Dear Friends of Marriage,
The special election for Congress that concluded last Saturday in Honolulu was a huge win for marriage. For the first-time in a generation, Hawaiians elected a Republican to Congress, pro-marriage Charles Djou!
Both of the Democrats Djou defeated (Colleen Hanabusa and Ed Case) are openly pro-gay marriage.
The National Organization for Marriage reached out to 100,000 likely voters in the last week of the campaign to inform voters that Charles Djou would protect the people's right to vote for marriage.
Like Scott Brown in Massachussetts, Djou refused to concede that a Congressman's seat belongs to any politician or any party: "Contrary to the opinion of the old guard, this congressional seat is not owned by the Democrat Party. It isn't owned by any union or special interest group. This seat is owned by the people. At its core, this belief separates me from my opponents," Djou said on May 17.
Djou's margin of victory was unexpectedly strong, emerging with 40 percent of the vote in a three-way race with two Democrats in a deep blue state.
2010 has the potential for more tremendous victories for marriage all across the country. With your help, we will be positioned for strategic intervention on short notice wherever the need arises. Help make sure the word gets out . . . Can you give $65 today to help us reach out to 1,000 voters in the future?
Faithfully,
Brian S. BrownPresident
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization with QNC status, 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.
5 Comments
Djou voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell last night.
You don't have to agree with every stance he takes in order to appreciate his pro-marriage stance. Considering the district he's coming from, I'd say it's a pretty major win.
It will be a short-lived victory. The special election was to fill a vacancy only until November. And he only won because the two Democrats split the vote. Their votes combined together would have easily beaten him. In November, a Democratic will be elected as Hawaii as overhwhelmingly Democratic.
Personally, I am sick and tired of people lying about their stand on gay rights to get elected. Aside from NOM's support, I know very little about this guy except that the first thing he did after he was elected was vote to repeal DADT! I am LIVID!! I really DO think we should pick candidates that actually MEAN what the say about gay rights and not go along with promoting the gay agenda by voting to allow gays to serve 'openly' in the military, whatever that means.
Look, if I thought for two seconds simply removing barriers to service was all this was about, that would be fine.
The problem is this: In the same way that the push for gay 'marriage' is very little about simply legitimizing a gay relationship legally and giving a gay couple all the legal rights of a heterosexual married couple, and is ALL about pushing the entire gay agenda (forcing companies to hire cross dressers, letting little boys use the little girls bathrooms in schools, silencing religious objections to homosexuality, forcing companies like wedding photographers or caterers to take work from gay couples against their deeply held convictions, etc.) , it's the same with the repeal of DADT. Before long lawsuits will be filed to allow 'married' gay soldiers to move into military family housing together, any ban homosexual behavior will be seen as 'discriminatory' and so those bans will be dropped, the military will be forced to pay for fertility services for lesbian 'married' sailors because, if that service is available for heterosexual married military couples, it will have to be made available for 'married' lesbian couples . . . I could go on and on about what this repeal will open the door for that WE DO NOT WANT!
Brian, if you're listening, I hope you'll communicate to Congressman Djou your profound disapointment in his vote. I get it that he was perhaps the lesser of two evils, but is that really what we're reduced to? I hope not.
In case it isn't clear, my REAL problem with this current push in Congress for the repeal of DADT is that they committed to the military that they would have through December to decide when, how or even IF DADT should be repealed. For them to vote for repeal now makes it a foregone conclusion and shuts down even the possibility of getting an honest response and an objective study. After all, if the ban is already being repealed, why should anyone bother objecting? It would do no good and would only jeopardize their careers. How dumb is that! Congress should have butt out and let the military finish their job before any kind of vote! And I am more than a little upset that NOM hasn't spoken out against Djou's vote in particular, since it betrays everything they stand for!
I am deeply afraid that the one real result of this ban will be fewer young people enlisting in the military and the eventual (within 4-6 years) reinstatement of the draft. Why should they when their faith is being disrespected constantly and they have to serve alongside those whose religion leads them to hate this country, and when even their common sense belief in one-man one-woman marriage is trashed by their commanders. If this ban is repealed, the draft will be the only way we can get enough young people to serve after all this nonsense.
Really, Brian or Robert, you need to get on the phone to Congressman Djou and explain to him what his vote REALLY is being used to accomplish.
My own Republican member of the California State Assembly, Nathan Fletcher, pulled the same stupid stunt the other day when the Assembly voted to tell Congress to repeal DADT. He lauded that vote, citing his own personal reasons based on the time he served in the miltary, He completely misrepresented his constituents here in San Diego. His vote was personal, not representational, and I don't think he should be allowed to get away with that. To be clear, it's not a matter of an elected official's personal beliefs. It IS a matter of them misrepresenting the voters who elected them to office.
"It will be a short-lived victory. The special election was to fill a vacancy only until November. And he only won because the two Democrats split the vote. Their votes combined together would have easily beaten him. In November, a Democratic will be elected as Hawaii as overhwhelmingly Democratic."
Don't be so sure. Gaining 40% of the vote in a three way race was unexpectedly high. And now that Djou is an incumbant, the chances of a Democrat taking the seat are now lower.