National Organization for Marriage Issues Statement in Regard to Ken Mehlman
Washington, DC – Today, Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), issued the following statement in regard to Mr. Ken Mehlman:
"We respect Ken Mehlman's right to his personal life. Supporting gay marriage, however, is a very different and very public matter. The fight over same-sex marriage really isn't about Mr. Mehlman's personal life. Marriage, as a public legal status, is a man and a woman for a reason: It is the only civil institution that brings together the two halves of humanity to ensure the children they create have the best opportunity to be raised by their own mother and father. We will fight all attempts to redefine marriage to be something that it is not -- a genderless, adult-centered sexual relationship centered on the alleged rights of adults and not the needs of children. The American people -- including over 80% of Republicans and even 40% of Democrats -- oppose same-sex marriage. NOM has already proven in races from New York to California that it is a particularly bad idea for Republicans to support gay marriage. The disconnect in Washington stems from politicans who refuse to pay attention to the values of the people they represent. If Mr. Mehlman wishes to help us elect pro-marriage GOP politicians, we welcome his support. If not, we welcome the victories that will come in the battle that must necessarily ensue."
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
National Organization for Marriage Applauds Ninth Circuit Stay of Judge Walker's Ruling
Washington, DC – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
just issued a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling ordering the immediate
overturning of Prop 8 and the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Appeals Court order creates an expedited review process and asks all
parties to address the question of standing to appeal.
"Judge Walker has attempted to
insulate his unprecedented decision from review by suggesting the Defendant-Intervenors,
the official proponents of Prop 8, can’t appeal and thus his unfair ruling invalidating
Prop 8 was set to go into effect on Wednesday. He also ruled that one
California local government (Imperial County) which supports Prop 8 couldn’t
intervene in this litigation, even as he permitted another California local
government (San Francisco) who opposed Prop 8 to become a party. We applaud the Ninth Circuit for staying
Judge Walker's ruling and giving the people of California the opportunity to
appeal his ruling. We believe the law is clear that Prop 8 is
constitutional and that the Defendant-Intervenors have the right to defend it
in our higher courts, even though Governor Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown have
conspired to block its implementation by refusing to defend it in court.
A trial judge cannot expect to make unprecedented new Constitutional law
and have his ruling go unreviewed by higher courts. One way or another,
the people of California will get their day in court, and we expect the US
Supreme Court or Congress if necessary to defend our right to vote for
marriage."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (Cell: 615-337-3710) or at 703-683-5004 x. 105.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage Releases Statement Responding to Lift of Stay on Same Sex Marriages in California
(Washington, D.C.) – In light of the decision by Judge Vaughn Walker to lift the stay on same sex marriages in California following his ruling to overturn Proposition 8, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage offered the following response:
"When a lower judge makes an unprecedented ruling, that totally overturns existing Supreme Court precedent, the normal thing for that judge to do is to stay his decision, and let the higher courts decide in an orderly fashion that respects the rule of law, if he's right, or if he's way off-base. Judge Walker's ruling is more evidence he is not a neutral referee, he's an activist on this issue. He doesn’t even want his ruling ignoring Supreme Court precedent and imposing gay marriage against the expressed wishes of the electorate appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Walker feels that that only the state politicians who were against Prop 8 have standing to appeal and the over 7 million California voters who supported Prop 8 shouldn’t be able to even present their position to a higher court. It’s outrageous. The People are supposed to be sovereign, not the politicians. This stay order will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and if necessary to Justice Anthony Kennedy, and I think it is a tactical mistake on Judge Walker's part to display his injudicious zeal--once again--before Kennedy's eyes."
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
RIGHT TO VOTE ON MARRIAGE TAKES CENTER STAGE IN MINNESOTA GOVERNOR'S RACE
Minnesota Family Council and National Organization for Marriage Ask Voters to Demand That Candidates Support Their Right to Vote
Minneapolis – Two pro-family groups active in Minnesota politics today began a statewide radio campaign urging voters to demand that the candidates for Governor support their right to vote on the definition of marriage.
“Voters in 31 other states have had the opportunity to decide the definition of marriage and it’s time that Minnesotans had that same right,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). “The candidates for governor are asking voters for their support. We’re encouraging voters, in turn, demand of the candidates to guarantee they’ll support their right to vote on marriage and not impose gay marriage on them.”
A state lawsuit and five legislative bills this year have sought to impose gay marriage in Minnesota without a vote of the people. Backers have pledged to make an all-out effort to impose gay marriage next year.
“Both DFL nominee Mark Dayton and Independent Tom Horner want to impose homosexual marriage on all Minnesotans, but GOP nominee Tom Emmer supports traditional marriage,” said Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council. “The key issue, however, is who will get to decide this issue – the politicians in St. Paul or the people themselves. That’s what voters need to ask of the candidates.”
The radio ad is running is all markets in Minnesota.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 6, 2010
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE:
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS RIGHT!
DEMS WILL PAY FOR JUDGE WALKER'S ARROGANCE AND INSULTS TO AMERICAN PEOPLE
(Washington, DC) – Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement after Rush Limbaugh’s commentary regarding the Proposition 8 ruling:
Many Republicans shy away from gay marriage, but not Rush Limbaugh. After Judge Walker's ruling, Rush said on the air that his emails were boiling over from voters angry at the way their voices and values are being ignored:
Rush Limbaugh: “The American people are boiling. The American people are furious. My e-mails are unbelievable. This federal judge yesterday, this decision, Prop 8, California, has just put people over the edge, and all of these decisions are coming one after another from all corners of the federal government. It's as if we have absolutely no say in what is going on all around us. Decisions are being made for us, in lieu of us and imposed on us."
Rush went on to say that the real civil right threatened by the Prop 8 litigation were Californians' right to vote:
Rush Limbaugh: “We hear a lot of talk from the Obama administration about "civil rights." Everything is turned into a civil rights issue -- equal rights, equal protection rights, whatever. Endless things are done against us in the name of civil rights. But what is a more fundamental right -- a fundamental civil right in our system of government in a supposed republic -- than the right to have our voice heard, to have our vote respected? You want to talk about civil rights? It doesn't matter what the people of California vote. If the left doesn't like it, they will use the bastardization of power in this country to reverse it. What about our vote being respected? Without that right, we're no longer a republic. The left only loves elections when they win them. . . .
Because your Democrat Party has been hijacked firmly now by the extreme left worldwide. If elections don't matter, we're no longer a republic. If one judge, an activist judge using his personal policy preferences, can overturn an election involving seven million votes, then elections don't matter.”
Rush said Judge Walker had put the people on trial and found them guilty:
“According to Judge Walker's reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker's Constitution. . . .
Judge Vaughn Walker, California, did not just slap down the will of seven million voters. Those seven million voters were put on trial, a kangaroo court where everything was stacked against them. He wanted to make it a show trial. He wanted cameras. US Supreme Court said no way. Seven million California voters, your vote just wasn't overturned, you were on trial and now marriage has been codified as homophobia. According to this judge, the only reason marriage is between a man and a woman is because heterosexuals have been discriminating against gays because they're homophobic. So marriage, if this is upheld, marriage is simply codified homophobia. And the purpose of this, of course, is to just rip to shreds the traditions and institutions that have defined the United States of America. This "trial," Judge Walker, Judge Vaughn Walker, this "trial" -- and I put that in quotes -- was truly bizarre. But most importantly the sponsors of the initiative ended up being on trial. The voters of Prop 8 ended up being on trial.
I mean, same-sex marriage laws have been the subject of previous trials: Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, elsewhere in California. In none of these previous same-sex marriage trials were the thoughts of those who were either for or against the initiatives in question put on trial, the thoughts, the imagined thoughts, the perceived thoughts. In other words, those of you who voted for Prop 8 in California are guilty of hate crimes. You were thinking discrimination. That's what this judge has said! Truly unprecedented. Never before have people been put on trial for their thoughts in same-sex marriage cases, but it's now happened.”
Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM, applauded Rush Limbaugh’s comments:
“At a time when many Republicans shy away from so-called social issues, Rush Limbaugh, who is not himself noted as a social conservative, had the courage to call Judge Walker's opinion what it really is: a slur against the American people. And he's right, too: Democrats will pay a price for Judge Walker's sins this November.”
The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 6, 2010
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE:
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS RIGHT!
DEMS WILL PAY FOR JUDGE WALKER'S ARROGANCE AND INSULTS TO AMERICAN PEOPLE
(Washington, DC) – Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement after Rush Limbaugh’s commentary regarding the Proposition 8 ruling:
Many Republicans shy away from gay marriage, but not Rush Limbaugh. After Judge Walker's ruling, Rush said on the air that his emails were boiling over from voters angry at the way their voices and values are being ignored:
Rush Limbaugh: “The American people are boiling. The American people are furious. My e-mails are unbelievable. This federal judge yesterday, this decision, Prop 8, California, has just put people over the edge, and all of these decisions are coming one after another from all corners of the federal government. It's as if we have absolutely no say in what is going on all around us. Decisions are being made for us, in lieu of us and imposed on us."
Rush went on to say that the real civil right threatened by the Prop 8 litigation were Californians' right to vote:
Rush Limbaugh: “We hear a lot of talk from the Obama administration about "civil rights." Everything is turned into a civil rights issue -- equal rights, equal protection rights, whatever. Endless things are done against us in the name of civil rights. But what is a more fundamental right -- a fundamental civil right in our system of government in a supposed republic -- than the right to have our voice heard, to have our vote respected? You want to talk about civil rights? It doesn't matter what the people of California vote. If the left doesn't like it, they will use the bastardization of power in this country to reverse it. What about our vote being respected? Without that right, we're no longer a republic. The left only loves elections when they win them. . . .
Because your Democrat Party has been hijacked firmly now by the extreme left worldwide. If elections don't matter, we're no longer a republic. If one judge, an activist judge using his personal policy preferences, can overturn an election involving seven million votes, then elections don't matter.”
Rush said Judge Walker had put the people on trial and found them guilty:
“According to Judge Walker's reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker's Constitution. . . .
Judge Vaughn Walker, California, did not just slap down the will of seven million voters. Those seven million voters were put on trial, a kangaroo court where everything was stacked against them. He wanted to make it a show trial. He wanted cameras. US Supreme Court said no way. Seven million California voters, your vote just wasn't overturned, you were on trial and now marriage has been codified as homophobia. According to this judge, the only reason marriage is between a man and a woman is because heterosexuals have been discriminating against gays because they're homophobic. So marriage, if this is upheld, marriage is simply codified homophobia. And the purpose of this, of course, is to just rip to shreds the traditions and institutions that have defined the United States of America. This "trial," Judge Walker, Judge Vaughn Walker, this "trial" -- and I put that in quotes -- was truly bizarre. But most importantly the sponsors of the initiative ended up being on trial. The voters of Prop 8 ended up being on trial.
I mean, same-sex marriage laws have been the subject of previous trials: Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, elsewhere in California. In none of these previous same-sex marriage trials were the thoughts of those who were either for or against the initiatives in question put on trial, the thoughts, the imagined thoughts, the perceived thoughts. In other words, those of you who voted for Prop 8 in California are guilty of hate crimes. You were thinking discrimination. That's what this judge has said! Truly unprecedented. Never before have people been put on trial for their thoughts in same-sex marriage cases, but it's now happened.”
Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM, applauded Rush Limbaugh’s comments:
“At a time when many Republicans shy away from so-called social issues, Rush Limbaugh, who is not himself noted as a social conservative, had the courage to call Judge Walker's opinion what it really is: a slur against the American people. And he's right, too: Democrats will pay a price for Judge Walker's sins this November.”
The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RELEASES STATEMENT BY JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE, PRESIDENT OF THE RUTH INSTITUTE:
“By the time Judge Walker and his ilk are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but a government registry of friendships.”
-Jennifer Roback Morse, President, The Ruth Institute-
(Washington, D.C.) - Jennifer Roback Morse, Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, lamented the overturn of Proposition 8 by openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker, releasing the following statement in support of the National Organization for Marriage:
“Judge Walker’s reasoning today in overturning Prop 8 illustrates that he does not understand the essential public purpose of marriage, which is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. He replaces this public purpose with private purposes of adults’ feelings and desires. By the time Judge Walker and his ilk are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but a government registry of friendships. The essential problem of attaching children to the mothers and fathers will be pushed aside, and will have to be solved some other way,” said Dr. Morse.
“Surely the voters have the right to be consulted before making such a major change in public policy. Judge Walker has no right to disparage the voters of California the way he does in his opinion. His opinion amounts to this sloppy syllogism: ‘First, I don’t understand that there are any arguments in favor of natural marriage. Therefore, there are no arguments in favor of natural marriage. Conclusion: unlawful animus against gays and lesbians is the only possible reason 7 million voters supported natural marriage.’ The fact that he doesn’t understand the arguments doesn’t mean there aren’t any. And it is truly unprecedented for a judge to decide that some ideas cannot even be contested in public debate,” added Morse.
The Ruth Institute has been active in the efforts to educate the public about the essential public purpose of marriage, the social benefits of natural marriage, and the harms to society from redefining marriage. Dr Morse, a former economics professor at Yale and George Mason Universities, produced a four hour lecture series, called “Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone.” To quote just a few of the many arguments she made in that series: Redefining marriage as the union of any two persons will undermine the biological basis for parenthood, which amounts to a redefinition of parenthood. Same sex Marriage will marginalize men from the family. Redefining marriage will increase the power of the state over civil society, including religious bodies. The Ruth Institute will continue to educate the public about the significant role of natural marriage in society, and the harms from redefining marriage.
“This is a travesty of justice. The majority of Californians — and two-thirds of black voters in California -- have just had their core civil right to vote for marriage stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people. The implicit comparison Judge Walker made between racism and marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all of us who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. To make a marriage requires a husband and a wife, because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father. Judge Walker’s slur will not stand the test of time and history, we demand that Congress and the Supreme Court act to protect all Americans’ right to vote for marriage.”
To speak with Bishop Harry Jackson, please contact Shirley & Banister Public Affairs at 1-800-536-5920; or to schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RELEASES STATEMENT BY BISHOP GEORGE MCKINNEY IN RESPONSE TO JUDGE WALKER’S PROP 8 RULING
(Washington, D.C.) – Bishop George McKinney issued the following personal statement in response to Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling, and in support of the National Organization for Marriage. Bishop McKinney is a board member of the Church of God in Christ, the pastor of St. Stephen's Cathedral in San Diego, and a leading voice among Californian black church leaders for Prop 8:
"Seven million Californians went to the polls on November 2008 to vote to protect marriage. This federal judge in San Francisco has taken away our right to vote for marriage as one man and one woman, using specious and outrageous comparisons between same-sex unions and interracial marriage. Support for marriage is not at all like support for racism. I pray that the higher courts and/or the Congress will overcome this unjust action on the part of Judge Walker, and that in the end truth and justice for marriage will prevail."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2010
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage Decries
Federal Court Decision Invalidating Proposition 8; Calls on the Supreme Court
and Congress to Protect Americans' Right to Vote for Marriage
"With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians
who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only
Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”
– Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today decried the decision of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Vaughn Walker to invalidate California’s Proposition 8, an amendment which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman:
“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”
"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.
“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage,” stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.
“Gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and Equality California will, no doubt, be congratulating themselves over this “victory” today in San Francisco. However, even they know that Judge Walker’s decision is only temporary. For the past 20 years, gay marriage groups have fought to avoid cases filed in federal court for one good reason – they will eventually lose. But these groups do not have control of the Schwarzenegger v. Perry case, which is being litigated by two egomaniacal lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies). So while they congratulate themselves over their victory before their home-town judge today, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed—and if the Supreme Court fails, Congress has the final say. The rights of millions of voters in states from Wisconsin to Florida, from Maine to California, are at stake in this ruling; NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman,” noted Gallagher.
The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 3, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE CONDEMNS NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR ‘MURDER SLUR’:
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECOMNG A SUBSIDIARY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE GROUPS
“The New Hampshire Democratic Party has slurred NOM’s good name and the good people of New Hampshire who rightly believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”
-Brian Brown, President of NOM-
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP) for outrageous rhetoric claiming that NOM favors the murder of gay Americans. In denouncing the ‘murder slur’ against supporters of traditional marriage, NOM noted that the New Hampshire Democratic Party revealed itself to be a tool of gay marriage groups.
“The New Hampshire Democratic Party has slurred NOM’s good name and the good people of New Hampshire who rightly believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “They’ve escalated their inflammatory rhetoric beyond their customary insulting charge of bigotry and discrimination, and now are actually saying that NOM and supporters of traditional marriage want to murder gays. It’s totally outrageous and should be condemned, as should all violence and threats of violence.”
On July 29th, the New Hampshire Democratic Party issued a press release quoting their Press Secretary, Harrell Kirstein, as saying, “There can be no excuse for supporting people who call for murder based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.” The press release criticized likely GOP gubernatorial nominee John Stephen for not publicly criticizing NOM, and also falsely claimed that NOM had failed to address “violent signs” at a rally.
“First of all, the lone sign that the NHDP mentions was not a NOM sign, but something briefly displayed by a single individual at a rally,” Brown said. “Secondly, NOM immediately told the individual to take the sign down because it was disgusting and not reflective of NOM’s message or mission: we love marriage and call on all our supporters to respond to incivility and threats with love and respect. NOM immediately issued both nationwide emails and a nationwide press release condemning the sign, as well as threats mounted by gay marriage radicals against NOM. What’s particularly interesting about the press release with its murder slur is that in their zeal to score political points, the Democratic Party has shown itself to be nothing more than a tool of national gay marriage groups.”
The NHDP press release of July 29th followed on the heels of a press release three days earlier by the radical gay marriage group Freedom to Marry, which falsely accused NOM of “incitement to violence.” The NHDP supports New Hampshire’s gay marriage law, signed into law by Democratic Governor John Lynch, and strongly backed by Ray Buckley, the gay Chairman of the state Democratic Party.
“It would appear that the New Hampshire Democratic Party has become a tool of national gay marriage groups,” Brown said. “Party officials apparently read press releases from their mentors in groups like Freedom to Marry and the Human Rights Campaign, and then a few days later regurgitate the talking points in Democratic Party releases in New Hampshire. Under Chairman Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic Party is becoming nothing but a subsidiary of the big national gay marriage groups across the country.”
The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com (x130), or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
NOM Condemns Gay Marriage Groups for Cynically Spreading
False Information About NOM's Views on
Violence Toward LGBT Americans
(Washington, DC) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned several gay marriage groups for intentionally attempting to mislead LGBT Americans and the media about NOM’s views on violence. The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, NOM’s president:
“It is becoming clear that the national gay marriage network is attempting to coordinate a message they know to be false: that NOM tolerates or even encourages violence toward gay or lesbian Americans. These groups – including Freedom to Marry, Equality California and prominent gay bloggers – are attempting to use this false claim as a way to divert attention from organized harassment of supporters of marriage, and for raising money and building their lists. It’s unconscionable that they would deliberately misrepresent our views and scare their own followers just to raise money for themselves.
“The groups are showing a photo of a disturbing sign raised at a NOM rally by a single individual. This sign suggesting violence was immediately rebuked by NOM and we demanded that the individual take it down. NOM issued a nationwide email blast the following day saying, ‘We told the individual to take down his sign because it is wrong and not reflective of NOM’s aims, methods and message: we come together in love to support marriage as one man and one woman.’
“Gay marriage groups know that NOM does not advocate or condone violence and that we have already condemned the brief display of this sign. Despite this, they are sending emails to their supporters asking for money. Equality California went as far as titling their fundraising email, ‘NOM’s Solution to Gay Marriage: Kill Gay Couples.’ We hope that gay and lesbian Americans will see the lengths to which groups like Freedom to Marry and Equality California go to manipulate them so that they will give money. It’s truly shameful.
“Over the course of the ‘Summer for Marriage’ tour, NOM’s supporters have consistently been bullied and harassed by organized gay marriage groups. There is extensive video documentation showing nursing mothers being harassed, children being taunted, priests being taunted, demonstrators loudly booing a prominent Bishop as he led the assembly in the Lord’s prayer, and even a threat to kidnap a child.
“NOM’s position on violence and intimidation is very clear: we believe that every person has the right to express their views on marriage and that each side should treat supporters of the other with respect and civility. We condemn the intimidation and harassment against our supporters that is being organized by gay marriage groups just as we condemn the sign that was displayed by a single individual at one of our rallies.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of NOM, or Maggie Gallagher, chairman of NOM,
contact Elizabeth Ray (x. 130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JULY 28, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO GAY RIGHTS LEADERS:
REPUDIATE THE POLITICS OF HATRED, DISRESPECT FOR THE MARRIAGE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY
(WASHINGTON) –Today, Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage(NOM) released the following statement in response to the escalating attacks on NOM’s “Summer for Marriage” 23 city bus tour by major and mainstream gay rights leaders:
“In the last two weeks, we’ve seen mothers harassed, children threatened, and outrageous efforts to disrupt and drown out our rallies from gay marriage activists. Rather than repudiating these tactics, major gay rights leaders are now blaming NOM for the behavior of their own supporters. This is irresponsible and wrong, and we call on them to repudiate these tactics, which are being driven by their outrageous persistent efforts to paint Americans who believe marriage is one man and one woman as haters or bigots. What they really hate is that we are showing middle America the real face of the gay marriage movement, on videotape, for all the world to see,” said Brown.
Unlike the Human Rights Campaign or Freedom to Marry, NOM leaders do not need to wait to be asked to repudiate extremism, we have consistently called on our supporters at each rally to reject hatred and incivility, and to demonstrate love and respect for Americans who disagree with our views on marriage, including members of the LGBT community. As Bishop Morlino said at the Madison rally, “There is no place for gay-bashers” in our movement.
The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JULY 26, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE: NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT DECLINES GAY MARRIAGE LAWSUIT
"Gay marriage advocates were trying to do an end-run around the normal legal process, and the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to comply."
(WASHINGTON) – Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement after the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry:
"Gay marriage advocates were trying to do an end-run around the normal legal process, and the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to comply," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "The sense of entitlement among gay marriage advocates is growing so rapidly, it was always absurd to think that the judges would skip the normal steps. Under Governor Christie the state will actually try to defend the marriage laws and protect the people's right to vote for marriage," added Brown.
The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 23, 2010
CONTACT:
Mary Beth Hutchins at 615-337-3710
National Organization for Marriage Calls on Leaders of Marriage Equality Rhode Island and Queer Action to Repudiate Bullying Tactics
“Gay marriage advocates . . . approached and threatened children. This has no place in a civilized society.”
Brian Brown, President of NOM
WASHINGTON, DC - After pro-gay marriage advocates stormed the podium at their recent Providence, Rhode Island rally, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is calling on leaders of the gay marriage movement in Rhode Island to repudiate tactics of harassment at public rallies.
“We are calling on the leaders of Marriage Equality Rhode Island and Queer Action to repudiate the words and actions of followers who stormed the podium, who attempted to prevent NOM speakers from being heard, and most importantly those gay marriage advocates who approached and threatened children. This has no place in a civilized society. We understand that this is a difficult issue and that followers in a crowd can do things that leaders do not approve. We are asking Rhode Island gay marriage leaders to draw a line in the sand and say ‘this was wrong, we’re sorry, it won’t happen again.’
NOM is particularly concerned about incivility and threats directed at children and parents of children who attended.
“You’d better watch that kid or we’re going to kidnap him,” one man said. The incident was captured by NOM's videographer and is posted here.
A woman identified by NBC news as a leader of Queer Action, Susan Heroux, later justified the tactics of the protestors. Heroux told a reporter from The Boston Edge that gay marriage counter protestors at NOM’s Providence rally did nothing wrong.
"People expressed themselves in a respectful manner," Heroux told The Boston Edge.
