NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Pledges To Defeat Any Republican Legislator in Illinois Who Votes For Gay 'Marriage'

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 3, 2013

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


NOM Demands that State GOP Chair Pat Brady Resign or Be Removed

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. โ€” The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today pledged to form an Illinois state PAC and spend $250,000 defeating Republican legislators who vote in support of same-sex 'marriage' in Illinois, just like the group successfully did in New York. The group also called on state Republican Chairman Pat Brady to resign or be removed from office for violating the national GOP platform and urging state Republicans to redefine marriage.

"Any Republican in Illinois who betrays the cause of marriage will be casting a career-ending vote and will be held accountable to their constituents," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "We will spend whatever it takes โ€” hundreds of thousands of dollars if necessary โ€” to remove them from office, just as we did three of the four turncoat Republican state Senators in New York who were responsible for gay 'marriage' passing there. We will not hesitate to support pro-family Democrats to replace them, as our record in New York proves."

In New York, same-sex marriage narrowly passed the state senate after four Republicans and two Democrats changed their votes in response to promises of campaign cash from gay marriage activists. NOM targeted all seven for defeat, and was successful in removing five of them, replacing them in 2012 with pro-family Senators. As numerous media have reported, including the New York Times, "As four Republican state senators, one by one, agreed to break with their party and cast a politically risky vote to legalize same-sex marriage last year, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and gay-rights advocates vowed to do everything in their power to protect them against political retribution. But when the Legislature returns to Albany next month, only one of those four senators will be among those sworn into office." ("Costly Toll for Republicans Who Voted for Gay Marriage")

In addition to supporting challengers to the four Republicans, NOM also supported pro-family Democrats, helping to re-elect Senator Ruben Diaz and electing a pro-marriage Democrat to unseat Senator Shirley Huntley in the Democratic primary. "Marriage is not a partisan issue," Brown said. "We will stand with pro-family legislators regardless of party affiliation when they stand up for true marriage."

NOM also demanded that state GOP Chairman Pat Brady resign his position, or be removed by Republican delegates as Brady called on GOP legislators to redefine marriage. Brady's position violates the strong pro-marriage plank of the Republican National Committee Platform, and is contrary to the position of every major GOP candidate for president in 2012.

"Pat Brady is unfit to continue as Chair of the state Republican Party and should immediately resign or be removed from office," Brown said. "We urge all donors to cease supporting the Republican Party in Illinois until Brady is removed from his position. His betrayal of Republican principles is unforgiveable and violates the trust of Illinois Republicans. Moreover, it will directly lead to the defeat of any GOP officeholder who follows his lead, as the experience in New York showed."

NOM called on GOP donors to instead direct their financial support to NOM or to other pro-family groups in Illinois.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], 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 ยง 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

5 Comments

  1. Zack
    Posted January 3, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    If liberals will see through the defeat of officials who betray their principles, I don't see how this is any different with Conservatives. If you want to be a liberal, join the DNC or the Libertarian Party.

  2. Posted January 3, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    This approach against GOP politicians, who forget the reason for offering civil marriage to adult opposite-sex couples, has proven to be very efficient and successful. A few Democrat politicians also get the point.

    That is because it uses the same method that SSM promoters have been using - taking the initiative - except they take the initiative to intimidate the legislators in office (abuse), often using simplistic analogies, misleading research studies or accusations, AND an animus against Christians who believe Romans chapter 1 in the Bible in its historical context (speaking against Roman Empire paganism).

    Those who oppose SSM and SSCivilUnions are motivated by secular arguments (aside from religious dogma), and should not wait to be placed on the defensive.

    But any political offensive, creates a political defensive and is therefore impossible to predict how much effort it will require. Analogies to 'battles', 'war', 'beat the enemy', etc. are inappropriate because the effort is not against people, and cause a larger political backslash. Instead, it is against an ideology held by people.

    Christians (who don't budge for political 'correctness') must be educated on this subject to take the initiative (as in Prop 8), instead of permitting being put on the defensive, by which time it is often politically too late.

    One case showing an illogical argument for SSM is the case accepted by SCOTUS now (California), which argues that once a license for marriage has been extended to a SSM couple, it cannot be withdrawn. . . (Says who?). . . All licenses extended by the State can be withdrawn. It is not a license to marry (a license for change of legal status). It is a license to marry AND be considered married (as long as the State decides, for ANY marriage). The State does not limit itself upon extending a marriage license, or else it would be similarly limited under ANY kind of licensing.

    If civil marriage is a contract, the State is free to change the conditions of those contracts at any time, just like we are all subject to the State changing its laws, and are responsible to know about any change to the laws to the letter (an impossible task). This shows the State, being in the service of The People of the State, is sovereign.

    But i'll let the superbly qualified SCOTUS to deal with that novel idea of unalterable 'married' status in California, a concept by which the State limits itself forever, made subject to a political idea out of nowhere. . . i.e., The State has never revoked a marriage status, once allowed. Therefore, the State CANNOT ever revoke a marriage status. That is the lack of logic shown at the level of the California's Court of Appeals. No wonder that State is in such a bad economic state. That is Court Decision by Convenience - by irrationality. It is much more than about SSM. . .

  3. ;ajksd
    Posted January 3, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    90% of people have ideals that are on both sides of the political spectrum. If you vote against someone who is doing a good job just because of their stance on one issue, then you are an idiot.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Few, if any, politicians will be a perfect match with our values, so each person must determine which issues are most important to them and support those who agree with their view on those issues.

    If the Constitution, marriage and family are your most sacred values you support that politician. If fake marriage and free Osamaphones are your most sacred values you support a different one.

  5. Posted January 4, 2013 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    this guy/gal ;ajksd must believe 'idiots' are not allowed to vote, or that people who vote based on a single political issue cannot vote. I have news for ;ajksd: Some adults, registered voters, don't even vote at all. No one can force them to vote one way or another. Voters (who at least try to vote) can vote on a single issue, or even 1/2 of an issue, if they so desire. Democrats are now telling Republican elected officials HOW to vote. That is ludicrous! And calling a voter an 'idiot' is not going to take away his Constitutional right to vote. At one time, women were considered 'idiots' (uneducated in matters of politics), and were not allowed to vote. But how did they get the vote, then? It turned out the human brain can think very well, regardless of sex (or sexual orientation), once trained. When someone tells me how to vote, i just tell them how to vote. Same difference.