Minnesota Press Takes Note of NOM's Warning to Republicans Who Waver on Marriage


Plenty of local (and national) press have taken note of our announcement yesterday that we are pledging $500,000 to protect marriage in Minnesota -- here are a few of the outlets that picked up our press release:

The Pioneer Press: "The National Organization for Marriage says it will spend $500,000 to defeat any Republican legislator who votes to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota."

The Associated Press: "One Republican senator, Branden Petersen, already says he'll support it. But the National Organization of Marriage says that's a "career-ending" vote for Republicans. The group has helped fund conservative primary challengers to Republicans in other states who voted in favor same-sex marriage."

StarTribune: "The National Organization for Marriage noted that they helped "take out” three of four New York GOP Senators who voted to legalize same-sex marriage in that state “by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage.”

Salon: "...And while election outcomes are determined by a number of factors, there is no doubt that the GOP losses are partly due to organizations like NOM putting their financial muscle behind punishing lawmakers who vote with their conscience."

The Atlantic: "...Just yesterday, National Organization for Marriage announced on their website that they would "do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage." They even boast about ending the careers of three of the four Republicans who backed gay marriage in New York State's Senate."


  1. Will Fisher
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    "In a bizarre twist, NOM closed its blog post with a call for lawmakers to “vote their values” and not “what their party bosses tell them.” Strange advice coming from an organization that is waging war against a senator for doing precisely that."
    From the Salon article

  2. Richard
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I think you believe that these threats have merit. I suggest you rethink your attitudes as you failed miserably in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Pure animus in the guise of political maneuvering just is not a winning play for you.

  3. Posted February 26, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Hey! If a Republican or Democrat (not to be confused with democratic) State Rep. or Sen. campaigns with the promise of blocking SSm or SS civil unions AND then reverses, everyone should be accepting that NOM is helping get rid of such politicians (who get elected through lies).

    Oh, and Ouhbama is another one, but he hides behind another lie (that he was 'evolving', and by now has 'evolved'). It's still a flip-flop, and flip-flops are not punished. In reality, flip-flops PUNISH the constituents for believing that politician.

    Constituents do have power, believe it or not. That's the basis of our legislative system. Take it or leave it.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    It's pretty wild that the opposition hired a half dozen lobbyists to push pseudo-marriage through. One can't help but wonder if Sen. Petersen's "change of heart" is actually a change in his bank account.

  5. zack
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    NOM is doing what the GOP base is failing to do, and that is making our representatives stick to their principles.

  6. Bobby
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Zack - As I have said before equality is a human issue and not a political issue.

  7. Robert
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Failed hate groups like NOM make me laugh at this point. I used to cringe, but to read Brian Brown's lunatic rantings is priceless. I actually copy and paste his idiocy into a Word file I keep, in case I decide to write a book about hate groups like the KKK and NOM! I'm serious! The comments that NOM employees post here are shocking, to say the least, and will make fascinating reading.

  8. Harold
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    New Mexico had killed the same sex marriage bill

    A lot of companies in Washington state are being bullied for not supporting same sex marriage which is kind of sad and I don't know why would people want to do this for a reason. The same thing happend to the people of preserve marriage. Check out their page and you'll find the people who supports gay marriage are saying mean things to them on their Facebook page.

  9. Randy E King
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Back to defamation I see Robert; your position is completely without merit so you move to your old, stale, and dusty fall back position.

    Bumper sticker slogans you put out are as relevant these days as peace signs and smiley faces were back in the 60's and 70's.

  10. flanoggin
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    NOM---more desperate and irrational and irrelevant every day! YAY!

  11. OldKingBlog
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    What flawhatever meant to post: "The so-called LBGT community -- more desperate and irrational and irrelevant every day! YAY!

  12. flanoggin
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    LOL OldKingBlog---your hostility is duly noted! Bless!

  13. zack
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    Oh boy bobby. Redefining marraige was never about equality. The sad part is that you think the democrats actually care so that you'll vote for them.

  14. Bobby
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    Zack - It is only about equality. You too will evolve one day and decide you don't wish to remain in the Dark Ages with the Randy King's of the world.

  15. David in Houston
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    The fact that NOM has to literally threaten politicians to do their bidding speaks volumes about them, and how little respect they have for our political process. I don't see AFER or HRC blackmailing politicians to vote for marriage equality. They don't have to, because the politicians know they're doing the right thing.