“When I first met Susan Heroux, she introduced herself to me as the Board Chair of Marriage Equality Rhode Island,” added Maggie Gallagher, Chariman of NOM, “And she is still featured prominently on their website under their ‘friends and neighbors’ gallery. We pledge to continue NOM’s own commitment to respect the rights of gay marriage supporters to speak, organize and rally for their views. We are calling on all people of good will but especially leaders for gay marriage in Rhode Island to make it publicly clear to their followers that harassment and threats, especially to children and mothers of young children, are unacceptable behavior.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JULY 15, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE Vows US Supreme Court Appeal in DC Marriage Referendum Case:
"We look forward to bringing our fight for the right to vote on marriage to the nation’s highest court."- Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage
(WASHINGTON) – Today, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied voters the right to vote on the marriage issue, instead choosing to side with the DC City Council and reject an appeal made to the council’s decision to allow same-sex marriage in DC.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) responded to the DC Court of Appeals decision:
“With the closely divided 5-4 DC Court of Appeal ruling today prohibiting a voter referendum on the District of Columbia’s gay marriage law, the way is cleared for us to finally get the issue before the United States Supreme Court, where we are confident of victory. The central issue in this case is whether the people of the District of Columbia will be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote on this important issue, just as voters in 31 states have been able to do. The razor-thin majority on the DC Appeals court got it wrong when they said they owed substantial deference to the DC Council. In fact, it is the right of the people that is owed substantial deference by courts and the Council. We believe the US Supreme Court will agree with us. In considering getting involved in this case last March, Chief Justice John Roberts said our argument in the case ‘has some force.’ The Court decided to give the DC Court of Appeal the opportunity to consider the case. With today’s decision, we look forward to bringing our fight for the right to vote on marriage to the nation’s highest court.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 28, 2010
CONTACT:
ELIZABETH RAY OR MARY BETH HUTCHINS, 703-683-5004
National Organization For Marriage Announces
Summer For Marriage Tour 2010: “One Man One Woman”
Bus Tour Will Visit 20 Cities Around The Country Galvanizing Supporters
Against Activist Judges and Legislatures
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announces its “Summer for Marriage Tour 2010” which will crisscross the east coast, mid-west and southern states holding a series of 20 rallies encouraging supporters to stand up for marriage. Starting July 14th, the month-long tour will stop in key battleground areas of the marriage debate, educating local communities on why marriage between one man and one woman should be defended and preserved in our nation.
“We’re excited to get on the road and meet people face-to-face, sharing with them the importance of marriage and how critical the future of marriage is to our country,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Marriage will be a key national issue once the California Prop 8 battle gets to the Supreme Court. We need Americans to rally behind marriage as the union of one man and one woman and tell the Courts and state legislatures that marriage matters.”
For over a decade, the institution of marriage, the very bedrock on which civilized society rests, has been under attack by radical activists who want to redefine its meaning. Now, for the first time since its passage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) is being directly threatened. And more disturbing is a federal lawsuit in California challenging the validity of Proposition 8 - a measure passed by 52 percent of voters defining marriage between one man and one woman- on core Constitutional grounds. All observers believe this case is headed for the Supreme Court, where 5 justices could create a “constitutional right for homosexual marriage,” defining what marriage will mean for every American across the nation.
The first stop on the tour will begin in Augusta, Maine on July 14th and will wrap up in Washington, DC on August 15th. A full schedule and more details can be found at www.marriagetour2010.com.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 8, 2010
CONTACT:
Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004, x.105
National Organization for Marriage Decries
Boston Federal Judge's Decision Striking Down the Defense of Marriage Act
"A Boston judge has no moral right to decide the marriage question for the people of the U.S."
– Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statements today in response to a federal judge in Boston ruling the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.
"Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama's justice department deliberately sabotaged this case," charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department's brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. "With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States," Brown continued.
"Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?" asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. "Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004, x.105.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 16, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE ATTENDS CLOSING ARGUMENT IN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE CASE
(Washington, D.C.) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that NOM’s Chairman, Maggie Gallagher, will be attending the closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and will provide supporters with live commentary via Twitter (@NOMtweets). Following arguments, NOM’s president, Brian Brown, will provide an online video conference with supporters.
“The Perry case is very likely to decide the future of marriage in America,” said Gallagher. “We want supporters of marriage all across the country to have a clear understanding of the threat this federal judge poses to the very survival of marriage in America.”
The Perry case challenges under federal constitutional grounds the validity of California’s Proposition 8, which limits marriage to one man and one woman. NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8 to the ballot and is helping raise funds to defend its constitutionality. If California’s traditional definition of marriage is stricken by the federal court, the survival of marriage in 45 other states will also be in jeopardy. The case is being heard in the San Francisco federal courtroom of Judge Vaughn Walker. According to news reports in the San Francisco Chronicle and elsewhere, Walker is himself gay.
“It’s important for supporters of marriage all across the country to be clued in to the developments in this crucial case in San Francisco,” said Brown. “Given the circumstances, we don’t have a lot of faith that this judge will uphold marriage, but this is a case that will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. By being present for closing arguments and providing commentary immediately afterwards, we can begin to educate and mobilize the millions of Americans who support marriage to engage in the fight to come.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 16, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE: “NEW HAMPSHIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE DISMISSES ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE US”
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was pleased to learn that the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office dismissed a complaint filed earlier this year against them by New Hampshire Democratic National Committeewoman Kathleen Sullivan:
“In our country, we have a right to free speech and to express our political opinions. While Ms. Sullivan would wish that only one side be heard – hers, the Attorney General’s Office confirmed and agreed with us that we all have a voice in engaging and educating constituents about issues that may affect them and their families,” stated Brian Brown, NOM’s President. “Ms. Sullivan failed in her attempts to silence us, and we applaud the Attorney General’s Office for upholding the laws of free speech in New Hampshire and our great nation,” added Brown.
“Ms. Sullivan’s frivolous complaint was yet another example of how same-sex marriage supporters have tried time and again to silence NOM. The Attorney General’s decision today proved that we cannot be silenced, and our advocacy on behalf of marriage between one man and one woman will only become louder and stronger,” said Brown.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 11, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE POLL FINDS PRO-GAY MARRIAGE STANCE HURT TOM CAMPBELL’S CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON, DC - A poll commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage of 300 GOP primary voters confirmed that Tom Campbell’s pro-gay marriage stance hurt his campaign to become the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate in California.
Key findings:
3 in 10 of voters who opposed Tom Campbell said his opposition to Prop 8 was a factor in their decision to not support him.
Among the 76% of primary voters who supported Prop 8, the results were, in terms of which candidate they would support:
Fiorina 60%, Campbell 18%, DeVore 21%.
Among opponents of Prop 8 (19%), the results were, in terms of which candidate they would support:
Fiorina 41%, Campbell 36%, DeVore14%.
Overall, Tom Campbell voters were not well-informed about his stance on gay marriage.
Just 14 percent of actual voters in the GOP primary correctly identified Campbell as pro-gay marriage. 16 percent of GOP primary voters who supported Campbell incorrectly believed he opposed gay marriage.
However, The National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) efforts at informing voters had demonstrable results. Prior to NOM’s TV and robocall campaign, just 2 percent of voters knew that Tom Campbell supported gay marriage. NOM’s relatively modest expenditures in a large state like California thus increased by sevenfold the number of voters who were aware that Campbell supported gay marriage.
“California voters who learned about Tom Campbell’s opposition to Prop 8 were appalled. NOM was first out of the box in identifying Tom Campbell as a RINO Republican and we are confident that this is not the last time NOM can make a difference. It’s a really bad idea to vote for gay marriage if you are a Republican,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM.
The poll, conducted by QEV Analytics, contacted 300 actual voters (who said they had voted in the Republican primary) on the evening of June 8 and June 9, has a margin of error of +/- 5.7%
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JUNE 9, 2010
CONTACT: Mary Beth Hutchins or Elizabeth Ray at 703-683-5004
NOM California PAC Wins 3 California Races Proving Traditional Marriage is a Winning Issue for Republicans
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for Marriage - California PAC won three pivotal election races it participated in during the 2010 California primary election season, establishing traditional marriage as a key issue in the 2010 elections in California.
“There should be no question that candidates who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman will be elected to office in California,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage - California PAC. “The NOM California PAC made support for marriage an issue in five critical races in California, and we won three of those contests. Marriage is a winning issue in this state.”
NOM-CA PAC ran independent expenditure campaigns to elect State Senate candidate Joel Anderson (SD36), and State Assembly candidates Andy Pugno (AD 5), Sunder Ramani (AD 43), and Chris Lancaster (AD 59). Given the close results in AD 59, it is likely that NOM CA PAC was primarily responsible for the nomination of Lancaster in the 59th Assembly District. Sunder Ramani only lost by a margin of around 3000 votes.
“We were disappointed that John Eastman did not win the Republican nomination for Attorney General despite an extremely strong campaign, but his election was always a long-shot given his late entry into the race against the better-known LA District Attorney Steve Cooley,” Brown said. “The tightly contested 43rd district race plus our victories in the three other state legislative primary campaigns is extremely gratifying. Given the closeness of the race in the 59th Assembly District, there’s little doubt that Lancaster’s support for traditional marriage was the margin of victory.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage – California PAC, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105), or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) at 703-683-5004.
Campbell Support for Gay Marriage Sinks His Candidacy
Washington, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today expressed satisfaction that California US Senate candidate Tom Campbell was soundly defeated in his bid to capture the Republican US Senate nomination. NOM waged a fierce and ultimately successful campaign against Campbell’s bid for the GOP nomination.
“It’s clear that Tom Campbell’s support for gay marriage played a major factor in his shellacking in the Republican primary for US Senate,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “NOM was the first to attack Campbell with our statewide ‘Two Peas, Same Liberal Pod' television ad that compared his position on gay marriage and other issues to identical positions held by Barbara Boxer. This helped define Campbell as a liberal for California Republicans. Then, our telephone program where we called 600,000 Republican households reminding voters that Campbell favored gay marriage and opposed Proposition 8 sent his campaign into a tailspin from which he never recovered.”
According to polling on Real Clear Politics, Campbell led the US Senate race by as much as 15 points over Carly Fiorina on May 19th. NOM launched its robo calls over the three day period of May 19-21. From that point forward, Campbell faded and Fiorina surged, winning the race in a landslide.
“California Republicans can be proud that they have a pro-marriage, pro-family, fiscally conservative nominee in Carly Fiorina. We are looking forward to a spirited and ultimately successful campaign to oust Barbara Boxer from the US Senate,” Brown said. “But NOM delivered an important message tonight in defeating Tom Campbell. For years gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign have been telling Republicans that there is no price to be paid for supporting gay marriage. Just as we proved in ending Dede Scozzafava‘s career in New York, we have shown tonight that Republican support of gay marriage is a career ending position. We will continue to play a leading role in letting voters know where candidates stand on marriage. We are looking forward to doing more of the same in places like Iowa and New Hampshire this fall.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, , president of NOM, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the board, contact Elizabeth Ray (x. 130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 2, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE ELECTS MAGGIE GALLAGHER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
Brian Brown, president of NOM, to serve on Board of Directors as well
(Washington, DC) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that Maggie Gallagher, who stepped down as President of NOM earlier this month, has been elected Chairman of NOM's Board of Directors. The Board also elected Brian Brown, who became president of NOM earlier this month, to serve on the Board.
NOM’s founding Chairman of the Board, Princeton Professor Robert George, will become Chairman Emeritus and continue to serve on NOM’s Executive Committee.
Professor George commented, “The changes in NOM’s leadership structure reflect the realities that have been in place for a long time. Maggie is a driving force and a gifted strategic thinker. Brian is exceptionally adept at planning and implementation. All of us on the board support them and pledge to continue working alongside them to preserve marriage and rebuild the marriage culture. Our successes so far are only the first steps on a long and arduous journey to a time when as many children as possible enjoy the blessings of a mom and dad bound in love to each other and devotion to them via the great institution that unites man and woman as husband and wife--marriage. With people like Maggie and Brian leading the effort, I have no doubt that we will preserve and strengthen marriage in our own country and in those nations that look to pro-marriage forces in America for leadership."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 2, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
National organization for marriage Honors COGIC Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake, Sr and Mother Willie Mae Rivers
"I am here to present an award, but the honor is really ours to acknowledge the historic contributions of COGIC, and the black Church in protecting marriage," said Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM
WASHINGTON, DC -- Tuesday Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake, Sr. and senior women's leader Mother Willie Mae Rivers of the Church of God in Christ accepted the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) 2010 Marriage Protector Award.
Bishop Blake is the worldwide leader of the Church Of God In Christ (COGIC), and Mother Rivers is the senior women's leader. COGIC is one of the largest African-American denominations in the United States, and has a worldwide membership of 5 million people in 60 countries.
The award was given to acknowledge "the steadfast witness of the Church of God in Christ in defending marriage as the union of husband and wife.”
NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher presented the award at the 60th Annual Womens International Convention/Crusade of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) at the Los Angeles Convention Center. “We are blessed by your courage, your clarity, and your conviction,” Gallagher conveyed to COGIC.
"I am here to present an award, but the honor is really ours--to acknowledge with gratitude the contributions of COGIC in standing for the truth that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife. At a time when so many powerful voices argue that this idea is rooted only in hatred and bigotry, we are blessed by your witness to the truth, which is really God's truth, about marriage," Maggie Gallagher told the assembled 20,000 African-American women and COGIC bishops, and other church leaders.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 28, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
Federal Court Grants National Organization for Marriage's Request for Stay Protecting Donors
“We are confident that we will ultimately vindicate Americans' core civil rights.” Brian Brown, president of NOM
WASHINGTON, DC - Today the First Circuit Court of Appeals granted National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) request for protection of donors while NOM's lawsuit establishing the First Amendment rights proceeds in federal court.
The Maine Ethics Commission had asked for the disclosure of donors to NOM for all of 2009, operating under the false theory that NOM has acted as a ballot initiative committee formed for the purpose of working exclusively in Maine.
"Americans who want to organize, to vote, and to donate to protect marriage are being singled out for harassment. No other 501(c)4 is obligated to disclose the names of donors and the demand by government officials in Maine that we expose our donors was an outrageous violation of all Americans constitutional rights," said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. "We are grateful to the First Circuit for issuing this stay which recognizes that serious issues are at stake. We are confident that as these cases proceed to the federal courts we will ultimately vindicate Americans' core civil rights."
The court order issued by the First Circuit in National Organization for Marriage v. McKee and Dunlap reads in its entirely:
ORDER OF COURT
Entered: May 28, 2010
We hereby STAY enforcement of any district court orders compelling production of the
documents and materials Appellant-Petitioners have claimed are subject to First Amendment
privilege until entry of further order or judgment by this court.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, co-founder, or Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 24, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
Djou Election Big Victory for Marriage
The National Organization for Marriage Applauds Hawaii’s New Congressman For Standing Up For Marriage
WASHINGTON, DC - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) President Brian Brown reacts to the victory of Charles Djou in Hawaii's special election with the following statement:
“Charles Djou's victory shows that when it comes to marriage there are no red or blue states, only Americans who believe in the common sense idea that marriage is the union of husband and wife. The National Organization for Marriage reached out to 100,000 likely primary voters in the last days of the campaign to inform Hawaii voters that Charles Djou would protect the people's right to vote for marriage. Djou is the first GOP Congressman to be elected from the district in 20 years, and he defeated two openly pro-gay marriage candidates. Djou is Hawaii's Scott Brown. He won because he refused to concede that a seat in Congress belongs to any politician or political party. It's the people's seat and the people of Hawaii have once again spoken for marriage."
Hawaii was the first state to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, doing so in 1998.
You can follow more election marriage news at www.nomblog.com.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, co-founder, or Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 18, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage Demands that Minnesotans Be Allowed to Vote on Marriage:
Let The People Vote: Marriage Issue Takes Center Stage in New Advertising Campaign
(Washington, D.C.) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today began a $200,000 statewide television campaign to inform Minnesotans of the attempt by special interest groups to redefine marriage in Minnesota, and called on elected officials to let the people vote on this critical issue.
“NOM sees Minnesota as the next key battleground state in the fight to preserve marriage in America,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Many Minnesotans are unaware that special interest groups are working to convince activist judges and DFL lawmakers to redefine marriage in the state. A lawsuit was recently filed asking the courts to redefine marriage, and six bills were introduced in the legislature this year to do the same thing. One prominent state Senator, John Marty, has said it is his goal to redefine marriage as soon as possible, as early as next year when the legislature reconvenes.”
NOM is the nation’s leading advocacy organization protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The group has been active in marriage debates in numerous states, including helping secure the passage of Proposition 8 in California in 2008 and Question 1 in Maine last year. NOM also helped defeat homosexual marriage proposals in New Jersey and New York last year, and is battling for the right of District of Columbia voters to overturn gay marriage in the nation’s capitol.
“Many Minnesotans don’t realize the extent to which homosexual marriage activists are working to redefine marriage between a man and a woman out of existence,” said Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council. “We welcome NOM to Minnesota and appreciate their efforts to inform Minnesotans on the serious threat to marriage in our state. Marriage bonds mothers and fathers to one another and children to their parents. The well-being of society is at stake when the institution of marriage is attacked.”
“Thirty one states have already voted to define marriage as being a man and a woman. It’s time that Minnesotans have that same right,” Brown said.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or Tom Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 12, 2010
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NOM Congratulates WV Democrats:
"Thank-You for Nominating a Pro-Marriage Democrat!"
(WASHINGTON, DC) - The National Organization for Marriage today congratulated West Virginia Democrats for ousting a pro-gay marriage incumbent and replacing him with a man who strongly supports protecting marriage as the union of husband and wife.
"We know that marriage is an issue that unites Americans--Democrats and Republicans, blacks, whites and Hispanics. We congratulate the people of West Virginia for demonstrating that marriage is not and should not be a partisan issue. We hope this is a harbinger of things to come,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.
More information:
NOM Election Watch 2010: HUGE victory for marriage in West Virginia Dem Primary
Exciting news from West Virginia: a sitting pro-gay marriage Democratic Congressman was just ousted in a Democratic primary—by a pro-marriage candidate!
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent in the calvary at the last minute to try to save l Rep. Alan Mollohan, but it was not enough. Mollohan, who twice voted against a federal marriage amendment and who earned a 63 percent approval rating from the Human Rights campaign, went down in flames in Tuesday's primaries to a strong suppporter of traditional marriage Mike Oliverio. Oliverio appears to have beaten Mollohan by more than ten points.
In 2009, Oliverio spoke at the West Virginia Family Policy Council’s Pastor’s briefing:
“The Family Policy Council thanks Del. Boggs and Sen. Oliverio for their time and willingness to speak at the Pastor’s Briefing. But most importantly we thank them for standing with the overwhelming majority of West Virginians that support the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman.”
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, chairman, or Brian Brown, president, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 28, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO ARCHBISHOP NIENSTEDT: THANK YOU! “Archbishop Nienstedt sends a strong signal that the marriage issue is important to children, and to the common good of all Minnesotans,” said NOM co-founder, Maggie Gallagher
(WASHINGTON, DC) - Archbishop Nienstedt published an op-ed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune this week calling for the state legislature to put a marriage amendment on the ballot in Minnesota. “The only way to secure the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman is to follow the lead of other states and put a simple definition of marriage in our state Constitution, beyond the reach of activist courts,” Nienstedt wrote.
“In years past, our elected officials told us that we did not need a marriage amendment, because there was no realistic threat from the courts. But the Iowa court decision, on the heels of rulings in Connecticut, California and Massachusetts, clearly demonstrates that an amendment is needed,” according to Abp. Nienstedt, “A question as important as the future of this great, social institution called marriage should not be decided by a few, narrow elites, but by the people of Minnesota themselves.”
The Archbishop’s op-ed came on the heels of a forum on marriage for Catholics featuring Archbishop Nienstedt, California Bishop Salvatore Cordileone and Maggie Gallagher, which was held on the campus of University of St. Thomas. Maggie Gallagher returns to Minnesota this Friday, April 30, for a speech on marriage on the campus of Bethel University at 10:20am CT.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today thanked Archbishop Nienstedt for his leadership in the public square.
“Archbishop Nienstedt is sending a strong signal to all people, Catholic and non-Catholic in Minnesota that the marriage issue is important to their children, and to the common good of all Minnesotans,” said Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of NOM. “We are grateful for his courage and his clarity and civility on this issue."
“Marriage is worth fighting for,” added NOM President Brian Brown, “and NOM’s mission is to help ordinary people in states fight marriage battles.”
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, co-founder, or Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
For more information contact:
Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com
Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: STOP TRYING TO SILENCE THE TRUTH - LYNCH LIED ON GAY MARRIAGE, TAXES AND THE BUDGET
(WASHINGTON, DC) - Brian Brown, executive director of The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement in response to a complaint filed by New Hampshire Democratic Party Committeewoman Kathy Sullivan regarding NOM’s “Lynch Lied” ad:
“Gov. Lynch and The New Hampshire Democratic party have responded to NOM’s ‘Lynch Lied’ ad campaign by attacking the messenger, because they do not want to deal with the message: Gov. Lynch broke his word to the people of New Hampshire on gay marriage, on taxes, and on the budget.
Rather than respond in a fair-minded way to the questions raised by this ad, Lynch and the Democratic party are engaging in a campaign to get these truthful ads pulled in a vain effort to make NOM’s truthful ads the issue, instead of Gov. Lynch’s broken promises.
In a similar fashion, Kathy Sullivan, a New Hampshire Democratic committee member, has filed a baseless complaint against NOM. By her own account, she has a history of filing similar unfounded claims against political groups with whom she disagrees with in New Hampshire.
The complaint raises two baseless claims; the first is that NOM failed to meet its legal obligations to the state of New Hampshire, by failing to register as a charity. Her second claim is that NOM’s ad constitutes express advocacy rather than issue advocacy.
The complaint is wrong on both counts. NOM has fulfilled all its legal obligations in New Hampshire. An organization engaged in issue advocacy is not required to register with the government before taking its message to the people of a New Hampshire. And NOM’s ad is clearly issue advocacy.
NOM takes it legal obligations seriously and we also take seriously our moral obligation to tell the truth to the people of New Hampshire; Does Gov. Lynch? Does the New Hampshire Democratic leadership care about the truth or only about winning elections?
This complaint is part of a coordinated effort to change the subject from what the people of the Granite State really care about: can they trust their elected leaders to tell the truth? Gov. Lynch can spin and run, but he cannot hide from the truth about his broken promises on marriage. We will not be silenced. This ad is only the beginning.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com.
###
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 15, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RESPONDS TO HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE RULES DEFINING SAME-SEX COUPLES AS “SPOUSES”: “DON’T MESS WITH MARRIAGE!”
(Washington, D.C.) – Today the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement in response to the House Ethics Committee drafting rules defining same-sex couples as “spouses” for the purposes of filling out their annual Congressional financial disclosure forms:
“We have one message for the House Ethics Committee: Don’t mess with marriage!” stated Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM. “The House Ethics Committee is in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act by attempting to sneak language into federal forms defining same-sex couples as ‘spouses,’” added Brown.
“Members of Congress have to obey laws, even if they don't agree with them. If these politicians want to overturn DOMA, let them vote and then we’ll live with the consequences. They have to stop these attempts at skirting the law and thinking that their moral views are above the law,” commented Maggie Gallagher, President of NOM.
