining marriage for homosexuals while all other sexual relationships like polyamory and incest continue to be discriminated against is an example of liberal elitism that masquerades as "equality."

    It also expands government intrusion and coercion by redefining terms and thus telling people what to say and how to say it (newspeak, 1984). Not to mention all the examples of people being fired, sued, and/or coerced into leaving their jobs because they will not support the new moral standard the state now sponsors.

    Also, only an average of 5% of all homosexuals get "married" wherever its legal. So it doesn't seem to me that redefining marriage is a key to their happiness. Keeping the government small and less susceptible to the wants and desires of wealthy and influential special interest groups at the expense of our 1st amendment rights, however, is.

  26. Randy E King
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    @DN,

    Please explain how changing the meaning of what constitutes a marriage in order to expand federal benefits and protections to deviants take government out of your life?

    Try to remember; this isn't 'Wonderland' and your name isn't Alice!

  27. Zack
    Posted January 2, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    "is your success rate with your comments somewhere around 80%? 50%? "

    I honestly couldn't say. I've had to resort to breaking my original posts into several with minor edits.

    "And Zack, as for you being conservative... supporting marriage equality *is* a conservative position. Getting government out of your life? Conservative position. Letting more people pursue happiness? Conservative position."

    Preserving the Judeo-Christian values of this country is a conservative position. That includes keeping Marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And redefining Marriage doesn't keep the government out of our lives. Business owners being forced to violate their religious convictions, teaching it to grade school children and overall labeling law biding citizens as "haters" should not be the basis of a movement that espouses "equality"....but that's exactly what they do.

    Want to say you're "married"? Fine, but no one man has the right nor the power to redefine the instution that forms the foundation of society. The barriers that separate male and female cannot be broken and for that, Marriage serves a purpose.