NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Pledges $500,000 to Defeat Any Republican Who Supports Same-Sex Marriage; Will Support Democrats Who Stand Firm for Traditional Marriage

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 25, 2013

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


"Marriage is not a partisan issue, and NOM does not hesitate to oppose weak Republicans and support strong Democrats."โ€” Brian Brown, NOM president โ€”

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. โ€” The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today pledged to spend $500,000 against any Republican legislator who votes in favor of redefining marriage in Minnesota, and will support any Democrat who votes to preserve marriage. NOM's Minnesota state political fund was the largest contributor to the proposed Minnesota Marriage Amendment (giving over $2.2 million) and has helped defeat virtually every Republican who has supported gay marriage, including three Republican state Senators in New York in 2012.

"Republicans like Branden Petersen don't realize that not only is voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a career-ending vote for a Republican," said Brian Brown. "NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage. Legislators need look no further than what happened to GOP Senators in New York. Four of them were responsible for passing gay marriage. We helped take out three of those Senators by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage. They are now out of office. We will not hesitate to do the same thing in Minnesota."

Same-sex marriage narrowly passed the New York Senate with the help of seven Senators who flipped their vote, including four Republicans. Of those four GOP Senators, three have been removed from politics. One was defeated in a primary, another was defeated in the general election and a third was forced to retire rather than face reelection. NOM was instrumental in all three outcomes, funding billboards, mailers, telephone calls and grassroots activities. Additionally, NOM campaigned against a sitting Democrat Senator, Shirley Huntley, who changed her vote and helped defeat her in a Democratic primary. NOM ultimately supported three Democratic candidates for Senator in New York, and helped elect two of those to office.

"We urge Democrats in the Minnesota Legislature to vote their values, and not what their party bosses tell them," Brown said. "Standing for true marriage is the right thing to do for Minnesota families, and especially for children. The fact is that Minnesota children, and all children, have a right to expect laws that promote them being raised by a mother and father. We will support those legislators, Democrats and Republicans alike, who vote for Minnesota family values, just as we have done in other states. Marriage is not a partisan issue, and NOM does not hesitate to oppose weak Republicans and support strong Democrats."

###

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).

13 Comments

  1. David in Houston
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    You aren't promoting legislation that bans divorce, or prevents straight parents from giving their biological children up for adoption, or removes children from straight single-parent homes. Your agenda is clearly anti-gay and not pro-child. Children that ARE being raised by same-sex couples deserve the legal benefits and protections that only secular civil marriage can provide.

  2. Robert
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    NOM is composed of some very sick individuals, David. Psychologists call this type of behavior, "sociopathologicial."

  3. zack
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    There are only a handful of blue dog democrats left in congress and they all support Traditional Marraige. We need more Zell Miller Democrats...but they are either retiring, defecting to the gop or getting taken out by more liberal or more conservative candidates.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Wait; the SSM crowd does know they are promoting masturbation against same-gendered companions don't they?

    And so it goes with your A-typical sociopath in their quest to create willing victims they inevitably end up accusing their victims of the crimes they themselves commit.

  5. Steve Kintgen
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    Great Work NOM. Fight against the tyranny of the Godless revolution of the Religion of Secular Relativism.

  6. OldKingBlog
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    David and Robert: Earth is calling; get thy keysters to Moveon, where your, um, literary talents would be better appreciated.

  7. Bobby
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 12:36 am | Permalink

    I agree with Brian. "Marriage is not a partisan issue," Neither is equality. Marriage equality is a human issue that ought to be embraced across the political spectrum.

  8. Gary47290
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    NOM's retaliation against the 4 GOP state senators in New York was a resounding "success" Two were replaced by Democrats, 1 was re-elected, and the last was defeated by a Tea Party extremist (Marchione) who won 47% in 3 party race, almost ensuring she is a 1 term wonder.

  9. Chairm
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    In absolute numbers more Democrat and Independent voters combined have voted for state marriage measures than have Republican voters. Likewise more Liberals and Moderates have voted for state marriage measures than have Conservative voters. The marriage idea's bride-plus-groom requiremen has widespread and bipartisan support, obviously.

    Equal treatment, Bobby, means treating like alike. The type of relationship that you have in mind is similarly situated with the rest of the types of relationships that are not marriage. Why do you demand favoritism in the law?

    Meanwhile, equal treatment means not treating unalike as alike, arbitrarily. The union of husband and wife, marriage, has a core meaning that distinguishes it from all other types of relationships. Your SS idea is an outright rejection of the marriage idea. You demand favoritism and offer no justification.

    Whatever you might claim on behalf of your race-like identity group, it is not for the sake of equal treatment but for an arbitrary special status. That is unfair.

  10. RAJ
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Question: Will Nomblog be linking to the forthcoming Amicus brief, filed in favor of the Prop 8 plaintiffs, with more than 70 well-known Republican names added?

    If so, I look forward to reading Nomblog's take on it.

  11. Posted February 27, 2013 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    David in Houston - Just a few days ago they posted about a bill they support that makes it harder to get a divorce. So far, this is only in Oklahoma, but I hope it extends to other states. http://www.nomblog.com/33300/

    My little brother is adopted. Just because they arent wanted by their biological family, doesn't mean they arent wanted by their REAL family.

    And the whole "Single parent home" statement is crap, because they can still get married/re-married, and sometimes it isn't the mother's fault the father left.

  12. Posted February 27, 2013 at 3:33 am | Permalink

    If homosexual people wanna be together, fine. If they wanna get a civil partnership, that is fine as well... lets even fix the CP laws, so that they have the "rights" they grumble about. But, please do not redefine marriage, because it takes the right for children to have both a mother and father.

  13. Chairm
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    RAJ, party membership does not immune a politician from the corruptive influence of gay identity politics.

    That amicus brief does not advance the public discourse nor does it provide sound argumentation for the abolition of the bride-plus-groom legal requirement.

    Will you concede the problems in that brief where it contradicts the rhetoric and arguments of the pro-SSM litigators or even Judge Walker's opinion or Reinhardt's opinion? If yes, please cite those problems pre-emptively. If not, then stake your SSM advocacy on defending that brief in light of the case offered thusfar by the pro-SSM litigators.

    Perhaps you dropped by to pose rather than to add substance.