By supporting NOM’s TwoMillionForMarriage petition, NOM is well on its way in building an army of two million Americans by the end of this year and sending a message to Washington – DON’T MESS WITH MARRIAGE! The threat against marriage is real. Send a message to Congress and help NOM protect our children, religious liberty and marriage by signing the petition.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, or Maggie Gallagher, President, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 15, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
LYNCH CAN’T HANDLE HEAT OF ACCOUNTABILITY,
SUFFERS FROM ‘SHORT TERM MEMORY LOSS’
ON OUT-OF-STATE MONEY ISSUE
Governor Lynch apparently forgets that his state Democratic Party Boss
directed vast sums from outsiders into New Hampshire
(WASHINGTON, DC) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today chastised Governor John Lynch for his misplaced criticism of NOM as an "out of state" group that has no business spending money in New Hampshire. NOM says that the governor has "a short term memory problem" concerning all the out of state money from gay marriage supporters that his Democratic Party boss, Ray Buckley, has directed into New Hampshire political campaigns.
"Governor Lynch apparently can't handle the heat of being called to account for his flip-flopping positions on major issues facing New Hampshire like business taxes, skyrocketing state spending, and gay marriage," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "Maybe his over-heated reaction to our ad has caused a short-term memory loss about the issue of out-of-state money flowing into New Hampshire. In point of fact, his Democratic Party Chairman, Ray Buckley has helped funnel vast amounts of money from gay marriage supporters across the country into New Hampshire races."
In 2007, Buckley – who himself is gay – credited the Human Rights Campaign with helping to flip control on the New Hampshire State Senate. "The Human Rights Campaign was there with that extra push," Buckley told the Boston Globe. In fact, the Globe reported that, "the group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874."
The Colorado-based "Gill Action Fund," which according to New York Magazine is, "arguably the most powerful gay-rights group in America," is another of Buckley’s allies. The magazine reported in 2009 that the fund, started by Colorado software mogul Tim Gill, was able to build "momentum behind same-sex marriage laws and other gay-rights legislation by injecting millions of dollars from a vast network of donors into select races" in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
In 2008, the Manchester, NH GOP committee produced a report documenting that state Democrats had received $1.745 million from out of state sources, an amount over 8 times higher than that received by Republicans. The report was produced in response to criticism from Democrats that the GOP was being helped by out of state money.
"The sound you hear is the crash of breaking glass in Governor Lynch’s glass house," Brown said. "His charge is made to deflect legitimate criticism over his repeated broken promises to New Hampshire and to turn attention away from the vast support his own Democratic Party boss has raised from gay activists across the country."
"Governor Lynch and those legislators who voted for the gay marriage bill can be certain that NOM will continue to hold them accountable for pushing the agenda of out-of-state gay marriage activists on the people of New Hampshire," Brown pledged. "The season of accountability is only now beginning."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage,
please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or
Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 13, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
NEW TELEVISION AD FROM THE
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE
CRITICIZES GOVERNOR JOHN LYNCH FOR LYING
National Group Airs “Lynch Lied” Advertisement Statewide
(WASHINGTON, DC) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that it has begun airing a 30-second issue advertisement called “Lynch Lied” on television and cable stations across New Hampshire. The ad criticizes Lynch for lying to voters about his true positions on several important issues, including his position on legalizing gay marriage, which Lynch did last year.
“New Hampshire residents were shocked last year when they learned that Governor John Lynch had been lying to them about his position on gay marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “Even though he promised voters when he ran for office that he did not support gay marriage, Lynch signed same-sex marriage legislation into law. However, this is not the only time he has lied to voters. Our new ad holds him to account for misrepresenting his positions on business taxes, government spending, balancing the budget and redefining marriage,” Brown added.
NOM’s ad points out that Lynch has lied about several important issues:
Lynch said in his 2008 race for governor that, “I am not looking at increasing the business taxes.” However, Lynch broke his promise and enacted a stiff tax increase on businesses, the so-called “LLC Tax.”
In his 2010 “State of the State” speech last January, Governor Lynch claimed that, “we cut spending in nearly every state agency.” Unfortunately, that was another lie. His budgets have increased spending by 27% in the past two years.
Governor Lynch claimed that he balanced the budget in his 2010 State of the State speech to citizens, “In 2009, the worst year of the recession, we balanced the budget. And we will do the same this year.” Yet, the very next day, his administration requested $80 million dollars from the state's rainy day fund in order to balance the 2009 budget. In addition, Lynch illegally raided a private malpractice fund, stealing $110 million from the Joint Underwriting Authority, to help “balance” the budget.
Governor John Lynch promised New Hampshire voters in a 2006 gubernatorial debate, “I do not support gay marriage.” That proved to be another lie when he signed the gay marriage bill into law last year. He also refused to support efforts to let New Hampshire voters vote on this critical issue as voters in 31 states, including in neighboring Maine, have had the opportunity to do.
“John Lynch used to enjoy bipartisan support because he was viewed as a straight-shooter,” Brown said. “His approval ratings are dropping like a rock because voters can see they were misled on all these issues. We expect this ad will help focus New Hampshire on the real record of Governor Lynch and hold him to account for his positions.”
NOM is spending over $200,000 to air its television ad statewide. In addition, people are urged to go to a new website, www.LynchLied.com, to read more background on Lynch’s positions and order a “Lynch Lied” bumper sticker.
NOM's letter to station managers documenting the claims made in the ad is available here.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, or Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, contact Elizabeth Ray (x. 130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
###
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 30, 2010
CONTACT: Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
***MEDIA ADVISORY***
National Organization for Marriage’s Robert George and Maggie Gallagher Address Southern Evangelical Seminary
WHAT: Founders of the National Organization for Marriage will be giving a lecture at Southern Evangelical Seminary’s Veritas Lecture Series titled “Marriage: Why It Can And Must Be Saved.”
WHO: Founders of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which was instrumental in securing Prop 8 on the ballot in California in 2008 and has since become a leading voice in the efforts to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife.
• Dr. Robert George, Chairman of the Board of NOM and Princeton University professor
• Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and president of NOM
MORE INFORMATION: The event is open to the public; Tickets are $14 and can be purchased here. For media, the event is free and open. More information can be found here.
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM contact Mary Beth Hutchins (ext. 105) at 703-683-5004 or via e-mail at mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MARCH 29, 2010
CONTACT:
Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RESPONDS TO NEW PPIC POLLS
Tom Campbell’s Support Drops Sharply Among GOP Voters
"The more Californians find out Tom Campbell's record on marriage and taxes, the more his support will fall." Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)
(WASHINGTON, DC) - A new Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll of likely GOP primary voters showed a sharp drop in U.S. Senate Candidate Tom Campbell’s support: For the first time since Campbell entered the race in January, Campbell has lost his lead in the race for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate from California. Dropping from an 11 point Campbell advantage over Carly Fiorina in January, the lead now belongs to Carly Fiorina who is ahead by one point in the latest poll. Chuck DeVore’s support remains unchanged at 8 percent.
On March 15, NOM released a television ad titled “Two Peas in a Pod” into cable television media markets that reach GOP likely primary voters. The ad highlighted Campbell's similarity to Barbara Boxer on income taxes, gas taxes and support for gay marriage and opposition to prop 8.
“NOM’s ad let Republican voters in on Tom’s secret: he supports gay marriage and opposed Prop 8,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “Before NOM launched this ad, only two percent of Campbell’s supporters knew he supported gay marriage. We’re confident that the more Californians find out about Tom Campbell’s record on marriage and taxes, the more his support will fall.”
NOM is continuing its targeted public education campaign in California.
“The last thing California needs is another RINO in Washington. If recent elections in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey are any indication, Americans are hungry for principled common sense conservative leadership,” said Brian Brown, “NOM is committed to making sure people know the truth about Tom Campbell’s record.’
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 24, 2010
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE URGES SENATE TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE OF DC TO VOTE ON MARRIAGE
(Washington, DC) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today urged the United States Senate to vote to suspend legislation passed by the District of Columbia Council that redefined marriage to provide for same-sex couples to legally marry in the District of Columbia. NOM says the legislation should be put in abeyance until D.C. voters are able to exercise their constitutional right to vote on the issue in an initiative:
“The D.C. Council has conspired to deny the people of the District their constitutional right to vote on whether marriage should be redefined in the District of Columbia,” said Brian Brown executive director of NOM. “The D.C. Home Rule Charter guarantees the right of initiative and referendum. Citizens have filed an initiative to preserve marriage between one man and one woman, but the Council has blocked them at every turn. Worse, they have ignored the wishes of the people and passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage. Congress should vote to suspend that law from being implemented until voters are given their right to decide the issue for themselves,” Brown added.
Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), will be introducing amendment #3568 to the health care reconciliation package. The amendment would prohibit the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in the District until voters are able to vote on an initiative. A lawsuit is currently pending in the D.C. Court of Appeals to force the D.C. government to permit the initiative to be presented to voters.
NOM has led successful campaigns to protect marriage in states across the country, including victories in California and Maine, and legislative battles to block gay marriage in New York and New Jersey, where gay marriage failed in the Senate.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 24, 2010
CONTACT
ELIZABETH RAY OR MARY BETH HUTCHINS AT (703) 683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RELEASES NEW POLL:
MESSAGE TO CALIFORNIA'S TOM CAMPBELL: "YOU'RE DEAD WRONG."
“NOM’s new poll shows that your supporters do not know that you, like Barbara Boxer, are for gay-marriage.
We will make sure they find out.”
-Brian Brown, Executive Director, NOM-
(WASHINGTON, DC) - The Tom Campbell U.S. Senate campaign reacted to The National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) launch this week of its “Two Peas in a Pod” ad campaign by claiming voters already know he is pro-gay marriage and opposed Prop 8. But a new poll of 500 likely GOP primary voters conducted for NOM March 12-15 by QEV Analytics shows Campbell’s claim is dead wrong: Just 2% of Tom Campbell’s current supporters correctly identify his pro-gay marriage position. The vast majority of GOP primary voters do not know that Tom Campbell, like Barbara Boxer, supports gay marriage and opposed Prop 8.
In fact, of Campbell supporters who say they know his position on marriage, they were seven times more likely to say Campbell opposes gay marriage than the actual truth that he supports it.
By a three to one margin, Campbell supporters and undecideds were more likely to say that knowing Tom Campbell opposed Prop 8 would make them less likely to vote for him, rather than more likely.
"The Two Peas in the Pod launch is just the beginning," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "Voters want politicians with the courage to stand for their values, not the values of San Francisco. We know that Californians, especially GOP Primary voters, are going to be asking who will be on their side for the tough fights ahead. As ordinary Californians were standing tall for marriage in the face of enormous pressures, harassment and name-calling during the Prop 8 battle, Tom Campbell was nowhere to be found. Or rather, he was to be found standing hand-in-hand with Barbara Boxer."
NOM's message to Campbell is that they will be continuing their efforts to educate voters.
"NOM’s new poll of likely GOP primary voters shows that your supporters do not know you are for gay marriage. We will make sure they find out Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer are two peas in a liberal pod," said Brian Brown.
Additional findings from the poll include:
70 percent of likely GOP primary voters support Prop 8, just 22 percent opposed it.
2 percent of likely GOP primary voters say that Tom Campbell favors same-sex marriage, 14 percent say he opposes same-sex marriage and 84 percent say they do not know.
39 percent of Campbell supporters and undecided voters said that knowing Campbell opposed Prop 8 would make it less likely they would vote for him, just 11 percent said it made it more likely they would vote for him.
Overall, 25 percent of likely GOP primary voters currently support Tom Campbell versus 21 percent for Carly Fiorina, and 7 percent for Chuck DeVore. 39 percent of voters remain undecided.
Tom Campbell’s response to NOM ads and the marriage issue according to the Associated Press:
“Campbell campaign spokesman James Fisfis said Campbell has made no secret that he opposed Proposition 8.
‘People should be allowed to marry whether they're gay or straight,’ he said.
He said single-issue voters opposed to gay marriages are likely to support one of Campbell's Republican opponents, former Hewlett Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina or state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. Both believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, their campaigns said Monday.” (http://cbs5.com/politics/tom.campbell.marriage.2.1563850.html)
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, of the National Organization for Marriage,
please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins,
mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 19, 2010
CONTACT:
ELIZABETH RAY OR MARY BETH HUTCHINS AT 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage
Pledges to Fight Against Gay Marriage Lawsuit in New Jersey
(Washington, DC) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today pledged to take on gay marriage activists in New Jersey who have filed a lawsuit seeking to impose same-sex marriage in the state. NOM said it will file briefs with the New Jersey Supreme Court opposing the lawsuit.
“The people of New Jersey do not support same-sex marriage,” said Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM. “They have made that crystal clear through their elected representatives who have voted resoundingly to preserve marriage between one man and one woman. Once again, gay marriage activists are going behind the people’s backs to seek to impose their agenda on the rest of society. NOM will vigorously fight this attempt,” Brian added.
Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal today announced they were filing suit with the New Jersey Supreme Court to impose same-sex marriage in New Jersey.
“NOM urges the Christie Administration to provide a vigorous defense of marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is what New Jerseyans, and Americans, believe in and support and what the people’s representatives in New Jersey have voted to preserve. It’s a shame that special interest groups like Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal do not trust the people and are trying to impose their will on society through a handful of unelected judges. We will fight them every step of the way,” Brown said.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x.130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 15, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
National Organization For Marriage Launches Hard-Hitting California TV Ad Campaign
Against Sen. Barbara Boxer & Tom Campbell: “Two Peas, Same Liberal Pod”
(WASHINGTON, DC) -- Today the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) launched a new TV ad campaign in California entitled, "Two peas, same liberal pod," highlighting Republican Senate candidate Tom Campbell's support for same-sex marriage, in addition to his support for income tax and gas tax increases -- the same positions shared by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
NOM Executive Director Brian Brown explained: "GOP voters believe in tax cuts, national defense, and the family. They oppose same-sex marriage by a 4-1 margin. They deserve to know that Tom Campbell is a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-tax Republican -- not much different from Barbara Boxer on many key issues."
The ad began airing today on TV stations across the state and shows video clips from Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer, ending with these words: "Two peas, same liberal pod. It’s time for conservative leadership." To view the ad, follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEpbNqqnIro&feature=player_embedded
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at
703-683-5004.
###
NOM Launches Hard-Hitting New California TV Ad Campaign
March 15, 2010 -- Today the National Organization for Marriage launched a new TV ad campaign throughout California entitled "Two peas, same liberal pod," highlighting Republican Senate candidate Tom Campbell's support for income tax and gas tax increases, as well as his support for same-sex marriage -- all positions shared with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.
NOM Executive Director Brian Brown explained: "GOP voters believe in tax cuts, the family, and national defense. They oppose same-sex marriage by a 4-1 margin. They deserve to know that Tom Campbell is a pro-tax, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Republican -- not much different from Barbara Boxer on many key issues."
The ad begins airing today on TV stations across the state and shows video clips from Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer, ending with these words: "Two peas, same liberal pod. It’s time for conservative leadership."
We need your help to keep this ad on the air. Help make sure California Republicans know what Tom Campbell really believes when they vote in the GOP Primary on June 8th! Will you help sponsor an ad today?
Full Text of "Two Peas, Same Liberal Pod"
"Tom Campbell says he’d be a better senator than liberal Barbara Boxer. But is he really much different?
Tom Campbell supports increasing income taxes on Californians. Barbara Boxer supports higher income taxes, too.
Campbell wants to raise the gas tax. Barbara Boxer supports higher gas taxes.
Tom Campbell supports gay marriage and opposed Proposition 8. Barbara Boxer supports gay marriage and opposed Prop. 8.
"Two peas, same liberal pod. It’s time for conservative leadership."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 10, 2010
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), at 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage:
New Hampshire Voters WANT a Vote ON Marriage
(Washington, DC) - Yesterday, for the first time, voters in many towns across New Hampshire at annual town meetings had a chance to vote on a nonbinding resolution calling for a statewide vote of the people to decide the future of gay marriage. As the Eagle Tribune headline put it, “New Hampshire Voters Want a Say on Gay Marriage.” The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) executive director Brian Brown congratulated Rep. David Bates and the Cornerstone Policy Institute for their leadership.
“This vote confirms that left-wing politicians who voted for gay marriage were radically out of touch with the people of New Hampshire. Gov. Lynch and other Democrats in New Hampshire will pay a price this November if they continue to impose their own values and ignore the wishes of the people of New Hampshire on marriage,” said Brown.
According to coverage in the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor (which covers only some of the towns which voted yesterday), at least 17 towns approved the resolution by large margins calling for a vote on a state marriage amendment, with just five small downs voting “nay.”
According to the Eagle Tribune, “most Southern New Hampshire voters want a binding statewide vote on the definition of marriage.
Voters in Danville, Hampstead, Kingston, Londonderry, Newton, Pelham, Plaistow, Sandown and Windham all approved citizen's petition warrant articles yesterday, asking voters if they want to vote on a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, who spearheaded the citizen's petition drive, said late yesterday he had received voting results from half of the towns in the state that had the definition of marriage proposal on the ballot. All but five small towns had approved the measure, he said.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, executive director, or Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MARCH 3, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE ENCOURAGED BY JUSTICE ROBERTS’ COMMENT IN COURT RULING; VOWS TO PRESS FOR PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
“While same-sex marriages will be permitted in the District for the time being, NOM will continue to fight to get an initiative on the ballot to restore marriage to what it has always been – the union of one man and one woman.” - Brian Brown, Executive Director, NOM -
(WASHINGTON, DC) – Today, Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), issued the following statement:
“It is very disappointing that voters in the District of Columbia have been precluded from exercising their constitutional right to a referendum so that they could decide for themselves whether the Council’s act to redefine marriage should be allowed to stand. However, this battle is far from over. While same-sex marriages will be permitted in the District for the time being, NOM will continue to fight to get an initiative on the ballot to restore marriage to what it has always been – the union of one man and one woman. Our legal case to secure the right to initiative is pending in the DC Court of Appeals and we are confident of eventual victory. The DC Council has erected an illegal barrier to the people’s initiative right by attempting to use the Human Rights Act to prohibit a marriage initiative in violation of the District Charter, the constitutional framework governing the District of Columbia. While Chief Justice John Roberts did not grant our request for an injunction to allow a referendum, he did specifically state that our argument “has some force” and could be pursued in the initiative case. We will do just that, so that the people of the District of Columbia can – as voters in 31 states have done – decide for themselves the definition of marriage.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUG GANSLER: “DON’T MESS WITH MARRIAGE”
(WASHINGTON, DC) – Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage issued the following statement in response to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler’s decision today to recognize same-sex marriages from other states:
“Maryland's statutory law clearly states that ‘Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid’ in Maryland. The Maryland Supreme Court upheld the law and stated clearly it was the province of the legislature to change it. What part of the law doesn't the Attorney General understand? What other laws is he unwilling to enforce? This is an outrageous example of running roughshod over the rights of the people of Maryland in pursuit of a private political agenda," said Brian Brown.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NOM's Maggie Gallagher to Speak at Rally at WV State Capitol
(WASHINGTON, DC) – Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage joins the Family Policy Council of West Virginia on Thursday to speak at a rally to be held in Charleston, WV showing their support for a marriage amendment being introduced in the West Virginia Senate. If approved, resolution SJR 14 would allow West Virginians to settle the legal definition of marriage at a special election in 2010. It proposes a simple 19-word definition of marriage: “Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in West Virginia.”
“Nearly half the WV Senate has signed onto a marriage protection amendment and 78% of registered voters in the Democrat party support marriage as one man and one woman. Why does the silent opposition by West Virginia's lawmakers, led by Del. Barbara Flesichauer, continue to ignore 86% of West Virginia's voters? The threat from the courts is now obviously real. A majority of West Virginia legislators have signed onto a marriage amendment. There should be no more excuse for politicians to do whatever they and their base want rather than what the people want,” said Gallagher. “We applaud Jeremy Dys and the Family Policy Council of West Virginia for steadfastly standing for marriage and for democracy in West Virginia.”
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 20, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE CONGRATULATES SCOTT BROWN
(WASHINGTON, DC) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement congratulating newly-elected Senator Scott Brown (R-MA):
"Wow! The torch certainly has been passed to a new generation in Massachusetts. Congratulations to Scott Brown and to the people of Massachusetts who demonstrated they are in no-one's pocket," stated Maggie Gallagher, President of NOM.
"The overwhelming response to the thousands of calls we placed to Massachusetts voters shows that Scott Brown’s victory is also a victory for marriage," remarked Brian Brown, NOM’s Executive Director. “The support of the people of Massachusetts for traditional marriage was clearly a factor in this election as marriage supporters turned out to elect Scott Brown to the United States Senate.”
The National Organization for Marriage spent $50,000 in the closing days of the campaign to identify marriage voters in Massachusetts and make sure they turned out and supported Scott Brown. (Click here to view: NOM Confirms Voter Outreach Campaign).
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, or Maggie Gallagher, President, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130), or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 18, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NOM'S SUNDAY POLL: SCOTT BROWN AHEAD 5 POINTS
NOM CONFIRMS VOTER OUTREACH CAMPAIGN
"Our goal with this effort is to help Scott Brown, but is also to identify the marriage voters for future elections."
- Brian Brown, Executive Director, NOM -
(WASHINGTON, DC) - Responding to multiple press inquires, today the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) confirmed its voter outreach campaign supporting Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate special election. Over the weekend and continuing today NOM will place over 790,000 calls primarily to Independent and Republican voters to identify voters who support marriage and encourage them to turn out and vote for Scott Brown.
NOM also released the results of its poll of 304 likely voters taken Saturday and Sunday by QEV Analytics. Scott Brown maintains a five point lead among likely voters, leading 53 percent to 47 percent. Only six percent of likely voters remained hard undecideds as of this weekend.
NOM also asked likely voters whether they favor or oppose same-sex marriages. Gay marriage remains a surprisingly contentious issue. Six years after legalization, less than half of Massachusetts voters say they favor same-sex marriage (45 percent), with 35 percent saying they oppose gay marriage, and a very large 19 percent of voters either saying they do not know, or refuse to answer the question.
"We understand the major concerns of Massachusetts voters right now are jobs, the economy, and the direction national Democrats are taking this country," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "NOM’s goal is to find the voters who care about marriage and help make sure they turn out for Scott Brown."
“Politicians who don’t seem to care what ordinary people think pay a price, ultimately at the ballot box, for their arrogance.” said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “In Massachusetts, we still find a core of voters who do not like the way gay marriage was imposed without their consent and against their values. NOM’s job is to help these ordinary people make a difference at the margin, where elections are often won and lost.”
"Our goal with this effort is to help Scott Brown, but is also to identify the marriage voters for future elections," notes Brian Brown. "NOM’s goal is a national grassroots organization that can make a difference in all 50 states, as needed."
NOM's Massachusetts Special Election Poll, conducted by QEV Analytics surveyed 304 likely voters in Massachusetts on January 16 and 17 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percent.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, or Maggie Gallagher, President, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130), or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 7, 2010
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE APPLAUDS DC GROUP'S REFERENDUM EFFORT:
"The People Have the Right to Vote on Marriage"
(WASHINGTON) – Today, Stand for Marriage DC filed a referendum to overturn the same-sex marriage bill passed by the District of Columbia’s city council on December 15. The National Organization for Marriage pledged to work closely with local leaders to win for the people of D.C. the right to vote.
“Politicians have no business pretending they stand for civil rights when they are blocking the right of the people to vote on marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM who is also on the executive committee of Stand for Marriage D.C.
“We recognize we will have to fight our way through a political establishment heavily supported by pro-same-sex marriage activists, in order to give the citizens of D.C. their core civil right to protect marriage," said Brian Brown, "We relish the fight, because we believe marriage and democracy will win in the end.”