  16. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    The comments from the peanut gallery become more erratic with each passing day. They defend the actions of a pol taking money to change his vote. They call the protection of children and the family H8. They don't realize they're being used by the socialists to further their agenda. They've been brainwashed into believing that unlike things are actually alike. They need to take a deep breath and perhaps a Xanax or two.

  17. Posted February 27, 2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    David: That's true, that you don't see:

    " I don't see AFER or HRC blackmailing politicians"

  18. RINO Hunter
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Well done, NOM! Unprincipled RINOs who go wobbly on marriage deserve to be held accountable by Republican primary voters. Republicans need to know they will pay a price when they go weak-kneed in the face of their political opponents instead of mounting an aggressive defense of the views of their conservative constituents.

    All this vitriol from the cultural left...wear it as a badge of honor.

  19. Randy E King
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink


    If it speaks volumes then why can't you articulate your understanding any better than that. You seem to be under the impression that bumper sticker retorts make you look intelligent; they don't.

  20. Chairm
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Will Fisher, a vote in support of the SSM idea is an anti-marriage vote. NOM is the National Organization for Marriage and so opposes those politicians who advocate the Specious Substitution for Marriage aka SSM.

    It is a basic as that.

    Plus, when a politician is elected by feigning support for marriage but turns around and votes against marriage and for SSM, it is fair for M to follow through and hold the turncoat accountable both morally and politically.

    You, yourself in comments here, have dodged moral accountability for your various assertions and for your unsound moralism. You are not alone among SSM advocates -- some far more intelligent and articulate than you and the pro-SSM turncoats. Hence you confusion and double standard as per that senseless quote you brought to this discussion.

  21. Chairm
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, the issue remains the conflict of ideas: the solid marriagea vs the conceptual mess that is the SSM idea. You have repeatedly demonstrated, in your comments, that your support for the SSM idea and your rejection of the marriage idea flows from pro-gay bigotry.

    The supremacy of identity politics was repudiated where white identity politics corrupted marriage law; your comments echo the asserted supremacy of identity politics -- this time your gay emphasis belies your utter dependence on the arbitrariness of imposing the SSM idea for the sake of gay identity politics.

    Your gay emphasis is irrelevant to marriage law. But that is the basis for your animus toward those who promote and defend the marriage idea. The lack of sound argumentation is not disguised by your bizarre emphasis on gay this and gay that. No SSMer has justified the imposition of SSM and the abolition of the bride-plus-groom requirement of marriage law.

  22. Chairm
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Robert/flanogan: your posturing belies a boiling rage against the moral truth. Listen to your conscience for it is trying to correct your wrong turns. You rely on half-truths and comment as one who would set truth against truth.

    For example, equality probhibits treating people differently -- arbitrarily. The other half is that we are forbidden treating people the same -- arbitrarily.

    The one-sexed types of relationships are predominantly not sexualized. The entire range lacks the essentials of the marital type of relationship. Gay identity does not change that fact of life.

    Meanwhile, most of the range of two-sexed types of relationships are non-marital and are ineligible for marriage.

    Marriage is a special type of relationship that merits its preferential status among all other possible types of relationships. But the SSM idea is a rejection of what makes marriage, marriage. You'd add your gay emphasis but that is extrinsic to the marriage idea. It is irrelevant to marriage but central to your presentation of the pro-SSM complaint against marriage law. Gay is not a special reason for special status. The core of marriage, extrinsic to the gay type of relationship and other types of relationships, that core -- aka the marriage idea -- is of far greater societal significance than anything you have proposed.

    In the conflict between your SSM idea and the marriage idea, it is you who relies on arbitrariness and it is you who relies on your own form of bigotry and it is you who depends on throwing stink bombs rather than offerring sound legal and sound moral arguments to backup your favoritism for the gay identity group.

    The more you say, the more all of this becomes apparent and cannot be reasonably denied.Thank you for that contribution. It serves to forewarn society.

  23. Chairm
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    David in Houston, your moralism (ie doing the right thing) lacks sound moral argumentation.

    Your failure is not disguised by your projecting onto others what the SSM campaign has been doing for years. Focus on the conflict of ideas and you'll make for yourself the opportunity to getback to first principles and to learn what the actual disagreement is about. Then, perhaps, you'd get closer to comprehending right from wrong. Until then, your wrong turns leave you lost in the woods.

  24. Chairm
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Got 3 comments in the que.