Victory: GOP Move to Oust Pro-Gay Marriage Pat Brady!


National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You spoke and the Republican party listened.

When Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady announced that he was abandoning the GOP platform and endorsing same-sex marriage, NOM and others immediately called for his resignation.

This week the news broke that seven Illinois GOP committee members have successfully called a special meeting on March 7 to oust Chairman Brady.

Please thank these seven men and women who have taken a stand for principle and values and encourage the remaining committee members to do the same!

Brady is already feeling the heat. Just a couple days ago he was forced to cancel a major fundraiser that was expected to bring in $250,000 and he has admitted that the controversy over his betrayal has hurt Illinois GOP operations.

Across the country, gay marriage advocates are falsely claiming that the Republican party supports gay marriage. Why are they doing so? Because they've learned they can only score victories when they divide us. They know that if they don't crack the GOP's united defense of marriage, gay marriage will never make it out of the deep blue states where it currently has a tenuous foothold.

Even in Illinois, a Democrat-run state, gay marriage only makes progress when Republicans abandon principle and go along with far-left policy.

That's why it's so important we send a message by ousting Chairman Pat Brady, because it will teach a lesson to every Republican who flirts with abandoning marriage: we, your voting constituents, will not stand for abandoning principle!

Pat Brady claimed that he chose to come out in support of gay marriage to attract young voters. But the latest polling shows only 37% of young Republicans say they support gay marriage, and how many more young conservatives probably support true marriage but are intimidated by their liberal college environment and peer pressure into hiding their pro-marriage views?

That's why we need politicians who will courageously stand for principle and stand up for what is right — not abandon principle at the first sign of trouble or confusion!

That's why I'm asking you to take this action today by supporting those calling for Brady's removal. We need to send a message to politicians and the next generation: we will remain vigilant in the fight to protect marriage!

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.


  1. zack
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    I am a young conservative who believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

    On a side note, the establishment purge continues.

  2. Ash
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Great news 🙂

    "They know that if they don't crack the GOP's united defense of marriage, gay marriage will never make it out of the deep blue states where it currently has a tenuous foothold."

    Exactly. It's like Rich Lowry said: ssm may remain as an item deep blue states, while never gaining nationwide legitimacy.

    And its standing in the blue states is in fact tenuous. When voters are educated on the consequences of ssm, namely the corruption of parentage doctrines, ssm may not last even in those places.

  3. Bobby
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Ash - Marriage equality is here to stay. There are no negative consequences to equality. Fewer and fewer voters believe the lies and the chicken little talk anymore.

  4. Jeanette Exner
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Ultimately it won't matter which states allow Gay couples to marry and which don't. Most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the FEDERAL government, so this is a federal issue. I'm quite confident the Supreme Court will determine that there is no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Good riddance!

  6. Ash
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink


    What's "chicken little" about the fact that the three parents bill introduced in CA was a direct result of ssm, i.e. the "corruption of parentage doctrines" that I referred to in my original comment?

    Americans will become educated on these negative effects of ssm and vote accordingly. It won't be hard for them to "believe" what marriage supporters are saying, as these are not predictions, but real-world examples.

  7. Posted March 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Very good news, I will happily sign.


    There exists no right of males to be females, of fathers to be females, of brides to be females, and not even the astonishing effectiveness of the Alinskyite tactics with the mush-minded can work with the justices at SCOTUS.

    I hope 🙂

  8. Bobby
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    CA does not allow marriage equality - at least not yet.

  9. Posted March 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage equality is here to stay" - because it's already here. Whether a State changes the conditions for marriage or not, it already applies equally to everyone.

    The "equality" rhetoric is too old now. Can't keep up with History.

  10. Posted March 4, 2013 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Bobbie: I thought you wrote: "Marriage equality is here to stay."

    Then you write:
    CA does not allow marriage equality - at least not yet."

    Make up your mind, if you ever can. (remember circular reasoning? That's not a seasoning.)

  11. Ash
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, the lesbian couple in the M.C. case had legally married in the brief period while ssm was legal in CA.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.