“Kudos to the leaders of the black church who have stood up to an enormous campaign of vituperation to take a stand for marriage,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “We stand with our brothers and sisters in defense of two ideas: marriage is the union of husband and wife, and the politicians cannot take away by legislation the people's charter-given right to vote.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 7, 2010
CONTACT: ELIZABETH RAY OR MARY BETH HUTCHINS AT 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE ON NJ VOTE:
"NEW JERSEY CONTINUES THE STRING OF VICTORIES FOR MARRIAGE IN BLUE STATES"
(WASHINGTON, DC) – By a margin of 14 to 20, the New Jersey Senate rejected gay marriage. The decisive vote followed just a few weeks after a similar lopsided rejection of gay marriage by the New York State Senate. In both cases gay marriage advocates had promised supporters a victory this year and emerged with a decisive defeat.
“Once again gay marriage advocates forced a vote, and once again they learned the truth: the American people do not want their politicians spending time passing gay marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director for the National Organization for Marriage. “The Catholic Conference and the New Jersey Family Policy Council deserve thanks, but the main force for this victory is the tens of thousands of ordinary New Jerseyans who picked up the phone and sent letters and emails to their elected representatives. This vote is your victory. Your voice came through loud and clear. Congratulations, New Jersey. This is a vote for marriage, for common sense, and for democracy.”
NOM spent a total of $1.2 million in voter and media outreach in their successful campaigns to block gay marriage in New Jersey and New York (where the Democrat-controlled state Senate overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage on December 2nd in a 38 to 24 vote). NOM also emerged as the major donor to the victorious effort to overturn this November a gay marriage law passed by the Maine state legislature last spring.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x.130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 15, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE VOWS TO DC COUNCIL:
We Will Overturn Your Same-Sex Marriage Bill
"We have one message for David Catania and the rest of these politicians today: this fight is not over.
We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people’s right to vote and we will win!"
- Brian Brown, Executive Director, NOM -
(WASHINGTON) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement today in response to the D.C. Council’s passage of a same-sex marriage bill:
"The people of D.C. have a right, guaranteed by the charter, which is D.C.'s constitution, to vote to protect marriage. Politicians on the city council are acting as if they have the right through legislation to deprive citizens of D.C. of their core civil right to vote, but we will not let them get away with it," said Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM. "We have one message for David Catania and the rest of these politicians today: this fight is not over. We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people’s right to vote and we will win!"
NOM has led successful campaigns to protect marriage in states across the country, including victories in California in 2008 and most recently in Maine in November, 2009, as well as legislative battles to block gay marriage in New York (where gay marriage failed in the Senate by a lopsided vote of 38 no to 24 yes).
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DECEMBER 9, 2009
CONTACT: ELIZABETH RAY OR MARY BETH HUTCHINS AT 703-683-5004
National Organization For Marriage Reacts To New Jersey Senate Vote Delay
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) responded to New Jersey Sen. Pres. Richard J. Codey announcement that he was pulling Thursday's long announced vote on gay marriage in the New Jersey state Senate and sending the issue to the Assembly instead.
“Gay marriage advocates used their political muscle to insist on a vote in New Jersey on gay marriage on Thursday, and they called it off for one reason alone: they knew they were going to lose. The overwhelming outpouring of phone calls and letters from regular voters was opposed to gay marriage in New Jersey, as it was in New York. I have news for the bill’s sponsors and its proponents: the votes are not there in the Assembly either,” said Brian Brown executive director of NOM. “Do they really think Assembly members are less attuned to the will of the people than state senators?”
“Sadly, after using their money and political muscle to strong arm a reluctant state Senate into a gay marriage vote they could not win, these same advocates are now pulling a fast one, declining to permit a vote, and taking the Assembly's time away from issues that are of far higher priority with the people of New Jersey,” said Maggie Gallagher president of NOM. “Trenton politicians should start listening to voters' priorities, stop messing around with marriage, and get back to work.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, contact Elizabeth Ray (x.130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DECEMBER 8, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
National Organization For Marriage To New Jersey Senate: Don't Mess with Marriage
WASHINGTON - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is calling on the state Senate in New Jersey to vote down a bill that would redefine marriage in the state. The Senate Judiciary Committee cleared the bill on Monday by the thinnest of margins and it now moves on to the full Senate for a vote.
“Gay marriage is not the priority of New Jersey voters, and senators in New Jersey should follow New York's lead in rejecting this lame-duck effort to impose gay marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “NOM's poll in two swing senate districts in New Jersey found that no more than 2 percent of voters consider gay marriage one of their top three legislative priorities for this lame-duck session. Why would politicians follow defeated Gov. Jon Corzine's lead off this particular cliff?"
"New Jersey voters and politicians have given a great deal to Garden State Equality in the last few years, including full civil unions. Steven Goldstein has boasted that New Jersey is one of the best states for gay rights in the country, thanks to his organization's efforts. Why are they insisting on the right to redefine marriage, whether or not the people of New Jersey like it?” asked Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM.
The National Organization for Marriage will have spent more than $600,000 in voter outreach in New Jersey through radio and TV ads, and robo-call technology to educate the New Jersey public about this important issue.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 2, 2009 CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
National Organization For Marriage Reacts To New York Win: “Big Win For Marriage, Thank You New York!”
"New York makes it crystal clear: the American people do not support gay marriage and they do not want their politicians messing with this issue." - Brian Brown, Executive Director, NOM
(WASHINGTON, DC) - The New York state senate decisively defeated gay marriage today by an unexpectedly large margin of 38 to 24, according to Reuters.
"This is a huge win, it puts the nail in the coffin on the idea that gay marriage advocates can persuade a majority of Americans their cause is just," said Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). "New York makes it crystal clear: the American people do not support gay marriage and they do not want their politicians messing with this issue."
NOM spent $600,000 in advertizing, automated calling and other voter outreach over the last few months in New York alone.
"I hope this loss causes Democratic leaders to reconsider their fanatical commitment to an issue that is a priority for only a small number of wealthy donors and activists in their party," said Maggie Gallagher, President of NOM, "Americans respectfully disagree with the politicians in New York, such as Sen. Oppenheimer and Sen. Pres. Malcom Smith, who described our views on marriage as somehow akin to Nazism, slavery or segregation. At a minimum, that kind of hateful treatment of diverse views on gay marriage needs to stop today."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, or Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 1, 2009 CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE VOWS TO DC COUNCIL: We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight. "The people of D.C. have the right to vote for marriage; we will fight for their rights and we will win." - Brian Brown, executive director, NOM
WASHINGTON - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement today in response to the DC Council’s vote to pass a gay marriage bill:
"This battle is not over. DC politicians are blocking the right of people to vote on marriage. Voters in 31 other states have already exercised their right to vote on this issue. It is ironic that some politicians actively campaign demanding DC voting rights and yet they are conspiring to deny those same citizens the right to vote on the definition of marriage," said Brian Brown. “We will not give up on D.C. The people of D.C. have the right to vote for marriage; we will fight for their rights and we will win. NOM will be proud to fight alongside Bishop Harry Jackson to make sure politicians hear the people's voice loud and clear: don't mess with marriage. We will fight in Congress. We will fight through the courts to get this to the people of D.C. who have a God-given right to vote for marriage and Charter-given right to overturn the council's decision. We are confident marriage will win in the end in D.C. as it has in Maine and 30 other states."
NOM has led successful campaigns to protect marriage in states across the country, including victories in California in 2008 and most recently in Maine in November, 2009.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOVEMBER 23, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage Launches New $500,000 Message Campaign To Trenton: "Give New Jersey voters a break; don't vote for Corzine's gay marriage bill" - Brian Brown, Executive Director
(Washington, DC) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announces a new $500,000 voter outreach campaign in New Jersey highlighted by the release of a new radio ad, “Give Me a Break,” which will begin running on targeted New Jersey radio stations today and will continue for at least two weeks.
NOM's voter outreach will include telephone calling, direct mailers, and online advertising to let voters know that Democrats are considering following Jon Corzine over a political cliff by pushing gay marriage in the lame duck," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM.
The ad, "Give Me a Break," underscores that Gov. Jon Corzine had four years to push a gay marriage bill, and the losing governor should not waste legislators’ valuable time by pushing a gay marriage bill in the lame duck session when New Jersey voters expect elected officials to focus on far more urgent priorities, like jobs, the economy and the budget.
“In the next two weeks NOM will spend $300,000 in voter outreach on the theme of this ad, including radio ad buys, direct mail, and online advertising,” said Brian Brown. “We have reserved an additional $200,000 for advertising and direct mail outreach if the legislature continues to spend more and more of its time into December fooling around with a vote for gay marriage that New Jersey voters do not want.”
The latest installment in NOM's New Jersey campaign will bring the total NOM has spent in New Jersey in 2009 in automated calling, radio and television ads, and direct mail voter outreach to more than $1 million.
NOM was the single largest donor to both of the successful California and Maine campaigns, donating over $1.5 million for each state.
“Give Me a Break-New Jersey” Radio Ad Script:
Male ANNCR
Here’s a question. If you were a state legislator, what would you focus on during the Lame Duck session?
Female ANNCR
There’s lots of choices. I’d say jobs and the economy. And the budget deficit!
Male ANNCR
Good pick there. New Jersey has an $8 billion deficit.
You know what some legislators are focused on? Redefining marriage. Throwing marriage to the curb and redefining it as any two people regardless of gender.
Female ANNCR
With all our problems, they want to legalize gay marriage?
Male ANNCR
Governor Corzine had four years to bring this issue up but hasn’t, and now, with just days to go in his administration, the big push is on.
Female ANNCR
No voter input. No accountability. Give me a break!
Male ANNCR
290,000 New Jerseyans have signed petitions opposing gay marriage. And every state where the people have voted on gay marriage has rejected it.
Female ANNCR
Gay couples ought to be able to live as they choose, but they shouldn’t get lame duck legislators to redefine marriage for all of society.
Male ANNCR
Take a stand. Call your state legislators and tell them you oppose redefining marriage.
Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage,
please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or
Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
Let me tell you a fairy tale. Once upon a time, a gorgeous blond California girl -- let's call her "Carrie" -- wanted to be a beauty queen.
Asked about gay marriage, "Carrie" blurted out her truth: "I believe all Americans should enjoy equal rights to get married whether it is same-sex or opposite marriage. That's the way I was raised, and that's the way I think marriage should be."
Afterward, a judge proclaimed her answer so offensive he voted against her and wanted to rip off her tiara. Instead of rebuking the judge, pageant officials said that "Carrie" needs to meet anti-gay marriage folk to assuage the "hurt" she has caused them. A media firestorm ensued.
"Carrie" explains to the press that her Christian faith taught her that gay marriage was right. She even appears at a press conference with the Human Rights Campaign, which some said violated her contractual obligations.
Roll back the tape. What would that alternate Carrie's life be like right now?
Carrie Prejean is right.
She has made many mistakes in her young life, including some that Catholics like me would call sins. But when I was 22 years old, Carrie's age, I had a child out of wedlock.
I hope young women watching learn something from Carrie's ordeal; ideally something like: Don't have sex with men who aren't willing to marry you. But if that is too elevated an ideal, try this one: Girls, don't send any pic to your boyfriend you don't want your mom or Matt Lauer to see.
An embarrassed Carrie wasn't fully truthful about her private and personal life, which ended up making things more difficult for her. (Could any of those folks who defended Bill Clinton's right to commit perjury about sex please step up and say a kind word or two for Carrie?)
But fundamentally, Carrie is right: None of this spectacle would be happening to her if she had submitted instead of speaking truth to Hollywood power.
The hatred she has generated is inexplicable and ugly. The people who are intent on sexually shaming Carrie have no shame themselves. Admittedly, I am getting kind of old. But in my old-fashioned view, boyfriends who release personal information on ex-girlfriends for money and/or to embarrass them are scum. I don't understand the newsworthiness of these allegations.
Seven million Californians voted for Prop 8. Quite a few of them are people who committed sexual sins of various kinds. Why is this one 22-year-old girl carrying the whole weight of that on her young shoulders?
A few people have asked me if Carrie is now going to "stop" working for me. The truth is she doesn't work for NOM (National Organization for Marriage). We cut a TV ad without asking her approval using publicly available footage, and then we asked her to appear at a press conference to promote it. Out of the goodness of her heart she agreed, for which I remain grateful. I was asked to introduce her at several events, and I would do so again.
I really wanted Carrie to work for me because I believed she may have had a calling to help fight for the other Americans who believe as she does that marriage is the union of husband and wife.
But Carrie did not want to be a crusader on the gay marriage issue, or the leader of a Christian youth movement. She just wanted to be a model, or an entertainer, or a sportscaster, or a news reader -- the kind of thing you'd imagine a 22-year-old beauty queen might dream about. I don't know why so many people are exulting over the idea they may have killed her young dreams.
I hope the people gleeful about this attack are enjoying their pyrrhic victory. What they have done says far more about them than about Carrie, who turns out to be a not-unusual California 22-year-old.
(Maggie Gallagher is president of the National Organization for Marriage and has been a syndicated columnist for 14 years.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 9, 2009
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE SENDS A MESSAGE TO NEW YORK STATE GOP LEGISLATORS: "Vote for Gay Marriage and We Will Fund a Primary Challenge."
WASHINGTON – Following up on its successful campaign to defeat Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, The National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Executive Director Brian Brown announced plans to build a $500,000 war chest to fund a primary challenge to any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage – regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s vote in the State Senate.
"There is no Republican Senate district in New York where the majority of people support gay marriage. Maine has made that very clear,” said Brian Brown. "The GOP should learn from Dede Scozzafava's experience: voting for gay marriage does not pay."
50 percent of voters who abandoned Dede Scozzafava to vote for Doug Hoffman said that Dede's vote for gay marriage was a significant factor, according to a NOM poll of voters in NY-23 released on Election Day.
New York’s Governor Paterson pushed the same sex marriage bill to the top of the priority list for this week’s State Senate vote.
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM, please contact Elizabeth Ray ext. 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Mary Beth Hutchins ext. 105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
###
November 4, 1:30am -- With 87% of precincts reporting, the Yes on 1 / Stand for Marriage Maine campaign is winning 53% to 47%. Campaign manager Frank Schubert claimed victory a short while ago. The No on 1 campaign has not yet conceded. Read the AP story here. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 3, 2009
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray (x130) or
Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RELEASES NEW POLL:
“HER VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE HURT DEDE SCOZZAFAVA WITH NY-23 VOTERS”
(Washington, D.C.) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today released the results of a poll of 318 likely voters taken Sunday and Monday in New York’s 23rd district.
The poll shows that Dede Scozzafava’s support for gay marriage was a key factor in GOP and independent voters turn towards Doug Hoffman.
How much did Scozzafava’s support for gay marriage hurt her in NY-23? The majority of voters in NY-23 oppose gay marriage:
52 percent oppose gay marriage
35 percent favor gay marriage
13 percent responded “don’t know/refuse.”
Half of Hoffman’s supporters (50%) say that Dede Scozzafava’s support for the legalization of same-sex marriage was a factor in their decision not to support her. Similarly, 45% of Hoffman’s supporters say that his position on same-sex marriage was a factor in their decision to vote for him. Only 11% of Owens voters say his position on same-sex marriage was a factor in their decision to support him.
NOM’s independent expenditures included more than $110,000 in this upstate New York congressional district to make sure voters were aware of Dede Scozzafava’s votes for gay marriage in the New York Assembly. "NOM sent two separate mailers to more than 70,000 households where voters said they opposed gay marriage (160,000 pieces of mail overall), highlighting Scozzafava's vote for gay marriage,” said Brian Brown, “In addition, NOM robocalls and live calls reached more than 60,000 households letting them know that Scozzafava had abandoned their values on the marriage issue; these calls generated more than 300 volunteers for Hoffman."
NOM’s voter outreach clearly had an impact: 60% of voters recall having seen advertisements on the issue of same-sex marriage, and Hoffman leads 50%-34% among those who recall seeing such ads, while Hoffman is tied with Owens, 42% - 41%, among those who do not recall having seen such ads.
“While the press frequently lumps opposition to gay marriage in with “social conservative” views, average Americans do not view it that way,” says Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “Voters think it is support for gay marriage that is ideological and extreme, not support for marriage as the union of husband and wife, and they wonder about politicians who can’t stand up for basic ordinary common sense values.”
“Empire State Pride Agenda promised Dede Scozzafava they would protect her if she voted for gay marriage, but they were nowhere to be found in this race,” notes Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “The HRC announced it was sending emails to 850 voters in NY-23. Big deal. This should be a wake-up call to GOP politicians who think they can play clever insider games and cut special deals on the marriage issue: it’s not going to work. The voters are not on your side.”
NOM’s poll found Hoffman currently leads 42 percent to 34 percent with 16 percent for Scozzafava and 8 percent undecided. A substantial majority of current Scozzafava supporters (87%) are nonetheless aware that she has suspended her campaign. Among voters who have decided for whom to vote, Hoffman leads 46 percent to 37 percent for Owens and 17 percent for Scozzafava. 56 percent of Scozzafava supporters say Owens is currently their second choice.
This survey was conducted by QEV Analytics, and consists of 318 interviews with persons who said they were likely to vote in today’s election. The sample was derived from a random selection of registered voters in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. The interviews were conducted by live interviewer on November 1 & 2. The margin of sampling error for a survey of this size is +/- 5.5% at the 95 percent confidence level.
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM, please contact Elizabeth Ray ext. 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Mary Beth Hutchins ext. 105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com or
Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE REACTS TO SCOZZAFAVA'S DECISION
TO SUSPEND HER CAMPAIGN IN NY 23
Washington, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) reacted today to Dede Scozzafava's decision to suspend her campaign in NY-23's special election.
"This is a great victory for marriage, among other issues. We thank Dede Scozzfava for recognizing that her bid to become the first pro-gay marriage GOP congressman was doomed and withdrawing," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "Dede's sacrifice should be a warning to other New York Republicans in the Assembly and Senate: Do not abandon GOP voters on the marriage issue. Down the road the Empire State Pride Agenda will not be there to help save you from the displeasure of New York voters, whose voices and values we are proud to represent and defend."
The National Organization for Marriage's $150,000 in independent expenditures for advertising and voter outreach in NY-23 made NOM one of the largest players in the special election after Club for Growth.
"Many issues and many people played a role: We congratulate especially Susan B. Anthony List, who made extraordinary contributions, along with Gary Bauer's Campaign for Working Families, Citizens United for Life and other social conservatives who also made key contributions to this great victory," said Brown.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, contact Elizabeth Ray at 703-774-6616 or Mary Beth Hutchins at 615-337-3710.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 21, 2009
CONTACT: ELIZABETH RAY, X.130 or MARY BETH HUTCHINS, X.105 703.683.5004
National Organization for Marriage Takes Aim at Dede Scozzafava, Endorses Doug Hoffman in New York-23
WASHINGTON - Today the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) formally endorsed Doug Hoffman for Congress in New York’s 23rd Congressional District’s hotly contested special election.
“GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava is not only theoretically in favor of gay marriage, she actually voted for it, twice,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director. “Voters in New York’s 23rd deserve a candidate who has the courage to stand up for their values, not the values of party bosses in New York or Washington.”
“The National Organization for Marriage will spend at least $150,000 in independent expenditures to make sure New York voters understand how strangely extreme and out of touch Dede Scozzafava’s views are,” Brown added.
Scozzafava’s extreme liberal views has attracted a revolutionary coalition of social and economic conservatives who are working together to defeat Scozzafava and elect Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. The Susan B. Anthony List, Gary Bauer’s The Campaign for Working Families, Citizens United Political Victory Fund, and NOM have joined the Club for Growth, the American Conservative Union, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson, Michelle Malkin and other high profile conservatives in supporting Doug Hoffman.
“As Michelle Malkin put it so well, this is not a fight for the heart and soul of the GOP, it’s a fight for its brain. Why party bosses thought it was a good idea to hand pick an extreme social liberal to run for a GOP district like New York’s 23rd is one of those mysteries a rational person cannot easily unravel,” said NOM president Maggie Gallagher.
“A candidate like Dede who feels the need call the police away from fighting real crime to deal with a respectable magazine reporter really calls into question her fitness for this office,” added Brown. “Clearly she's rattled and not responding well.”
The National Organization for Marriage was recently described by The Washington Post as “the preeminent organization dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage." NOM is the largest single donor on the pro-marriage side in both California's Prop 8 battle and to Maine's current gay marriage referendum, contributing more than $3 million to these two states.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704139.html.)
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
(Washington, DC) – Beginning today the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) will launch a new $225,000 New Jersey radio ad campaign, “Gay Marriage Has Consequences-New Jersey,” which highlights Gov. Corzine’s support for gay marriage. The media campaign will be supplemented by direct outreach to more than a million New Jersey voters in 14 state senate districts on the gay marriage issue.
"Gov. Corzine is betting he can play to the Democrats' affluent donor base and ignore the wishes of the vast majority of New Jerseyans, including African-Americans. Politicians in Trenton should be focusing on the bread and butter issues: There are enough secret deals in Trenton without misusing the lame duck session to impose gay marriage," said Damon Owens, NOM’s New Jersey coordinator.
"Why is Corzine pushing gay marriage in the lame duck session? Because he wants the issue decided as far away from an election as possible. Let the people of New Jersey decide the future of marriage, not backroom political deals," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM.
Think legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't affect your family?
"Hi Jayla, what happened in school today?"
"I learned about a prince who married a prince. And I can marry a princess!"
Legalizing gay marriage has consequences for kids. Massachusetts schools teach 2nd graders that boys can marry other boys. A California public school took first graders to a same-sex wedding, calling it "a teachable moment."
Kids have enough to deal with already, without pushing gay marriage on them. And it's not just kids who'll face consequences.
The rights of people who think marriage means a man and a woman will no longer matter: We'll all have to accept same-sex marriage whether we like it or not.
Governor Corzine and some politicians in Trenton can't fix the economy, but they've got time to push gay marriage on NJ families? Not if I can help it.
Call Governor Corzine and tell him: "Don't mess with marriage." Call him at (609) 292-6000.
And when Assembly candidates ask for your vote, you ask them if they support marriage only between one man and one woman.
Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004
OCTOBER 1, 2009
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO FRED KARGER NOM WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY POLITICALLY MOTIVATED HARASSMENT
MAINE - Thursday morning, a closely divided Maine Ethics Commission rejected their own staff’s recommendation of “no investigation” and instead voted to open an investigation of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage-Maine, released this statement in response:
“NOM is in full compliance with Maine law. The complaint is frivolous; It was filed for political reasons by a group whose sole purpose is to harass decent Americans who exercise their civil rights to peacefully and democratically act to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife. The independent professional staff of the Commission examined the facts and concluded that an investigation was not warranted.
This is a side issue in the campaign; the future of marriage is what is important. The future of marriage is now in the hands of the people of Maine. Gay marriage advocates have not been able to persuade the people of Maine that gay marriage is either true or good; they cannot rebut the truth that gay marriage will profoundly change the culture of marriage for everyone in Maine, including parents in public schools. This is why they want to change the subject by filing frivolous elections complaints.
NOM will vigorously pursue all our legal rights and the legal rights of the more than 100,000 people who’ve come together with NOM to protect marriage. We will not be intimidated or deterred from peacefully and democratically organizing within the law to protect marriage as one man and one woman. Not only have we fully complied with Maine law, we believe the underlying statute in Maine is unconstitutionally vague, and the vagueness is what allowed a politically motivated anti-marriage hate group to misuse the law to attempt to divert a campaign from the important moral issues at stake.
Fred Karger should understand: This politically motivated misuse of election laws will backfire and only help us grow more rapidly. The people of Maine and the American people will recognize a cheap shot when they see one. They understand that anyone who stands for marriage will now be ruthlessly attacked. And frankly, the American people don’t like this kind of hate directed at supporters of marriage.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, executive direction of the National Organization for Marriage, contact Elizabeth Ray (x.130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
A few years ago a highly visible and influential member of the Christian Right appeared on one of the cable news shows talking about homosexual marriage. He said that homosexuality was harmful to society and to the individuals who practiced it. A week later this same man appeared again on the same topic only this time he said opposition to homosexual marriage was not about condemning homosexuals but about protecting children who need moms and dads, something homosexual couples can never provide. Sometime between his first appearance and his second, he was visited by one of the wisest social analysts in the country, Maggie Gallagher of the National Movement for Marriage.
Maggie Gallagher has almost single handedly changed the pro-marriage movement and in the process has given it perhaps its best and only chance of saving marriage from being permanently remade in America – and therefore the world.
. . .
Which brings us to Maggie’s latest stroke of genius.
Maggie points out that the arguments of the homosexual advocates will inevitably seek to follow the track of the civil rights movement. What happens to people who still hold racist views? They are shunned, driven from the public square. They lose licenses to work. In short, they are pariahs not welcome in polite society.
The homosexual movement says insistently that their cause is exactly the same as the campaign for civil rights. While most blacks find this comparison repugnant and are among the most reliable supporters of marriage, Maggie points out that those who oppose homosexuality will come to appear no better than racists. They will be discriminated against. They will lose jobs and in some cases be hounded in public. This is happening already. Look at the treatment of those who were publicly exposed as financial supporters of California’s Proposition 8. This will happen to you, your mother, your grandmother.
Maggie herself is constantly vilified on homosexual websites. Google her name along with LGBT and you will read page after page of mockery and hate against this woman. They attack her message, her associations, her funding, even her looks. They hate her profoundly because she has at least slowed the juggernaut that is the homosexual movement, one that has billions of dollars behind it along with the power centers of our culture.
Maggie sees hope, though, and it came in the most unexpected place, a beauty pageant. She has described what she calls the Carrie Effect, the effect that Miss California, Carrie Prejean had on the nation and on the debate when she chose what Maggie called “truth over tiara,” saying marriage is for men and women only. The great achievement of the homosexual movement has been the inevitability argument: “You should all give up because homosexual marriage is inevitable; history is on our side.” But then Carrie Prejean stood up and spoke. And the vile, vulgar hate heaped on her gave Americans a glimpse into the future of anyone who simply believes that marriage is for men and women, and for children. From that act of resistance and in what followed, public support for homosexual marriage dropped a whopping nine percent. There is hope still.
Maggie is not the only one toiling in this unforgiving vineyard. There are many others and they should all get credit for telling the truth in a hostile environment that sometimes even includes death threats. But should we finally win, much of the praise should go to Maggie Gallagher and she should win all the awards, starting now.
Austin Ruse is the President of the New York and Washington, D.C.-based Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a research institute that focuses exclusively on international social policy. The above article is available in its entirety at http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/2245/2/.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 25, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE LAUNCHES TV & RADIO AD CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT OF IOWA REPUBLICAN STEPHEN BURGMEIER
(Washington, D.C.) – This week, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) launches a 10-day radio and TV ad campaign in support of Republican candidate Stephen Burgmeier, running in Iowa’s special election for state House District 90.
"Over the past several months, we have heard from tens of thousands of Iowans who refuse to stand by and watch marriage be redefined by a handful of judges. On September 1st, Iowans from Van Buren, Jefferson, and Wapello counties can send a clear message to Des Moines by electing Stephen Burgmeier. We are proud to support Republican Stephen Burgmeier, who has made a strong commitment to giving Iowans the chance to vote against same-sex marriage," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage.
The NOM TV and radio ad campaign contrasts Stephen Burgmeier's support for a marriage amendment with Iowa Governor Chet Culver's very public "reluctance" to give Iowa voters a say in the matter. If elected, Burgmeier promises to be an outspoken advocate for marriage and family for the Republican party in the months leading up to the 2010 elections.
The $100,000.00 NOM ads will run throughout the district over the remaining 10 days of the campaign, ensuring that marriage features prominently in the closing days of the race.
To speak with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
AUGUST 17, 2009
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: HALT YOUR TWO-FACED ATTACK ON THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT NOM Announces 500,000 Americans have signed up to protect DOMA and pledge two million activists by the end of 2009
“We are well on our way to two million supporters of marriage who are willing to stand up to the President and join the fight,” Brian Brown, executive director, NOM
Washington, DC - Under pressure from gay marriage advocates, President Obama pledged today to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), even as the administration claimed to courts its willingness to defend the law from charges of unconstitutionality.
“In a high-profile interview with Rick Warren, Barack Obama convinced millions of Americans he opposed gay marriage; we are calling on the President to live up to his campaign commitment” said Brian Brown.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announces today that their 2 Million for Marriage campaign now has topped 500,000 active supporters, part of a planned expansion of its activist base in preparation for fighting to prevent President Obama from overturning DOMA.
“NOM’s activist base is exploding, increasing tenfold in the first five months of this year,” said Brian Brown, “We’ve moved from 50,000 to more than 500,000 Americans pledging to protect DOMA.”
NOM’s goal for 2009 is to build an army of 2 million Americans willing to fight against efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. “At this rapid rate of growth, we will meet or exceed our ambitious goals by the end of 2009,” notes Brown.
“The National Organization for Marriage has emerged as the nation’s only major national grassroots organization dedicated to protecting marriage,” notes Maggie Gallagher, president and founder of NOM. “DOMA is the only federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, and guarantees voters in Georgia or Wisconsin that a handful of judges in Massachusetts will not be able to impose gay marriage on their state.”
NOM’s mission is protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. It is the only single-issue grassroots activist organization that is working to protect marriage in New York, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Iowa, in addition to other states. To learn more about NOM, visit www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
JULY 30, 2009
FEDERAL COURT BLOCKS RELEASE OF NAMES OF WASHINGTON PETITION SIGNERS
"This is a good first step towards . . . protecting the civil rights of all Americans.”
Brian Brown, executive director, National Organization for Marriage
Princeton, NJ – In a positive move by the U.S. District court in the state of Washington, names of the 138,000 petitioners who are seeking a repeal of the decision to allow same-sex marriage in their state will be prohibited from public release. James Bopp, Jr. of the firm Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom is the lead attorney for the Plaintiffs.
"This is a good first step towards interrupting the un-American campaign of harassment and intimidation by gay rights supporters and protecting the civil rights of all Americans to peacefully participate in the political process without fear," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom are the best lawyers in the country for this kind of case and we are pleased they are defending the rights of Washington voters too."
NOM has not been involved in the Washington state effort to date, but NOM is a party to a similar lawsuit seeking protection for donors to Prop 8 and future marriage battles in California for which Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom are counsel.
The National Organization for Marriage California (NOM California) along with ProtectMarriage.com brought a lawsuit in California in January asking for First Amendment protection in the wake of an unprecedented campaign of personal harassment against Prop 8 supporters. After the state marriage amendment passed by almost 53 percent last November, harassment of Prop 8 supporters began as a result of disclosure laws requiring the posting of names, employers, and addresses of even small donors. Gay marriage advocates even went so far as to post maps targeting the home and business address of hundreds of Prop 8 supporters (http://www.eightmaps.com/). In Washington State, gay rights groups have threatened to do a similar effort, with plans to release the names of signers to the petition on the website www.WhoSigned.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 orElizabeth Ray, x130 at 703-683-5004 JULY 31, 2009
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE APPLAUDS MAINE VICTORY
Princeton, NJ - A coalition of Maine groups working to defend marriage called StandforMarriage Maine (www.standformarriagemaine.com) announced today they will present over 100,000 signatures, close to twice the number of signatures necessary to put the marriage question before voters this November. One member of this coalition is the National Organization for Marriage, a group that has been involved in the marriage debate in states around the country.
"We congratulate Marc Mutty and the StandforMarriage Maine coalition on this success. To collect so many signatures in just a few short weeks is more evidence of what we find in New Hampshire, Iowa and other states: people are fired up to use the ‘people's veto’ to take back marriage!" said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
NOM has emerged as a major contributor to Maine effort, giving $160,000 to the StandforMarriage Maine Coalition. NOM was also the largest single donor to the Prop 8 effort in California.
"Maine has national implications in the marriage debate," notes Brown. "A win in November in Maine will be a huge boost for our movement, coming atop the big victories in California, Florida, and Arizona last November."
"Gay marriage advocates have tried to craft a story line that the ‘culture has shifted’ on gay marriage. A victory in Maine will prove they are wrong," notes NOM president Maggie Gallagher, "It will also make it clear to the Supreme Court that the majority of Americans care about fighting for our marriage tradition."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director, for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 16, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT SOTOMAYOR’S REFUSAL TO COMMENT ON GAY MARRIAGE
Will the Supreme Court Pick Impose Gay Marriage? NOM Reacts to Judge Sotomayor’s Testimony
(Washington, DC) - Maggie Gallagher, president of National Organization for Marriage (NOM) responded today to questions Judge Sonia Sotomayor faced from the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"Is gay marriage a fundamental right? When Sen. Graham, to his credit, raised the marriage issue, he did not ask Judge Sotomayor how she would vote,” stated Gallagher. “He asked her merely to explain her views on how the Supreme Court determines whether or not something is a "fundamental right." Her point blank refusal to answer a question that any first year law student could address, adds to growing concerns about her candor and honesty; Gay marriage advocates, the same people who declared over and over again that a federal marriage amendment was unnecessary, are now in federal court pressing for a declaration that gay marriage is a fundamental right whether we like it or not.”
“By refusing to answer basic questions about her views of the Constitution, Judge Sotomayor is not displaying the kind of integrity and honesty we expect from judges,” continued Gallagher. “All Americans who support marriage as the union of husband and wife--and every American who treasures democracy and freedom--has reason to be concerned. We are grateful to Sen. Graham, Sen. Cornyn, and Sen. Grassley for raising this important issue."
NOM’s mission is protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. It is the only single-issue grassroots activist organization that is working to protect marriage in New York, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Iowa, in addition to other states. To learn more about NOM, visit www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 14, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE: “OPEN FOR BUSINESS IN OUR NATION’S CAPITAL”
(Washington, DC) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) opened its Washington, D.C. office this week continuing its national defense of the institution of marriage.
“The National Organization for Marriage has emerged as the nation’s only major national grassroots organization dedicated to protecting marriage,” notes Maggie Gallagher, president and founder of NOM.
One of NOM’s chief aims in Washington is to stop any attempt to repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that may come through the courts or lobbying of Congress.
“When the battle was to get a marriage amendment on the ballot in California, NOM was there to help. When Tim Gill and his friends decided to push gay marriage bills through legislatures blue states in the northeast, NOM lead the fight, helping to stop gay marriage in New York, working to overturn gay marriage in Maine, and helping win substantive religious liberty protections in Vermont and Connecticut,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director, “Now gay marriage advocates are pushing Obama for the penultimate prize: repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the only national law that protects marriage. We felt NOM needed to be here in D.C. to make the voice of the majority heard.”
“Three recent polls confirm that a strong majority of Americans continue to oppose gay marriage, despite the recent push for gay marriage in Iowa and the northeast. Strong majorities of Republicans and independents oppose gay marriage according to the latest Pew poll,” notes Gallagher. “Even 41 percent of Democrats oppose gay marriage. Our challenge—and it’s an exciting one—is to build an organization that helps translate public opinion into an effective political force, one that help the views of ordinary Americans get heard here on Capitol Hill and across the country.”
NOM’s mission is protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. It is the only single-issue grassroots activist organization that is working to protect marriage in New York, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Iowa, in addition to other states. To learn more about NOM, visit www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 24, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE REACTS TO GOV. PATERSON’S FAILED SNEAK ATTACK ON MARRIAGE
(Albany, NY) - Today, Governor David A. Paterson tried and failed to force a vote on gay marriage in a special session he called allegedly to deal with necessary emergency legislation.
“This is a failed political stunt from a very weak man,” said Brian Brown, executive director for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). In the middle of a constitutional crisis, with a collapsing economy, budget craters opening up, unemployment soaring, New York City schools on the line, Gov. Paterson declares that the absence of same-sex marriage is his number one priority? No wonder 61 percent of New Yorkers disapprove of Gov. Paterson’s performance.
Control of the closely divided state senate was thrown into crisis earlier this month when two Democratic state senators, Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate, switched sides to vote with the GOP for Senate majority leader. Monserrate later switched sides again, leaving the Senate with a 31-31 tie, and an ongoing crisis in which both the GOP and the Democrats claimed majority control.
Republicans refused to respond to Gov. Paterson’s attempt to convene a special session. Meanwhile Democrats adjourned after ten minutes, without voting on the gay marriage bill.
“This is not the first time Gov. Paterson has disappointed his base while simultaneously attempting to sneak this issue past voters,” notes Brown. He pointed to a June 29th New York magazine story that reported gay marriage advocates had originally planned to pass gay marriage this session without any advance warning, to minimize public outcry, and that Paterson destroyed their stealth strategy by announcing he would publicly push for gay marriage.
At a news conference this Sunday Gov. Paterson ignited a furor when he failed to include gay marriage on a list of bills for the special session. By Sunday evening Gov. Paterson clarified that he had always meant to force a vote on gay marriage in the special session but thought it better not to inflame the public by saying so.
“It’s quite an amazing performance,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, “I’ve never seen a politician say out loud that he concealed his true intentions in order to engage in a stealth attack to pander to his bases’ priorities and then abandon stealth when the base complained. Not only is he deceptive, but worse he’s bumbling.”
The National Organization for Marriage has run a $600,000 media and voter outreach campaign over the last six weeks, when Gov. Paterson announced he would push for same-sex marriage this session, generating thousands of phone calls in 25 senate districts. This week NOM also announced the formation of NOM NY Marriage PAC and pledged to devote the first $500,000 raised to primarying any GOP state senator who voted for same-sex marriage.
“The response to our announcement we are forming a PAC has been amazing,” said Brown. “We raised $10,000 in the first day alone.”
In the interview Sunday night, Mr. Paterson said he had wanted not wanted to reveal how he would proceed on same-sex marriage so as not to further inflame tensions on the issue. The matter could also complicate delicate negotiations under way on a power-sharing agreement to get the Senate functioning again. . . .The governor said Sunday night that he was dismayed by the outcry from gay rights advocates and decided he needed to clarify his intentions.
“I don’t want to do anything to jeopardize it,” he said of the legislation. “But I think, because of the activity that went on today, I am forced to reveal my true intentions, even though the advocates knew them already.”
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM, please contact Elizabeth Ray ext. 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Mary Beth Hutchins ext. 105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 16, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or
Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE ANNOUNCES NOM PAC NEW YORK:
"The first $500,000 raised will be used to fund a primary challenger to any GOP state senator in New York who votes for gay marriage."
Brian Brown, NOM Executive Director
(Albany, NY) - On the heels of the chaos in Albany which has thrown the future of marriage into doubt, the National Organization for Marriage (http://www.nationformarriage.org/) announced today the formation of a state political action committee, NOM PAC New York, which will allow NOM to engage in New York state legislative races.
"Gay marriage is not high on the list of any voters' priorities, but again and again we've seen politicians respond to political money thrown around by Tim Gill and his friends and ignore the wishes of their own constituents," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "We're forming NOM PAC New York as a vehicle for swelling the voices of the thousands of New Yorkers who have called up their legislators and told them: Don't mess with marriage in New York."
In the last month, as the news broke that the state senate might soon be voting for gay marriage, NOM entered the state battle with a $600,000 media and voter outreach campaign working in 25 state senate districts.
"We are now in direct contact with thousands of New Yorkers in every senate district who care about the marriage issue," said Brown, "and they have a warning for Albany: Vote our values or we'll find someone who else who will."
Brown announced an initial target goal of $500,000 to fund primary challenges for any Republican state senator who votes for gay marriage.
"The first half million dollars will be used in GOP primaries," noted Brown, "but we are also looking to aid Democratic candidates who want to buck the establishment on the marriage issue, and to help in general election contests."
Since its inception in July 2007, the NOM has raised more than $6 million in its efforts to defend marriage, including $1.8 million for the Prop 8 battle in California through its NOM California branch.
To speak with Brian Brown, contact Elizabeth Ray ext. 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Mary Beth Hutchins ext. 105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
JUNE 10, 2009
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RESPONDS TO THE FIRING OF MISS CALIFORNIA USA CARRIE PREJEAN:
(Princeton, NJ) - Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued the following statement in response to the firing Miss California USA Carrie Prejean:
"Hollywood hates Carrie. First they abuse her, then they try to get her to recant, then they threw mud, and now they are doing what they wanted to do from day one: Get rid of Carrie.
This cover story about a contract dispute doesn’t pass the smell test. Americans aren’t fooled that easily. God knows, and we know, the truth about Carrie: She’s a young woman of great beauty who chose truth over the glittering tiara that Hollywood offers," said Brian Brown, Executive Director for NOM. "Of course they will try to punish her, but we know she will be fine in the end, because her values are in the right place."
"Hollywood will dance its tribal war dance over her body--the hatred generated against her has been extraordinary--but Carrie will be free to define her own mission and message from now on. Congratulations," stated Maggie Gallagher, President for NOM.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JUNE 8, 2009
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, ext. 130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, ext. 105, at 703-683-5004
*MEDIA ADVISORY*
STAND 4 MARRIAGE AT THE CAPITOL!
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE PRESIDENT MAGGIE GALLAGHER TO ADDRESS MARRIAGE RALLY IN ALBANY, NEW YORK
(Princeton, NJ) – Gay marriage advocates are urging the Senate to push through a marriage bill that will redefine marriage in New York. Today, National Organization for Marriage (NOM) President Maggie Gallagher will be among the speakers at the New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms (NYCF) rally. Let's all come out, joining the NYCF in making a positive -- and fun -- stand for marriage! Bring the whole family, and don't forget the signs and banners!
Following the rally, NYCF guides will lead attendees through the Capitol building, followed by a press conference and small prayer rallies at each corner of the Capitol.
WHAT: Stand 4 Marriage at the Capitol!
WHEN: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 10:30 AM - 12:30 PM ET
WHERE: New York State Capitol, East Steps, Albany, New York
SPEAKERS: Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage; Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council; Rev. Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx); Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., High Impact Leadership Coalition; and Michael Long, Chairman, State Conservative Party.
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, President, The National Organization for Marriage, contact Elizabeth Ray, x. 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins, x. 105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com at 703-683-5004.
###
For Immediate Release: JUNE 3, 2009
For more information contact: Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com
or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com
(703) 683-5004
NOM Condemns the Passage of Same-Sex Marriage in New Hampshire -
Group Pledges to Make Gay Marriage Key Issue in 2010 State Election
(Concord, NH) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the New Hampshire Legislature and Governor John Lynch for breaking their promises to voters by passing same-sex marriage legislation in the state. NOM pledged to make gay marriage a key issue in the 2010 elections in New Hampshire.
"Governor Lynch and a narrow majority of the Legislature today have ripped a significant hole in the fabric of New Hampshire society by passing same-sex marriage legislation," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "The institution of marriage has served our country well since its founding. The vote of the legislature sends New Hampshire into dangerous waters. It will not be long before young children are taught in New Hampshire schools that they can marry someone of the same sex if they wish – that gay marriage is just as good as marriage."
New Hampshire does not allow voters to decide controversial issues via a referendum or initiative, so the action of the legislature and governor cannot be overturned directly by voters.
"Thirty states in the country have voted on the marriage issue, and all thirty have decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman," Brown said. "It is unfortunate that New Hampshire voters are being denied the right to decide this question themselves. We have no doubt that if voters could decide, they would vote to overturn gay marriage and restore the historic definition of marriage."
While no binding statewide referendum is possible in New Hampshire, voters can cast ballots on nonbinding local referenda. "We intend to put this issue on the ballot on municipal elections across the state of New Hampshire," Brown promised. "We want people to be able to express their views directly, even if it is nonbinding. We also intend to make the gay marriage issue the key issue of the 2010 state elections in New Hampshire. Legislators must be held accountable for their votes. And if Governor Lynch decides to seek another term, you can be certain that he will have to answer to voters over why he broke his word on this issue, despite repeated promises over the years that he did not support gay marriage."
"Overall, this is a sad day for families and a sorry performance by the elected leadership of New Hampshire," Brown said.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
DR. JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE JOINS THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE’S NEXT GENERATION PROJECT:
Princeton, NJ – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announces that effective this month, The Ruth Institute, founded by San Diego author Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, will be moving under the auspices of the National Organization for Marriage.
“Working with NOM, we plan to expand our outreach to next generation leaders,” said Dr. Morse. “Making a happy marriage begins with the decisions students make now about what they believe and how they express it.”
The Ruth Institute will remain as an affiliated center under the umbrella of the National Organization for Marriage. For more information on The Ruth Institute see www.ruthinstitute.org.
“NOM’s mission is protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. The Ruth Institute’s mission is transmitting a healthy culture of marriage and family to the next generation of leaders. It’s a great fit,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “We aren’t giving up on the next generation when it comes to marriage, and we’re happy that Dr. Morse is going to help us win this fight.”
"Dr. Morse is one of the most effective spokespeople on gay marriage, which is one reason why the Prop 8 campaign reached out and made her one of their spokespeople,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “We’re honored she’ll be doing public education and outreach for the Ruth Institute under our auspices.”
Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester in 1980 and spent a postdoctoral year at the University of Chicago during 1979-80.
Taught economics at Yale University and George Mason University for 15 years.
John M. Olin visiting scholar at the Cornell Law School in fall 1993.
Left full-time university teaching in 1996 to care for her family, an adopted Romanian orphan, and a birth daughter.
Dr. Morse and her husband were foster parents for San Diego County from 2003-2005, caring for a total of 8 children during that time.
Part-time Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1997-2005.
Two books, Love and Economics, and Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World.
Campaign Spokesman for the “Yes on 8” Protect Marriage campaign in 2008.
About the Ruth Institute:
Promotes lifelong married love for the young, by creating an intellectual and social climate favorable to marriage.
Targets young adults, as well as those who work with them and influence them.
Non-profit public benefit corporation located in the state of California.
Grew out of the marriage advocacy work of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.
Ruth Institute’s Student Programs:
Conferences for students and young adults, with a combination of academic and practical information.
Speakers’ bureau, providing lectures and debates for college student organizations.
Provide support to allied organizations such as Students for Life, Veritas Forum, Campus Crusade for Christ, Newman Centers, Singles for Christ, Hillel, Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus and LDS students associations.
Maintain an active blog, podcasting and Facebook presence. (Ruth Youth Facebook group).
About the National Organization for Marriage:
NOM’s mission is protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. NOM is the only single-issue grassroots activist organization that is working to protect marriage in New York, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Iowa and at the national level in the fight to sustain DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. NOM’s $1.5 million ad campaign has garnered national attention. For more information see www.nationformarriage.org
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105 at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE ANNOUNCES MAJOR NEW YORK CAMPAIGN: GAY MARRIAGE HAS CONSEQUENCES
(Princeton, NJ) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announces a powerful new move into the New York same-sex marriage debate, combining robocalls to over 1.4 million New York households in 25 state senate districts, with a new television and radio ad campaign: “New York Same-Sex Marriage Has Consequences.”
NOM also announced that NOM-NY ads are running on New York’s Times Square electric marquee.
“We are already flooding legislators’ offices with phone calls from worried constituents in swing senate districts,” notes Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “As New Yorkers are made aware of the consequences of gay marriage, voters are making it clear they reject injecting this divisive culture war issue into New York politics at this time.”
“Marriage really matters because children need a mom and dad,” said NOM president Maggie Gallagher. “New Yorkers do not want government redefining marriage for our children or grandchildren; we do not want public schools teaching first graders that gay marriage is okay, that’s a decision that should be left to parents and our values.”
NOM’s initial $100,000 television and radio ad buy includes cable television buys in Long Island, Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Poughkeepsie, Watertown, and Newburgh-Middletown. The initial ad buy ad is set to run May 28 through May 31.
The National Organization for Marriage, a conservative Christian group that has fought efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in California and in the Northeast, has set its sights on New York with its latest media campaign.
Beginning Thursday in the New York City and Albany markets, the organization will run a 30-second television commercial that warns of unanticipated social consequences if the state allows gay couples to marry.
Echoing a theme that was used in turning public opinion against same-sex marriage in California in a vote last fall, the commercial suggests that children will be taught about homosexuality in schools.
“And it’s not just kids who face consequences,” the narrator says over foreboding music. “The rights of people who believe marriage means a man and a woman will no longer matter. We’ll have to accept gay marriage whether we like it or not.”
The commercial closes with a shot of the Capitol as the number for the State Senate switchboard flashes on the screen. The Senate must act in the next four weeks if it is to pass a same-sex marriage bill before the Legislature adjourns. The Assembly passed the bill this month, and Gov. David A. Paterson has pledged to sign it.
The National Organization for Marriage said its initial ad spending, which includes the television commercial and a radio spot, was just over $100,000. That campaign will run through Sunday.
The group said it hopes the commercial, which is intended to raise doubts about an argument made by advocates for same-sex marriage — that allowing gay couples to marry is simply a matter of fairness and equality — will give opponents a louder voice in a debate that has been dominated by the other side.
“We need to combat the relative vacuum on our side,” Maggie Gallagher, the founder of the National Organization for Marriage, said in an interview on Wednesday. “This message is that gay marriage will have consequences. And if you oppose gay marriage, pick up the phone, write a letter, drop an e-mail, send us some money.”
Ms. Gallagher added: “Their most powerful argument is, ‘This won’t matter to you, so you can drop your opposition.’ ”
The campaign, which is part of a broader effort that includes automated phone calls in more than two dozen Senate districts and a billboard in Times Square, comes two days after the California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.
Advocates for same-sex marriage in New York, who have been laying groundwork for the bill for several years through grass-roots activity — like recruiting supporters who are now reaching out to senators — have spent at least $200,000 on television ads in the last few weeks. A commercial running in the Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse markets features a husband and wife who say it is unfair that their lesbian daughter cannot get married while their straight one can.
Already, the National Organization for Marriage commercial has stirred controversy. WPIX-TV in New York has refused to run the ad, the group said. Officials at the station and the Tribune Company, which owns WPIX, did not respond to requests for comment. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2009
For more information, contact: Elizabeth Ray, x130, or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at (703) 683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE REACTS TO CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISION UPHOLDING PROP 8
"The 7 million Californians who worked hard to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife are breathing easier today.”
- Brian Brown, executive director, NOM
Princeton, NJ – The National Organization for Marriage responds today to the California Supreme Court decision to uphold the November, 2008 vote to pass Proposition 8, adding an amendment to the California constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"We're grateful this court did not overturn the civil rights of all Californians to amend our own constitution," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "The 7 million Californians who worked hard to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife are breathing easier today."
"Marriage is worth protecting because it is the way we teach the next generation: children need mothers and fathers," said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. "This victory for Prop 8 is a victory for children, for civil rights, and for the common good."
Through its California affiliate, the National Organization for Marriage emerged as the single largest donor to Prop 8 in California. The National Organization for Marriage’s mission is "protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." NOM is actively working to protect marriage in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, as well as California.
Its "Two Million Activists for Marriage" campaign, and the first two ads in the $1.5 million national media campaign to promote it, has drawn national attention. See www.nationformarriage.org for more information.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, NOM, or Brian Brown, Executive Director, NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (ext. 105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, or Elizabeth Ray (ext. 130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, at (703)-683-5004.
###
For Immediate Release: May 21, 2009
For more information contact:
Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com
or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com (703) 683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE APPLAUDS NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSE FOR REJECTING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL
(Princeton, NJ) - Today, Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), released the following statement applauding New Hampshire’s House for rejecting same-sex marriage legislation:
"NOM commends the New Hampshire House for rejecting same-sex marriage legislation on Wednesday. It was disappointing that Governor Lynch broke his promise to New Hampshire voters and indicated he would sign the same-sex marriage bill. We applaud the New Hampshire House for standing for principal and rejecting this attempt to redefine marriage. If New Hampshire is to one day legalize same-sex marriage it should only be done by a vote of the people. The people should decide this question. We are pleased that the New Hampshire House stood for principle and rejected this bill."
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
May 17, 2009
The 2009 NOM Massachusetts Marriage Survey
FIVE YEARS AFTER GOODRIDGE:
GAY MARRIAGE DIVIDES MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS
A substantial minority of voters express fears that openly opposing gay marriage carries risks in Massachusetts
By Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage
Has Opposition to Gay Marriage in Massachusetts Subsided?
Five years after same-sex couples first began to enter legal marriages in Massachusetts, a new poll indicates that Massachusetts voters remain sharply divided about gay marriage. When asked, “Do you personally favor or oppose same-sex marriage generally?” 43 percent of Massachusetts voters favor same-sex marriage and 44 percent oppose same-sex marriage, with an additional 14 percent saying they don’t know or choosing not to respond.
The telephone survey of 306 people taken March 30-31, 2009 is representative of voters in Massachusetts and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 5.7 percent.
Massachusetts voters were also divided over the question of whether opponents of gay marriage should be free to act on the view that same-sex unions are not marriages. A majority (50 percent) agreed with the statement, “People should be free to practice their belief, even if it means they will not treat same-sex couples the same as other married couples.” Thirty-nine percent disagreed and 11 percent didn’t know or gave no response.
When asked whether opposition to gay marriage was discrimination, similar to interracial marriage, 45 percent agreed and 48 percent disagreed.
Do Children Need a Mom and Dad? Majority Say Yes, but Support Drops Massachusetts voters were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by their married mother and father.” Seventy-six percent of voters agreed (66 percent strongly); 21 percent disagreed (13 percent strongly).
A similar question was asked in a 2004 poll of Massachusetts residents (not voters) shortly after the Goodridge court ruling: “All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised in a household that has a married mother and father.” In 2004, 84 percent of Massachusetts residents agreed (37 percent strongly) and 16 percent disagreed (2 percent strongly). [Norval Glenn, 2004. With This Ring: A Survey on Marriage in Massachusetts. Available at www.fatherhood.org].
Thus, in the five years since gay marriage became a reality in Massachusetts, support for the idea that the ideal is a married mother and father dropped from 84 percent to 76 percent. Interestingly, opinion on the question also became more sharply polarized: the proportion who strongly agreed that a married mom and dad is best jumped from 37 percent to 66 percent; the proportion who disagreed strongly, however, also increased sixfold, from 2 percent in 2004 to 14 percent in 2009.
Fears of Retaliation Reported by Supporters of Traditional Marriage The NOM/MFI poll is also the first poll in the nation to attempt to measure the extent to which ordinary citizens feel free to oppose gay marriage in a state where gay marriage has been declared a constitutional right and is the law of the land.
A surprisingly substantial minority of voters expressed fears that open opposition to gay marriage might result in retaliation or harassment of some kind.
For example:
• Thirty-six percent of all Massachusetts voters agreed with the statement, “Some people I know personally would be reluctant to admit they oppose gay marriage because they would worry about the consequences for them or their children.” (Twenty-four percent agreed strongly.)
Among voters who oppose gay marriage:
• Thirty-six percent of voters who oppose gay marriage agreed with the statement, “If you speak out against gay marriage in Massachusetts you really have to watch your back because some people may try to hurt you.” (Twenty-six percent agreed strongly.)
• Fifteen percent of voters who oppose gay marriage say they personally know someone who experienced harassment or intimidation because of their belief that marriage means a man and a woman.
While the majority of Massachusetts voters reject the idea that gay marriage opponents should stay silent, a surprising number expressed open support for (presumably moral) intimidation of those who oppose gay marriage. When asked to what extent they agree with the statement, “People who think marriage is only between a man and a woman SHOULD feel intimidated, because they are engaging in discrimination and no one should feel free to be for discrimination,” almost one in five voters strongly agreed, and an additional 8 percent agreed, but not strongly.
The NOM/MFI Massachusetts Marriage Poll thus documents a fairly significant level of apprehension among voters who oppose gay marriage about the consequences of speaking openly or acting on their belief that marriage means a husband and wife. Of course we cannot say based on this polling data whether and to what extent the fears of Massachusetts voters expressed here are realistic. What we can say with some confidence is that five years after the first same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts, a substantial minority of people believe it is risky to oppose gay marriage openly.
About the NOM Massachusetts Marriage Poll These are the results of a telephone survey of registered voters in Massachusetts, commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute and conducted by QEV Analytics (www.QEV.com). The obtained sample is representative of this population. A pool of individual registrants was randomly selected from among all registered voters in the Commonwealth. Interviewing was conducted during the period March 30-31, 2009. The obtained sample was weighted by race to match the known characteristics of the surveyed population. In total, 306 respondents participated in the survey, resulting in a theoretical margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.7 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
About the National Organization for Marriage The National Organization for Marriage is a grassroots activist organization whose mission is “protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.” (www.nationformarriage.org).
About the Massachusetts Family Institute MFI is a non-partisan public policy organization dedicated to strengthening families in Massachusetts. (www.mafamily.org).
###
THE NOM MASSACHUSETTS MARRIAGE SURVEY SCRIPT AND TOPLINE RESULTS
Hello, this is (interviewer name), and I'm calling from the Massachusetts Survey Research Center. We’re calling to learn your opinions regarding some important issues of the day. This is not a sales call; we won’t ask you to buy or do anything, and we are not calling on behalf of a candidate or political party. Your number was selected at random, and I am calling because we value your opinions on some issues facing Massachusetts today. My questions should take less than 5 minutes.
1. I am looking today to speak with people who are registered to vote in Massachusetts. Are you currently registered to vote in Massachusetts?
100% YES (CONTINUE)
0% NO (THANK AND TERMINATE)
2. Overall, would you say things in Massachusetts are generally headed in the right direction, or have things here pretty much gotten off on the wrong track?
24% RIGHT DIRECTION
67% OFF ON WRONG TRACK
9% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
3. How would you rate specifically the economic health of Massachusetts today: is it very good, fairly good, fairly poor, or very poor?
4% VERY GOOD
28% FAIRLY GOOD
43% FAIRLY POOR
24% VERY POOR
2% DON’T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Governor Deval [duh-VALL] Patrick is doing as Governor of Massachusetts? Do you feel that way strongly or not strongly?
14% APPROVE STRONGLY
23% APPROVE, NOT STRONGLY
16% DISAPPROVE, NOT STRONGLY
36% DISAPPROVE STRONGLY
10% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
Next, I would like to read to you some statements that other people have made or that have been in the news recently, and ask you whether you agree or disagree with each statement.
5. Here’s the first statement: “People who believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman are engaging in discrimination, just like those who opposed interracial marriage.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Do you feel that way strongly or not strongly?
39% AGREE STRONGLY
6% AGREE, NOT STRONGLY
10% DISAGREE, NOT STRONGLY
38% DISAGREE STRONGLY
6% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
44% AGREE; 48% DISAGREE
6. Here’s the next statement: “People should be free to practice their beliefs, even if it means they will not treat same-sex couples the same as other married couples.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Do you feel that way strongly or not strongly?
35% AGREE STRONGLY
15% AGREE, NOT STRONGLY
13% DISAGREE, NOT STRONGLY
26% DISAGREE STRONGLY
11% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
50% AGREE; 39% DISAGREE
7. Here’s the next statement: “People who think marriage is only between a man and a woman SHOULD feel intimidated, because they are engaging in discrimination, and no one should feel free to be for discrimination.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Do you feel that way strongly or not strongly?
19% AGREE STRONGLY
8% AGREE, NOT STRONGLY
17% DISAGREE, NOT STRONGLY
41% DISAGREE STRONGLY
14% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
27% AGREE; 58% DISAGREE
8. And here’s the next statement: “Some people I know personally would be reluctant to admit they oppose gay marriage because they would worry about the consequences for them or their children.”
24% AGREE STRONGLY
12% AGREE, NOT STRONGLY
14% DISAGREE, NOT STRONGLY
37% DISAGREE STRONGLY
13% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
36% AGREE; 51% DISAGREE
9. Do you personally favor or oppose same-sex marriage generally?
43% FAVOR
44% OPPOSE
14% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
10. [ASKED ONLY THOSE OPPOSED] Here is another statement others have made. Again, I would like to get your opinion: “If you speak out against gay marriage in Massachusetts, you really have to watch your back because some people may try to hurt you.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Do you feel that way strongly or not strongly?
26% AGREE STRONGLY
10% AGREE, NOT STRONGLY
17% DISAGREE, NOT STRONGLY
41% DISAGREE STRONGLY
7% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
57% NOT ASKED
36% AGREE; 58% DISAGREE
11. [ASKED ONLY THOSE OPPOSED] Do you personally know someone – a friend, a neighbor, someone at work, someone you see from time to time – who feels they were harassed, or intimidated on account of their belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
15% YES
79% NO
6% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
57% NOT ASKED
12. [ALL] Let’s talk about public schools. Do you think that the public schools in your area teach children about same-sex marriage, that men can marry other men and women marry other women, or do the schools not teach children about same-sex marriage?
15% TEACH ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
47% DO NOT TEACH ABOUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE
38% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
13. Here’s one more statement: “All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by their married mother and a father?” Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Do you feel that way strongly or not strongly?
66% AGREE STRONGLY
10% AGREE, NOT STRONGLY
8% DISAGREE, NOT STRONGLY
13% DISAGREE STRONGLY
3% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
76% AGREE; 21% DISAGREE
I have just a few more questions to ask you for statistical purposes …
14. Gender [BY OBSERVATION, DO NOT READ UNLESS UNCERTAIN]
49% MALE
51% FEMALE
0% NO RESPONSE
15. Are you currently married or are you single? [IF SINGLE] Have you ever been married?
67% MARRIED
21% SINGLE, PREVIOUSLY MARRIED
11% SINGLE, NOT PREVIOUSLY MARRIED
2% NO RESPONSE
16. Do you have any children? [IF YES] Are any of your children under 18 years of age?
18% NO CHILDREN
56% HAVE CHILDREN, NONE UNDER 18
25% HAVE CHILDREN, ONE OR MORE UNDER 18
1% NO RESPONSE
17. [IF CHILDREN UNDER 18] Are any of your children currently attending a public school in Massachusetts?
69% YES
31% NO
0% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
75% NOT ASKED
18. [IF NO CHILDREN UNDER 18] Do you have any grandchildren who currently attend a public school in Massachusetts?
49% YES
52% NO
0% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
44% NOT ASKED
19. Do you consider yourself to be a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent? [IF DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN] Do you consider yourself to be a strong [DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN] or not?
23. What do you consider to be your main racial or ethnic heritage: African-American and not Hispanic, White and not Hispanic, Hispanic, Asian-American, or other?
That's the last of my questions. Thank you very much for your time and participation.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
MAY 15, 2009
Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), at 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage Criticizes Governor Lynch for Breaking His Word to Voters - Calls on Legislature to Reject Same-Sex Marriage Bill
(Princeton, NJ) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) expressed dismay that Governor John Lynch has signaled his intention to break his often-stated word to voters that he opposes gay marriage, and said Lynch’s proposed religious liberty language is an attempt to make a bad idea feel better. Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM, stated the following:
“Governor John Lynch has repeatedly promised voters that he opposes same-sex marriage. When he signed the civil union legislation into law, he told people, ‘I still think marriage is between a man and a woman.’ Voters believed him, but now he claims that he must look at the issue through a broader ‘lens’ than being a man of his word. This so-called lens is really just weasel words to explain away why he is breaking his word to voters. It is really unfortunate that he is proving himself to be just another politician who cannot keep his promises. Unfortunately, New Hampshire children and families will pay the price for this betrayal.
“We hope that the New Hampshire legislature will not approve same-sex marriage, even with Governor Lynch’s proposed language to provide some protections to religious groups. The fact is that legalized gay marriage is a bad idea that has profound implications for society that go way beyond religious liberty concerns. Governor Lynch’s language does nothing to protect New Hampshire children from being taught in school that gay marriage is just the same as marriage. That is exactly what happened over the state line in Massachusetts. His language does nothing to stop schools from taking young children to celebrate a lesbian wedding, as happened in California. His language does nothing to protect photographers and other professionals from being fined because they refuse to participate in something they morally oppose, as happened in New Mexico. Nor does it protect medical professionals who object to procedures like artificial insemination of a lesbian couple.
“The people of New Hampshire should have the opportunity to decide the future of marriage for themselves. The legislature should let the people vote directly on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Thirty other states have allowed their voters to decide this issue. Governor Lynch and the legislature should not disenfranchise the citizens of New Hampshire. Let them decide this issue for themselves.”
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 12, 2009
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x.130) or
Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x.105)
at 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher Reacts to Donald Trump’s Conference with Carrie Prejean:
(Princeton, NJ) - “I’m so happy for Carrie. Thank you Donald Trump for doing the right thing by Carrie. The most striking moment for me in this press conference was the moment Mr. Trump announced that Carrie would retain her title and there was a little burst of applause from the photographers. ‘The paparazzi are clapping,’ he said, ‘I’ve never seen that happen before. When the paparazzi are applauding you know it’s a popular decision.’
When I first went on TV to defend Carrie, very few voices were doing so. Now she has the whole Trump organization defending her. So to those who are asking, I want to announce: I will not be doing any major TV appearances over the next few days, because this is Carrie’s moment and she and her people should decide who speaks on her behalf today and from now on. I’m very proud of her and look forward to cheering from the sidelines about all the important things she will accomplish and all the people she will inspire to speak truth to power.
To the many major television producers who have asked me to appear today, let me say this: If by next week you are still interested in putting me on TV to ask about my, and the National Organization for Marriage’s, role in this cultural moment, I will be happy to be back on the air debating my critics, and the critics of those who support marriage.
Take care and congratulations to Carrie."
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), at 703-683-5004
MAY 6, 2009
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE ANNOUNCES NEW AD CAMPAIGN: "GOV. LYNCH, KEEP YOUR PROMISES"
Brian Brown: "The people of New Hampshire are not clamoring for same-sex marriage. This is a divisive and polarizing effort driven by the need to play to the Democrats’ donor base, not the will of the people."
(Princeton, NJ) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is launching a new ad, "Gov. Lynch, Keep Your Promises," asking Gov. John Lynch, who has repeatedly told New Hampshire voters he opposes same-sex marriage, to keep his word and veto the same-sex marriage bill.
"The people of New Hampshire are not clamoring for same-sex marriage. This is a divisive and polarizing effort driven by the need to play to the Democrats’ donor base, not the will of the people," stated Brian Brown, executive director for NOM. "How much of a role did out-of-state money, and national pressure play in getting New Hampshire politicians to ignore the voters? It's a legitimate question people are asking," said Brown.
To view the ad, go to: www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director for the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), at 703-683-5004
MAY 5, 2009
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE CONDEMNS PERSONAL ATTACKS ON CARRIE PREJEAN
Maggie Gallagher: “Because Carrie honestly said what she believed in answer to a question--marriage is the union of a man and a woman-- she is now the subject of ongoing character assassination. The level of hatred directed at her is astonishing. Even more astonishing is her personal courage and strength of character in the midst of these attacks.
(Princeton, NJ) - Today, Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, released the following statement regarding Carrie Prejean:
“Because Carrie honestly said what she believed in answer to a question--marriage is the union of a man and a woman-- she is now the subject of ongoing character assassination. The level of hatred directed at her is astonishing. Even more astonishing is her personal courage and strength of character in the midst of these attacks. Of course Carrie is not perfect. On a personal note, as a former unwed mother, I want to say to Americans: you don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage. Nothing gay marriage advocates can do can change the fact—we all saw it on national TV—that Carrie is a young woman who surrendered all the glitter Hollywood has to offer, because she would not become the kind of person afraid to say the truth.
"Through Carrie, we are also learning, the lengths some people will go to hurt and harass those who speak up for marriage.”
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, President, The National Organization for Marriage, contact Elizabeth Ray, x. 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins, x. 105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com at 703-683-5004.
##
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
MAY 1, 2009
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO ‘PEREZ HILTON’:
“NICE TRY, MARIO, BUT YOU SAID IT”
(Princeton, NJ) – Yesterday the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) began a $1.5 million advertising campaign showing gay celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton attacking Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean for saying that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Hilton, whose real name is Mario Lavanderia, issued a profane personal attack (“she’s a dumb b***h, okay”) which is featured in the ad.
Hilton, who plainly said what he is shown saying and posted it on the Internet for the world to see, today has asserted through an attorney that NOM must “cease and desist” airing the ad claiming that his comment is protected by copyright laws. NOM’s attorney immediately responded that use of the material is allowed under long established “fair use” rules for political and social commentary and the ad will not be changed. [NOM's formal response to Perez Hilton's attorney is available here.]
“Mario, aka Perez, not only wants to redefine marriage, he is giving new meaning to the word ‘chutzpah,’” said NOM Executive Director Brian Brown. “Here is a guy whose very public persona is an infringement on a celebrity and whose own website, a commercial enterprise, contains hundreds of images of celebrities now claims that his profane attack on a young contestant - which he himself posted on the Internet - is somehow protected under the law. Nice try, Mario, but you said it and we intend to keep it in our ad.”
NOM’s ad, “No Offense,” began airing yesterday in Washington, D.C. and states across the country. It can be viewed at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
MAY 1, 2009 Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins
(x105), at 703-683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE: STATEMENT ON CARRIE PREJEAN
(Princeton, NJ) - Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement today clarifying the role of Carrie Prejean at a press conference held Thursday in Washington, DC:
“A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.
As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.
We are grateful to Carrie Prejean for her willingness to stand up for marriage. We would love to work with Carrie in the future if she chooses, and we wish her well in all her future endeavors whatever she chooses. We're proud of her. Americans are proud of her. She is a remarkable young woman. Thank you, Carrie. "
To speak with Maggie Gallagher, President, The National Organization for Marriage, contact Elizabeth Ray, x. 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com or Mary Beth Hutchins, x. 105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com at 703-683-5004.
Carrie Prejean’s Statement at the National Organization for Marriage launch of "No Offense" April 30, 2009
Thank-you. It’s been a very strange week for me, as you can imagine. This was not exactly what I planned, or asked for or wanted. But nonetheless I am grateful.
I’m grateful for all the prayers and well-wishes I’ve received from all different kinds Americans who believe as I do that America is a place where people should stand up for our values, for what we think is right.
I’m grateful for the outpouring of support from the great majority of Americans who know in our hearts that Americans should treat each other with respect even when we disagree--especially when we disagree about important moral issues like marriage.
You probably know by now. I believe very strongly that marriage IS the union of a husband and wife. What’s more I believe with millions of other Americans: This vision of marriage is not hateful or discriminatory—it’s good.
Marriage is good. There IS something special about unions of husband and wives. Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers. I do not want to raise my own children in a world where this traditional view of marriage is considered hateful or discriminatory, especially not by my own government.
I am not affiliated with any organization; I'm speaking my own views. But I do appreciate the many people who stand in the front lines to fight for marriage, including the National Organization for Marriage. That’s why I agreed to appear today to support NOM's important message: Respect marriage. And the people who support it.
It’s not about me, it’s about the future of marriage. But I’m honored to do my part. Thank-you.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), at 703-683-5004
APRIL 30, 2009
National Organization for Marriage and Carrie Prejean Launch New Ad Showing Intolerance of Gay Marriage Activists, Illustrating Threats to Religious Liberty
(Washington, DC) – A new television ad featuring footage of Carrie Prejean explaining her support for marriage between a man and a woman, and then being verbally attacked by gay marriage activists was launched today by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). The ad – a continuation of NOM’s campaign in defense of marriage – also features footage of a gay marriage activist from the Human Rights Campaign referring to supporters of marriage as “outright bigots.”
“Carrie only said what the majority of Americans believe: marriage means a man and a woman,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “Her example resonates, especially to many young Americans, because she chose to stand for truth rather than surrender her core values."
Gallagher added, “The behavior of Carrie's critics raises a question in a lot of folks’ minds: if this is how they treat good people who disagree with them now, what will they do once they have the power of the law on their side?”
The new ad, called “No Offense,” follows an earlier NOM ad (“Gathering Storm”) that warned Americans that the push to legalize same-sex marriage has significant implications for religious liberty. In response to the earlier ad, a representative of the Human Rights Campaign appeared on Hardball to denounce NOM and supporters of marriage as “outright bigots” who are hanging onto the tradition of marriage through “lying and misrepresenting.” The HRC spokesman challenged the notion that same-sex marriage has any implications for religious liberty.
NOM’s new “No Offense” advances the religious liberty argument by informing Americans that a number of prominent legal scholars have warned that legalizing same-sex marriage in fact “will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflict” for individuals, small businesses and religious groups. At least one of these scholars supports same-sex marriage.
“Many backers of same-sex marriage simply do not want to debate the consequences on society of this profound proposed change to redefine marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “They want to browbeat and silence opposition. But no matter how loudly they yell, their attacks on supporters of marriage will fail because people of integrity will speak the truth -- whether they are in pulpits, law schools or even beauty pageants.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray, x130 or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at 703-683-5004
APRIL 30, 2009
THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RESPONDS TO
THE MISS CALIFORNIA USA PAGEANT’S CRITICISM OF CARRIE PREJEAN:
Maggie Gallagher: “Many people are revealing their core character and convictions in a very public way in this incident. Carrie Prejean is one who comes out shining. I'm proud of her. Americans are proud of her. God bless her."
(Princeton, NJ) – Today, Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage responded to the statement from the Miss California USA Pageant regarding Carrie Prejean’s decision to join NOM today as they launch a new ad defending marriage:
"The statement by the Miss California USA Pageant is another example of the disrespectful way the pageant has treated Carrie Prejean. Here's what happened: A judge chosen by pageant officials asks Carrie a hot button question, which she answers honestly; this judge then proudly videotapes himself cursing her out and saying he wants to: “Rip the tiara off her head.” And it’s Carrie's behavior that is unprecedented? Carrie Prejean does not have an opportunistic agenda. She's a young woman of courage who chose truth over the Miss USA tiara. Many people are revealing their core character and convictions in a very public way in this incident. Carrie Prejean is one who comes out shining. I'm proud of her. Americans are proud of her. God bless her."
The National Organization for Marriage is grateful to Carrie for her support for marriage and for the message of NOM's new "No Offense" ad: “We should respect marriage, and the people who stand up for it."
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.
###
Conlico and other churches in NYC will stand for traditional marriage at a Convocation in front of Gov. Patterson's NYC office
Sunday May 17th
(Gathering beginning at 1PM : 2PM START TIME)
583 3RD AVE (Bet. 40th& 41st ST.)
Permit has been issued.
Jason Mc Guire of NYFRF is confirmed & coming from Albany
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 23, 2009
For more information, contact: Elizabeth Ray, x. 130, or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at (703) 683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE CONGRATULATES THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT
ON THEIR VICTORY FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
(Princeton, NJ) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) applauds the Connecticut legislature which, in a surprise move today, adopted substantive religious liberty protections as part of what was expected to be a routine bill implementing the Connecticut court decision ordering same-sex marriage.
"We are just grateful that the Connecticut legislators acknowledged and addressed the serious potential implications of same-sex marriage for traditional faith communities," said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. "We hope this decision represents a change of heart among gay marriage advocates and a new willingness to accept broad conscience protections."
NOM launched its "Gathering Storm" ad campaign in Connecticut and neighboring states last week to help alert the people to the threat on religious liberty brought on by same sex marriage legislation. Robocall technology was also used to generate citizen outreach to elected officials regarding SB 899, a bill that followed a state Supreme Court decision granting same-sex marriages.
"Thousands of ordinary Connecticut voters called up legislators. We are pleased that our Gathering Storm ad campaign could help put this issue on the map even in a blue state like Connecticut," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (ext. 105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, or Elizabeth Ray (ext. 130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, at (703)-683-5004.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more information, contact: Elizabeth Ray, x. 130, or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at (703) 683-5004
April 22, 2009
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO CRITICS:
GAY MARRIAGE HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Brian Brown: “We pledge to protect marriage across this country and to fight to protect the rights of good people who live behind the curtain of judge-imposed, same-sex marriage to disagree with the government's views on marriage.”
(Princeton, NJ) – Critics of the “Gathering Storm” television ad campaign, which ran in Connecticut and other states last week, claimed that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has overreached in saying that gay marriage threatens the liberties of religious people. But two letters to Connecticut legislators by independent scholars about the need for religious liberty protection have just been released on the Mirror of Justice Blog that confirm the legal consequences of gay marriage are real.
These letters from renowned constitutional law scholars, some of whom support gay marriage, affirm the truth of the central message of NOM's ad campaign: Gay marriage has consequences.
In the first letter, four scholars writing to the Speaker of the House and others said:
“We write to provide you with an analysis of the effects of Raised Bill 899 on religious liberty. Those effects would be widespread and devastating. If Raised Bill 899 is passed in its current form—without religious-conscience protections—many religious organizations and individuals will be forced to engage in conduct that violates their deepest religious beliefs, and religious organizations would be limited in crucial aspects of their religious exercise.”
One of the nation's premier religious liberty scholars, Prof. Doug Laycock, wrote separately to make the same point:
"Dear Mr. Speaker:
I write to urge that Raised Bill 899, on same-sex marriage, be amended to provide robust and specific protections for religious liberty. . . . I heartily endorse the amendments proposed in the letter that Professors Thomas C. Berg, Carl H. Esbeck, Richard W. Garnett, and Robin Fretwell Wilson sent to you yesterday. I have not signed their letter, because I come to these issues from a rather different perspective, but their analysis of potential legal conflicts is accurate, and their proposed statutory language is necessary to legislation that is fair and just to all sides.”
Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, stated, “One of the reasons I have not been concerned about the parodies or the ridicule is that I know that NOM's basic message is based on truth: Gay marriage has consequences. Gay marriage will have a real impact on the rights of people who disagree with the government’s view of marriage. The only remaining question on the table is: Are these inadvertent, unintended consequences of gay marriage or is squelching disagreement by re-labeling dissenters as bigots the main point? What happens in Connecticut will give us an indication. We welcome the involvement of serious scholars on both sides of the marriage question on the religious liberty implications.”
NOM executive director Brian Brown said: “NOM intends to fight for all those Americans who believe that same-sex unions are just not marriages because marriage means a husband joined with a wife. We pledge to protect marriage across this country and to fight to protect the rights of good people who live behind the curtain of judge-imposed, same-sex marriage to disagree with the government's views on marriage.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 23, 2009
For more information, contact: Elizabeth Ray, x. 130, or Mary Beth Hutchins, x105 at (703) 683-5004
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE
WELCOMES ORSON SCOTT CARD TO ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(Princeton, NJ) – Orson Scott Card, a distinguished novelist, a professor of writing and literature at Southern Virginia University, and a columnist, recently joined the board of directors of the National Organization of Marriage (NOM).
"We’re extremely honored that Orson Scott Card has joined with NOM in our shared mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it," said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, "He is one of the great science fiction writers of our time and a real voice of courage and intellect on behalf of marriage."
NOM also expressed its appreciation to Matt Holland, one of the founding board members of NOM, who recently stepped down when he was appointed president of Utah Valley University.
"I regret that time constraints do not permit me to continue on the board," said Holland, "I'm appreciative of all that NOM does to protect marriage and religious liberty."
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (ext. 105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, or Elizabeth Ray (ext. 130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, at (703)-683-5004.
###
En entrevista: proyecto de ley para permitir los matrimonios homosexuales
The National Organization for Marriage today released the following statement regarding the April 16, 2009 parody of NOM's "Gathering Storm" ad on Comedy Central's Colbert Report.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 17, 2008
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), 703-683-5004
National Organization for Marriage
to Stephen Colbert:
“Thank You!”
(Princeton, NJ) - “I’ve always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I’m sure," said Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
“Thank you Stephen for playing our ad in full on national television—for free. HRC eat your heart out. Plus we all had a great chuckle, too!" said Brian Brown, NOM’s Executive Director. "Where can I make a donation to the National Organization for Colbert?"
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM, contact Elizabeth Ray (x 130, eray@crcpublicrelations.com) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com) by calling 703-683-5004.
###
In the face of last year's same-sex marriage ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court, advocates have put forward a bill to enshrine that ruling in the Connecticut Statutes. But the Lawlor-and-McDonald-controlled Judiciary Committee, that in March tried unsuccessfully to usurp control of internal church governance, pushed SB899 through the committee, rejecting every religious liberty amendment along the way!
Now NOM is teaming up with grassroots organizations in Connecticut to
protect the religious liberties of churches and people of faith, reaching out to people all across Connecticut with radio ads, phone calls and emails, urging them to contact their legislators in opposition to SB899.
The NOM Action Center makes it fast and easy for Connecticut residents to send an email to their state legislators. The most effective letters are personal notes -- so if you have time, please maximize the impact of your message by taking a minute or two to personalize our sample letter. Once you've sent your message urging your legislators to oppose SB899, don't forget to tell your family and friends about this urgent threat to religious liberty in Connecticut, and ask them to send a message of their own. Click here to send a message to your Connecticut legislators today!
April 14, 2009 -- On Thursday, New York Governor David Paterson is expected to announce plans to force the issue
on same-sex marriage in New York, introducing new legislation despite reservations
from some in his own party.
NOM has created a new Action Center for the New York marriage legislation, and is urging New York residents to contact their state senator and representative.
Now is the time to send a message to New York legislators: In the
midst of the biggest economic crisis in generations, now is not the
time to be messing with marriage. Get back to work!
Then ask your friends and neighbors to join you in standing for marriage in New York. Together we will create a massive army of grassroots marriage supporters all across the state!
NOM Appears on Hardball, Anderson Cooper, NPR and CBS Early Show
Over the past several days, NOM's Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown have made numerous appearances on national TV and radio. We've highlighted several of the appearances below.
MSNBC Hosts Debate on Gay Marriage -- Joe Solmonese vs. Maggie Gallagher
Hardball -- MSNBC
April 8, 2009
NOM Launches Nationwide "Two Million for Marriage" Initiative!
APRIL 8, 2009 -- In just a few minutes, NOM President Maggie Gallagher and I will hold a press conference in Trenton, NJ, announcing an ambitious new nationwide "2 Million for Marriage" initiative.
Over the next two years, we will be organizing two million marriage activists from every state in the nation to form an online army of marriage activists willing to stand up for marriage on a moment's notice, sending emails and making phone calls to legislators whenever marriage is threatened.
The initiative represents the most ambitious effort ever of its kind, using a combination traditional TV and radio advertising and direct mail, coupled with the internet technology and social networking tools that President Obama used so effectively in his presidential campaign. To assist with this ambitious new initiative, we've enlisted the expertise of Schubert Flint Public Affairs -- the same group that managed the Prop 8 Campaign in California last year.
"A Gathering Storm"
The centerpiece of the new initiative is a $1.5 million nationwide ad campaign launched today highlighting the threat that same-sex marriage poses to the core civil rights of all Americans who believe in marriage as the union of a husband and wife.
The ad begins airing today in selected markets all across the country, and I'm convinced it will be an important tool in helping to awaken Americans to some of the threats posed by same-sex marriage.
Here's the question I hear over and over again as I participate in debates and interviews on same-sex marriage: How does same-sex marriage hurt you?
And here are the answers of everyday Americans who have felt the impact of same-sex marriage:
"I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job."
"I'm part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can't support same-sex marriage."
"I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK."
Help make "2 Million for Marriage" a Reality! We're excited about our new marriage activist initiative, and the potential it has to bring together an unstoppable team of marriage activists who can really make a difference in marriage battles across the nation. But we can't do it alone.
Tell a friend. Perhaps the most important part of this effort is the word-of-mouth recommendation you give your friends and family. If each of us recruits 5 people to join our Marriage Activist Team, we'll be well on our way to our goal of 2 million activists by the end of 2010. Remind your friends that it doesn't cost them anything -- we're simply looking for people willing to be notified of the latest marriage threats, and then take 3-5 minutes in order to send an email to their elected officials.
Ask them to visit www.nationformarriage.org and enter their email address in the box to Sign Up for e-Alerts to join our Marriage Activist Team today!
Online Social Networking. For those of you who are already online with social networking tools such as Facebook, Myspace or Twitter -- use those networks to invite your friends to join our 2 Million for Marriage initiative. And if you haven't yet visited NOM's Facebook page, do it today to receive the latest NOM updates and alerts via Facebook.
Help support the "Gathering Storm" TV Ad Campaign. We're also working to raise funds needed to expand our initial TV ad buy into more time slots and additional markets. Each airing of the ad on cable TV costs about $1,000. Some of you may be in a position to sponsor an entire ad. Perhaps others can sponsor part of an ad -- or better yet, team up with friends or family to sponsor an ad together. Use this link to sponsor a "Gathering Storm" TV ad today!
Today is a brand new day for the future of marriage!
Tell the DC Council NO to Same-Sex Marriage!
The Washington DC City Council recently passed a measure recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Many observers expect a full same-sex marriage bill to be taken up later this year.
Please take a moment to send an email to the members of the DC City Council, reminding them that their constituents care about marriage, and urging them to let the people of the District have a voice through the initiative process.
Then make plans to join us for a Stand4Marriage rally on Tuesday, April 28th. The rally will be held from 10am to noon in Freedom Plaza across from the Wilson Building (1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW), as pastors and church members from across the District stand in solidarity for marriage. Click here for an event flyer (pdf).
NOM Responds to HRC Attack!
"HRC's record of truth and honesty about their intentions is not that
impressive. They once said marriage amendments weren't necessary because there
were no federal court cases. Now there is one."
"They called us liars when we
said public schools will teach about gay marriage if its the law--but they do in
Massachusetts. Serious religious liberty scholars from Eugene Volokh to Doug
Laycock to Robin Wilson acknowledge the central driving idea behind gay
marriage--there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and
supporters of marriage are engaging in discrimination if they think
differently--will have consequences for the freedoms of traditional faith
communities. To pretend otherwise is to be profoundly unserious--if not
deceptive--about what gay marriage means."
Maggie Gallagher
President, National Organization for Marriage
Sad Day for Vermont . . . and Our Nation
April 7, 2009
By only one vote, the Vermont House just voted to override Governor Douglas's veto, overturning the common sense definition of marriage shared by people of diverse faiths, backgrounds, nations, and political parties. Today is truly a sad day for Vermont and this nation.
But we take heart in knowing that this vote was not representative of what Vermonters understand marriage to be. We know that the Vermont Legislature did everything in its power to avoid allowing Vermonters to vote directly on the future of marriage.
In the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court decision and Vermont Legislature's action, the National Organization for Marriage will tomorrow launch a new national ad campaign that highlights how same-sex marriage undermines the core civil rights of those who believe in the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Today is indeed a sad day, but let all of us who understand that marriage is the union of a husband and wife redouble our commitment to ensuring that same-sex marriage does not spread throughout our nation, that religious liberty is protected, and ultimately that marriage is restored in these states as well for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
We have just three weeks in which to bring HJR 6 to the floor for a vote in the Iowa House. If we can get it to the floor, I am confident it will pass.
Unfortunately, the measure is being blocked by the House leadership, and will require a 2/3 majority to even bring it to the floor. Already, Iowa legislators are hearing from their constituents, and some are even canceling town hall meetings and other public events simply because they don't want to face voters angry about their unwillingness to stand for marriage.
Let's keep the pressure on!
We have identified a list of 33 Iowa House members whose support will be critical to our efforts to bring HJR 6 -- the Iowa Marriage Amendment -- to vote by the full House during the last two weeks of this year's legislative session.
These 33 legislators need to know how critical this issue is, not only to their own constituents, but also to the entire nation, as the Iowa decision will embolden and energize gay marriage activists all across the nation. The Court had it wrong -- "The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father" isn't "based more on stereotype than anything else." It's based in common sense, natural law, and the very essence of the way God designed the family structure. Marriage is about moms and dads -- raising their baby together.
But gay marriage activists are targeting these legislators, too. We have a short window of time to act before this year's session ends and need your help today.
Together we can send a message to the Iowa House of Representatives: Vote YES on HJR 6, and let the people vote to protect marriage!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 3, 2008
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), 703-683-5004
IOWA SUPREME COURT IMPOSES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage: “Injustice has been served today. The gay marriage movement has once again used the courts to push an untruth on unwilling Iowans: same-sex unions are not marriages and Iowans should not be forced to treat them as such.”
(Princeton, NJ) – The Iowa Supreme Court released its decision today upholding a lower court’s decision to overturn the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This landmark decision came three months after the court heard arguments from six same-sex couples who had attempted to file for marriage licenses.
“Injustice has been served today,” said Brian Brown, NOM. “The gay marriage movement has once again used the power of the courts to push an untruth on unwilling Iowans: same-sex unions are not marriages and Iowans should not be forced by law to treat them as such.”
“Unlike the people of California, the people of Iowa have no direct way to get this issue on the ballot so that they can take marriage back from the courts,” notes Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “Once again the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject. Marriage means a husband and wife. That’s not discrimination, that’s common sense.”
“Even in states like Vermont where they are pushing this issue through legislatures, gay marriage advocates are totally unwilling to let the people decide these issues directly,” agreed Brown. “They’ve just about run out of courts willing to radically redefine marriage. The next step for gay marriage advocates will be to use these new laws to push Congress to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and then use the federal courts to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.”
NOM is a national marriage organization that also assists state groups fighting marriage battles. Along with the California group Protect Marriage, NOM was widely credited with putting Prop 8 on the ballot for California voters and emerged as the largest single donor to the Prop 8 effort. NOM’s current media and robocalling campaigns “Don’t Mess with Marriage” and “Gay Marriage Has Consequences” have helped generate enormous grassroots resistance to gay marriage bills pushed in Vermont and New Hampshire.
Did you miss today’s show? If you did, it has been archived and is available at your convenience. It was our best show yet! Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage was our guest. Brian broke down the marriage battles in the Northeast and laid out a flawless argument in favor of traditional marriage. Brian also spoke about his experience inside the courtroom in San Fransisco as Prop. 8 was debated before the CA Supreme Court.
National group works the phones in Vermont against gay marriage
Barre Montpelier Times Argus - Barre,VT,USA
James Douglas against same-sex marriage. The calls are funded by the National Organization for Marriage, which has several offices throughout the country. ...
In a move similar to the out-of-state efforts of the Mormon Church supporting California’s Proposition 8, the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage contacted Vermont residents yesterday, asking them to call their ...
###
Legalizing gay marriage has consequences for our kids -- and if we don't act now, we'll all have to accept gay marriage "whether we like it or not."
That's the theme of a hard-hitting new radio ad that we're launching today as part of our 2009 Northeast Action Plan, and I wanted you to be one of the first to know about it. We're excited about the ad -- our strongest and most hard-hitting ad yet -- and I think you will be, too.
Produced by Schubert Flint Public Affairs -- the same group that successfully managed the Prop 8 campaign last year in California -- the new "Consequences" ad emphasizes that "legalizing gay marriage has consequences for kids." The ad includes examples from Massachusetts and California, where 2nd graders are being taught that boys can marry boys, and 1st graders were taken to a same-sex marriage, calling it a "teachable moment."
We're excited about this new ad, but we need your help to keep these ads on the air, especially in states like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey, where coordinated grassroots opposition to pending gay marriage legislation is urgently needed? Although the prices vary by market, on average it costs about $400 each time an ad is aired.
These types of ads are a critical part of the campaign to stop same-sex marriage in the Northeast this year. There's no better way to shape public opinion and at the same time reach out to marriage supporters in targeted areas than radio and tv ads. And there's no more cost-effective medium than radio, especially for reaching out to potential marriage activists who listen to talk radio and will respond to a call to action on same-sex marriage.
Throughout the year, we'll be rolling out new ads as we work to identify and motivate marriage activists throughout the Northeast. Will you join our Northeast Action Team today with a gift of $35, $50, or perhaps even the $400 needed to sponsor an entire ad? Even if you live in Kentucky, or Carolina, or especially California, we need your help. If the same-sex marriage foothold spreads throughout New England -- and especially if it starts to be adopted in state legislatures -- it will become increasingly difficult to stop it from spreading across the country.
As the ad says -- if our politicians adopt same-sex marriage, our rights won't matter much -- not re parents, not people of faith, not any of us who will experience the consequences of redefining marriage. If we don't step up now, we'll all have to accept gay marriage -- "whether we like it or not."
Take a minute right now to listen to the radio ad for yourself, and then please make the most generous donation you can to help us keep these important ads on the air. Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation. And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM's Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors.
Marriage is on the brink right now in Vermont and New Hampshire -- and ads like these can help us stop it before it's too late. Will you stand with us?
March 13, 2009 -- NOM launched its Northeast Action Plan today with a series of radio ads airing in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. The ads open with a child asking questions about same-sex marriage: "If my Dad married a man, who would be my Mom?" Listeners then hear an urgent marriage alert, asking them to contact their legislators in opposition to same-sex marriage legislation pending in the three states.
We need your help! Please make a generous donation today to help us keep these ads on the air!
There was something brilliant about President-elect Barack Obama's choice of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his presidential inauguration next month. The preacher and best-selling author is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, making Obama, who leans considerably to the left on these issues, look like a uniter, not a divider. He must have a keen enough radar to know that religious folks have been feeling marginalized from politics of late; Obama's choice caps off an election season that hit churchgoers hard.
Proposition 8, the successful initiative in California that limits the legal definition of marriage to a rite occurring between a man and a woman, has been the most obvious example. Churches have been threatened. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a prominent supporter of that controversial initiative, has been made a scapegoat by Prop. 8's angry and vociferous opponents. And the media, having sided with the proposition's detractors, is leading the intolerance campaign.
Yes, I know: The conventional wisdom has it that the opponent of gay marriage is the intolerant one. But can "tolerant" really be the right word to describe this excerpt from a recent Newsweek cover story on religious conservatives and the gay-marriage debate?
"Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife, Sarah, was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women...? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel — all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better... The apostle Paul... regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple...turn to the Bible as a how-to script?"
Is such an insultingly simplistic view actually worthy of a national magazine's cover story? Does anyone read the Bible and not understand that Abraham was doing wrong? Rattling off Old Testament sins does not a coherent argument make. Catholics are celebrating a Pauline year; I hope most could come to that great saint's defense. St. Paul also happens to have written: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." And, yes, for the record, couples do turn to faith ... even in the bedroom. Religious folks want faith to inform their entire lives.
I happen to be a Christian who opposes gay marriage, but I have never tried to make a case for, say, a federal marriage amendment based on the Bible. Nor, to my knowledge, has a leading proponent of traditional marriage (who is also a Christian) Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage. Her arguments focus on natural law, family and the future.
For years, once the weather turns cold and the days short, we've had a debate about Christmas. Is there a "war" on that holiday? Attacks on nativity scenes and silly prohibitions on religious symbols have long drawn the most attention. But there's something more serious afoot. It's hostility not necessarily to religion itself — for many on the left are regular churchgoers, and some oppose abortion and gay marriage on religious grounds. But the conventional wisdom as dictated by Newsweek suggests that there is something downright unacceptable about allowing voters to submit to a higher power who, if truly listened to, probably isn't going to change with the times. At some level, true faith demands obedience to a rock-steady core of beliefs and rules, despite what the efforts of some religious temporizers who pretend they can legitimately rewrite doctrine on Sunday morning talk shows would have you believe.
We're ending 2008 with a major news magazine demonizing mainstream voters whose faith leads them to a political conclusion deemed outrageous by big media. In California, where voters followed their religious consciences, and delivered a blow to gay marriage, a similarly outraged attorney general has decided to ignore his obligation to his constituents. Meanwhile, right-leaning columnists and politicians are busy turning on their religious allies for one reason or another. This is not a good place to be. Dare I say it? God help us if preying on the prayers is in. And though it is born from nothing but political pragmatism and obfuscation, Obama's choice of inaugural pastor does what Newsweek and its legions didn't do: welcomes everyone, even those on their knees who have the right to be on the right.
klopez@nationalreview.com
Donation law survives Prop. 8
SUNDAY TIMES (CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA)
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
February 1, 2009
Gay and lesbian rights activists – and the rest of California – dodged a bullet last week when a federal judge threw out a lawsuit that would have kept secret the names of those who donated to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.
Had the lawsuit prevailed, the decision could have severely undermined donor disclosure requirements, one of the most significant campaign finance reforms of the past 35 years.
Under California law, campaigns must disclose the name, address and employer of every person who donates $100 or more to a ballot measure.
It's a no-brainer: Voters have a right to know the identity of the entity or person asking them to pass or change a law.
Ballot measures, in particular, need sunshine in order to enlighten voters about the often intentionally vague motives of those willing to bankroll them.
But the lawsuit illuminated a disturbing trend in the state's increasingly volatile ballot measure environment.
ProtectMarriage.com and National Organization for Marriage California, the chief proponents of Proposition 8, the successful 2008 constitutional amendment to declare marriage as between one man and one woman, brought the lawsuit after gay and lesbian activist groups viciously targeted their donors.
Contributors received nasty phone calls and letters that contained foul language and physical threats. Web sites like AntiGayBlacklist. com posted donors' names and home addresses on Google maps. They called for boycotts of their businesses.
None of this warrants dismantling disclosure rules. Threats of violence are illegal and victims should report them to the police. The boycotts and the rest of it are protected free speech. Donor disclosure was never intended to act as a cudgel with which to terrorize opponents.
Reformers placed the provision in the 1974 Political Reform Act to deter and detect businesses or individuals that seek to disguise their political involvement through money laundering.
"The gay community really deserves some criticism for going after people and their employers because of their contributions," said Bob Stern, who works with the Institute for Governmental Studies and is one of the authors of the Political Reform Act. Not only did gay activists put disclosure rules on the chopping block, the strategy was ineffective. People who feel so strongly about the other side that they have written checks are hardly likely to change their minds. Take Greg Clark, a Dublin resident who works in financial services. He contributed $25,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and his name and employer's name were posted on one of the Web sites.
Callers left profane, foul and threatening messages on his answering machine. One was so scary that he filed a police report. "I don't agree that we should do away with (donor) disclosure," Clark said. "... But (the activists) are demanding that their viewpoint be accepted among a broad range of people when they are not willing to accept viewpoints that differ from theirs. I take issue with that."
The question of same-sex marriage is far from settled. Other lawsuits are pending. Most expect another ballot initiative. Activists would be advised to tone down the hostilities if they want to spread the tolerance they seek.
MONEY, MONEY.
Clark is one of dozens of residents in Contra Costa and Alameda counties who contributed nearly $2 million to the yes campaign, as of the most recent filings.
For context, the multiple Yes on 8 committees collected $44.8 million in contributions through Oct. 18, plus late donations filed electronically. The "no" groups had collected $59.8 million in the same period.
The next reporting deadline is Monday, when we'll learn the final cost of Prop. 8. Reach Lisa Vorderbrueggen at 925-945-4773, lvorderbrueggen@bayareanewsgroup.com
After Californians voted in November to reverse same-sex marriage, state Attorney General Jerry Brown said the 18,000 or so homosexual marriages that had been performed after May 15, when California's Supreme Court ruled that restricting marriage to heterosexuals was unconstitutional, would remain valid.
Those 18,000 couples, living in communities as neighbors and friends, showing up at school functions and church services, may make it more difficult to eliminate the concept of same-sex marriage, in spite of Proposition 8, the Election Day victory in which 52.3 percent of voters decided that California's constitution should recognize only heterosexual marriage.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times on November 10, UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu said that those 18,000 couples represent a "potential catalyst for broader acceptance" of same-sex marriage.
"The more familiar we become with gay spouses and their children – as our friends, neighbors, and co-workers – the more gay marriage will become an unremarkable thread of our social fabric," he said.
Indeed, the phenomenon is showing signs that it's here to stay. Since the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion that banning same-sex marriage in the Bay State is unconstitutional, over 11,000 same-sex "marriages" have been performed there.
Nationwide, about 85,000 same-sex couples have entered into a legally recognized relationship, according to the Williams Institute of the UCLA College of Law. Many are in legal "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships," arrangements devised by state legislatures granting many of the benefits of marriage.
Yet the battle for a traditional definition of marriage continues to be won by popular vote – and lost in the courts. After Election Day victories in California, Arizona, and Florida, 30 states now have voter-approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. In the three states where same-sex marriage has been approved, it has been advanced by a slim majority on a court.
Arizona and Florida passed ballot initiatives on November 4 to have their constitutions define marriage as between one man and one woman, with Arizona's passing by 56.2 percent to 43.8 percent, and Florida's by 62.1 percent to 37.9 percent.
In Arkansas, nearly 57 percent of voters approved an initiative barring people who are "cohabitating outside a valid marriage" from serving as foster parents or adopting children. That would include same-sex couples.
A HISTORIC VOTE
Proposition 8 was the second time in eight years that Californians voted to protect marriage. The vote was weaker than it was in 2000, when 61 percent of voters rejected same-sex marriage. The 2000 vote did not put the ban in the state constitution, however, as Proposition 8 did.
Nevertheless, Bill May, who headed Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com as part of the Proposition 8 coalition, called it a "historic vote."
"It was the first time we've had a reversal of a court ruling," said May, who is chairman of Catholics for the Common Good. The California Supreme Court decision was a "wakeup call," he said.
Carol Hogan, communications director with the California Catholic Conference, felt that the court ruling, which she said "created a new protected class – sexual orientation," helped the Proposition 8 campaign "because we could predict that since it was now a protected class, it would be taught in public schools."
There was precedent for that. Soon after the Massachusetts high court decision, schoolchildren began receiving instruction on the normalcy of same-sex relations. Not only that, some parents had to fight for information on what their children were being exposed to – and for the right to take them out of classes where objectionable material was being presented.
In 2007, a federal judge ruled against two couples who so objected, declaring that since same-sex marriage is now "legal" in Massachusetts, the school had not only a right but a duty to teach the normalcy of homosexuality, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt out.
"Our advertising featured what's happened in Massachusetts, where schoolchildren had to read King and King," Hogan said, referring to a book describing (and showing) two princes falling in love and getting married. "Parents knew that could happen here."
Traditional marriage advocates in Massachusetts point out that although the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled same-sex marriage constitutional, the state legislature never changed the law to allow it.
"The legislature doesn't want to touch this thing," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "There have been several bills from the more radical side to legalize it, but it's always put in committee. We'll see how it goes in the new legislative session."
SAME-SEX ISSUES IN CONNECTICUT
Meanwhile, same-sex couples in Connecticut began receiving marriage licenses in mid-November, thanks to that state's high court decision the previous month that such unions cannot be prohibited. An Election Day effort to open the state constitution in order to pave the way for a marriage amendment failed to garner enough of the popular vote.
"For the pro-family movement in Connecticut right now, it's similar to the pro-life movement right after Roe v. Wade was decided," said Peter Wolfgang, president of the Family Institute of Connecticut.
He also finds himself in a similar situation to those in Massachusetts, where traditional marriage advocates have failed to get a constitutional amendment process off the ground and have to fight smaller battles for now, namely, protecting the rights of parents to guide their school-age children and protecting the rights of religious organizations to operate according to their consciences in a world where same-sex marriage is considered correct and normal.
"In the long term we'll work to overturn the court's decision," said Wolfgang, referring to Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, "and in the short term, we'll fight for conscience protection and opt-out provisions."
Though he lives in one of the bluest of the blue states, Wolfgang takes some comfort in the fact that the plaintiffs who won the right to marry did so in court. "The Kerrigan decision was the worst possible victory for our opponents," he said. "They couldn't get it through our legislature, even though our legislature is one of the most liberal in the country."
But that is a two-edged sword. Though he still holds out hope that the Connecticut constitution can be amended to protect marriage, such an effort would have to go through the legislature first. "Normally you start something like this in the judiciary committee," he said. "And right now that is co-chaired by two legislators who are openly gay and have been the lead legislative champions for same-sex marriage."
In the meantime, he is bracing for the issues Massachusetts residents have been experiencing over the past five years: pressure on religious organizations to violate their values and pressure on schools to try to normalize homosexuality, while parents lose the opt-out right. "We might even set up a hotline parents can call when things like this happen," he said.
NEXT TARGETS?
Wolfgang predicts that New York and New Jersey are the "next targets" for the same-sex marriage movement. Dennis Poust, spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, said he expects there will be movement in Albany to pass a same-sex marriage bill in the new year, "now that it appears that the Democrats will be the majority party" in both houses of the state legislature.
"I do question if the Democrats have the votes right now to pass it, as a small number of Democrats would certainly vote nay," he said.
New York's Democratic governor, David Patterson, recently ordered New York State to recognize "same-sex marriages" performed in California, Massachusetts, and Canada.
In New Jersey, which has had "civil unions" since 2006, there's been an effort to legislate same-sex marriage for several years. But whether the legislature will pass such a bill yet is questionable. It "has not changed in complexion much since civil unions passed," said Patrick Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference.
Wolfgang feels the issue will end up at the US Supreme Court, as abortion did.
"We're probably one vote away on the Supreme Court from a national right to same-sex marriage," he said, predicting that President Obama will provide the fifth vote that same-sex marriage advocates need. A case involving same-sex couples' ability to marry in one state and have that marriage recognized in another state could work its way up to the high court, Wolfgang speculates.
THE THREAT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Thomas Messner, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, warns of a danger if same-sex marriage is legalized. In a paper published on October 30, Messner said redefining marriage to include same-sex unions poses significant threats to religious liberty.
"The idea that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman is a core religious belief for significant numbers of Americans," he wrote. "But the freedom to express this and other beliefs about marriage, family and sexual values will come under growing pressure as courts, public officials, and private institutions come to regard the traditional understanding of marriage as a form of irrational prejudice that should be purged from public life."
"We'll continue to see serious conflicts over religious freedom," he said in an interview. He said that Congress may act on two pieces of legislation in the coming year: one repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which says no state has to accept a same-sex marriage from another state, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
If DOMA is struck down, it would open same-sex marriage to all states, even those with constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, he said. And ENDA "could create conflicts for religious employers who considered moral conduct an important part of their employment decisions but who do not come within the scope of the exemption that is provided."
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, fears that government is "starting to declare that 'sexual orientation is just like race,' which means for the first time in American history, our own government may be pledged to regard all traditional religious communities as the legal equivalent of racists."
"If the courts or the legislators redefine marriage, our children will be taught that gay marriage is a great good and it will become very difficult to do what we have to do: transmit an authentically Christian marriage culture to our own children," said Gallagher. "Our children are being relentlessly propagandized even as our own voices are being silenced and repressed."
While Connecticut and Massachusetts appear to be in for a long fight, much like the national debate over abortion, and other states seem poised to legalize same-sex marriage, many traditional marriage advocates feel that education is their best hope right now.
"First of all, the Church has the answers," said May. "Catechesis is absolutely critical, especially with the theology of the body, to help them understand what it means to be a man, to be a woman, what love means."
Dale O'Leary, author of One Man, One Woman: A Catholic's Guide to Defending Marriage, agrees. "We really have to get out the facts. What amazed me in 1995 when I started researching this was that the evidence was overwhelmingly on our side," she said. "There's no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. There's no way it could be. If it was, why is one twin of identical twins homosexual and the other is not?"
That's important to emphasize, she says, because the same-sex marriage side is winning on the basis of "pity." People sympathize when they feel that homosexuals can't do anything about their homosexuality and therefore deserve the right to marry, just like everyone else.
The vote in California hinted that the younger generation is already sympathetic to the same-sex marriage cause. While majorities of California blacks and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics voted for Proposition 8, 60 percent of voters under 30 disapproved of adding the traditional definition of marriage to the state constitution.
For Bill May, that is "a reflection of the fact that younger people are indifferent to marriage. They understand it as a benefit to adults and not having to do with (the procreation and rearing of) children." He added, "There are programs in place in every state undermining children's understanding of what marriage is – in sex education, in diversity education."
The 60 percent "also reflects the idea that marriage is entirely a private thing, a way of affirming the love someone has for someone else," said Messner. Marriage as something existing in the public interest – because it provides and forms the next generation – is an idea that's been lost, he said.
"What folks need to do to 'win' this battle is (a) understand the challenge to marriage and the religious liberty problems associated with same-sex marriage; (b) commit to defending marriage and be willing to take a public, courageous stand on the issue; (c) get involved politically; and (d) work to strengthen all aspects of marriage, keeping in mind that the goal is to strengthen marriage, and same-sex marriage is just one threat."
For at least one activist, civil disobedience is also an option. Citing the writings of Martin Luther King, Brian Camenker, president of MassResistance in Massachusetts, said, "You have to take a civil disobedience attitude. There is no such thing as men marrying each other. There is no legislature or court that can repeal the laws of nature."
From the mixed results in November – ballot wins and court losses, surveys showing growing acceptance of same-sex marriage – one thing is clear: the fight is far from over, and traditional marriage advocates have their work cut out for them.
JOHN BURGER is news editor of the National Catholic Register.
Backers of Prop. 8 try to keep finance records shut
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
By Steve Lawrence
January 9, 2009
Supporters of the November ballot measure that banned gay marriages in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to harassment of donors.
"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8: Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California.
"This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site. The groups announced the lawsuit yesterday.
It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.
Proposition 8; approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, overturned a state Supreme Court decision that declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The measure's opponents have gone back to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the proposition. The lawsuit by Bopp's clients cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support the ballot measure have received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards.
The sponsors of the November ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California want a judge to seal selected documents and issue a gag order in their lawsuit challenging the state's campaign finance reporting rules.
Lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California requested an order late Friday designed to keep the names of the groups' supporters secret while the case moves forward. Last week, they sued to have their campaign finance records blocked from public view, saying the disclosure requirements have caused donors to become the target of boycotts, hate mail and threats.
"The very essence of this case is that plaintiffs cannot be forced to reveal their identities, or the identities of their donors, without violating their fundamental First Amendment rights," the group's lawyers wrote in seeking anonymity for certain parties in the litigation.
Also Friday, the two groups, which between them raised the lion's share of the $37 million spent in support of Proposition 8, asked for an emergency exemption from having to file a new round of campaign finance reports due at the end of the month.
James Bopp Jr., an attorney for backers of the gay marriage ban, said there's some urgency since campaign committees face a Jan. 31 deadline for filing their semiannual reports, which include smaller contributions received late in the election cycle.
"It means additional disclosures will come out about donors and give the competing campaign the ability to punish all these donors through harassment and intimidation," Bopp said.
If the request is granted, it would keep from being identified about 6,600 people who gave less than $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign between Oct. 19 and Dec. 31, according to lawyers for the groups.
Kate Folmar, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen, said Bowen would not comment on a pending case, but that state law requires campaign finance to be available online for 10 years.
Using children, faith, and fear, the folks at the Yes on 8 campaign stripped away our rights, while galvanizing our community, not just in California, but across the nation. They've had more of an impact on your life this year than any individual. That's why - for better or worse - they're our PEOPLE OF THE YEAR
Nationwide, same-sex marriage sat center stage on Election Day.
With ballot initiatives writing a ban on same-sex marriage in Arizona, California and Florida's state constitutions, millions of same-sex marriage supporters eyed the Golden State to set the course for a new civil rights movement.
What they were dealt, instead, was a gut-wrenching loss; a monumental step backward the same day the majority of the nation's voters elected their first black president.
With more than $36 million and thousands of volunteers on hand, the Yes on 8 campaign - the campaign backing Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage - launched a stunning comeback from early polls, which showed Proposition 8 trailing in the double digits.
"[The No on 8 campaign] had everything in the world going for them this year, and they couldn't win," Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign in California told the Associated Press last month. "I don't think they're going to be any more successful in 2010 or 2012."
Final election results show that 599,602 more California voters cast ballots in favor of Proposition 8 than voted to keep same-sex marriage legal.
The official tally certified Saturday by Secretary of State Debra Bowen shows Proposition 8 passing 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.
The final numbers indicate that Proposition 8 passed in 43 of the state's 58 counties, including Los Angeles County, a critical battleground.
With the Yes campaign's high profile win and the widespread ramifications - some, perhaps, not yet realized - of the marriage ban in California, the Gay & Lesbian Times would be remiss to not recognize the Yes on 8 campaign as being the most influential newsmaker and having the most impact on our community in 2008.
For this reason, we've named the folks behind the Yes on 8 campaign our People of the Year. Certainly it's no honor or award, and not intended to commend the campaign or its leaders for their work, or the tactics used in achieving victory.
However, Proposition 8 and the Yes on 8 campaign have defined marriage in the state constitution as a union between a man and a woman. The Yes campaign's supporters have made our fight for equal marriage rights more difficult and costly. The win in California has energized opponents of same-sex marriage nationwide. And - perhaps most importantly, and the greatest reason the Yes campaign should be recognized - it's galvanized the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community to organize at a grassroots level and advocate for full, fundamental rights, not only at the state level, but federally as well.
"As shocking, as gut wrenching, as painful as this loss had been, it's really galvanized an enormous amount of people, particularly people not previously involved," said Delores Jacobs, executive director of The San Diego LGBT Community Center and a member of the No on 8 executive committee. "The loss here stuns the nation, and it's really gotten an enormous number of people involved. It's focused people on a federal level - and not just on marriage equality, really more on equal rights for issues for LGBT Americans, and what it will take to win equality."
While you'd be hard-pressed to find a same-sex marriage supporter who praises the tactics of the Yes on 8 campaign, critics of the No campaign are in no short supply.
Robin Tyler, who, along with Diane Olson, was one of the original plaintiffs in the marriage cases before the California Supreme Court, has been a vocal critic of the No on 8 campaign's failed effort at convincing California's voters to reject the ban.
The campaign shouldn't have been run from community service centers, she says, and campaign organizers were ill-prepared to manage the magnitude of the task; they didn't utilize a strong grassroots effort, and rejected the advice of those whose help may have made a difference, she says.
She's also disappointed the No campaign didn't define the battle over the measure first. Instead, the Yes campaign launched an effective grassroots blitz to quickly label the high court's ruling as "judicial activism," and convince voters the Supreme Court rejected the will of the people. From there, the Yes campaign's tactics became more aggressive, relying on tried and true rhetoric: faith, fear and falsehoods.
"Yes on 8 ran a strong, aggressive campaign," Tyler said. "They came out with a sledgehammer and we hit them with a slingshot. They came in like sharks, they didn't tell the truth, they hid behind their Christian children and they hid the fact they are bigots. They launched a campaign built totally on lies. They used the same scare tactics they've always used. [Proposition 8] was about discrimination."
"Everyone told me it could not be done, people do not care about this enough, you will be overwhelmed and you will lose," Maggie Gallagher, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, told the Associated Press in November. Gallagher's group provided seed money early this year to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot. "This is an issue people care about when they understand what is at stake and we mount a vigorous and visible defense of marriage."
According to published reports, the Yes campaign has attributed its victory to a number of factors.
Among them:
·The support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was critical in mobilizing volunteers and early campaign dollars; its support is considered a "difference maker" in the campaign's ability to saturate media markets early in the fight, and reach more undecided voters with the sheer number of volunteers generated.
·A disciplined approach to targeting ethnic communities by targeting ethnic communities of faith; the Yes campaign anticipated a large number of ethnic voters, who are typically more influenced by their faith communities. They developed relationships with community organizers to drive home a message of "traditional marriage" - going so far as to mislead voters to believes Barack Obama supported Proposition 8.
·Early organization; they organized early - some say as early as November 2007 - creating a structure and the foundation for a high-profile campaign in the Golden State. They recruited leaders from national organizations to lay the groundwork for an epic fight in California, where they anticipated the Supreme Court's ruling.
·Utilizing a powerful organizational tool from the get-go: churches. Each week, churches throughout California became recruiting grounds for volunteers, and airways for the Yes campaign's message. Week after week, thousands of voters in congregations statewide were exposed to the Yes campaign's themes and pleas for support. Churches provided a powerful infrastructure, and became one of the campaign's greatest tools in achieving victory.
·The argument children will be taught about same-sex marriage in schools; the campaign gained quite a bit of traction with its argument parents would have no control over what their children would be taught in schools. Similarly, the campaign claimed churches would be at risk for losing tax-exempt status for refusing to perform same-sex weddings. The fear tactics were similar to what campaigns used in the past - and, just as effective today as they were before.
Tyler says some of the tactics used by the Yes campaign should have been anticipated by the No side - after all, they were similar to the arguments used by supporters of Proposition 6 in 1978, which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California's public schools, she says.
The silver lining, she says: what some perceived as the No campaign's attempt to keep gay and lesbian couples off of the airwaves didn't prove to be successful. Also, Tyler says, if Proposition 8 hadn't passed, fewer people would now be engaged in the fight for civil rights.
"Had we won, the organizers of the No on 8 campaign would have been right," Tyler said. "They would have been proven right - that if we're quiet, if we're invisible, if we go away, they can win this fight for us. Had we not lost, we wouldn't have had hundreds of thousands of people pouring into the streets. We wouldn't have had youth realize, 'Forget marriage rights - no, this is about civil rights in the United States.' This is a civil rights movement."
Jacobs agrees with Tylers' last point that more people, gay and straight, are engaged in this issue as a result of Proposition 8's passage. And - if nothing else can be credited to the Yes on 8 campaign - the mobilization and the sense of social responsibility the loss of marriage rights in California has inspired brings hope for the future.
"It's engaged not just a new generation, but new people straight and gay, on the issue of equality; that this is a fundamental issue. ... It's awakened communities of faith - Wait, maybe I don't agree with the most conservative faith leadership anymore; maybe I don't have to.' It's awakened them to think maybe the business of faith is not to restrict equal rights, but promote social justice. Social justice is an important issue, and it isn't just our issue," Jacobs said. "So, as gut-wrenching as this loss is, those outcomes sure make us hopeful for the future."
Defending a Faith THE DESERET NEWS (Salt Lake City)
By Scott Taylor
December 13, 2008
Many voices speak out defending Church against post-vote protests
In the six weeks after California voters approved Proposition 8 to amend the state constitution in defining and recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman, the Church became a target of protests and demonstrations.
It since has become a target of support, with others rallying in the Church's defense.
The Church released several statements – including one from the First Presidency – calling for mutual respect and civility in the aftermath (see Church News, Nov. 8, 15 and 22 editions). Also releasing statements were two prominent Catholic leaders, Bishop William Weigand of the Diocese of Sacramento and Bishop John C. Wester, Diocese of Salt Lake City (see Church News, Nov. 15, p. 4).
They have been joined by others from both sides of the marriage issue who decry extreme reaction.
New York Times full-page ad
Last week, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took out a full-page ad in the New York Times, signed by more than a dozen different individuals with leadership roles in Catholic, Jewish and Evangelical groups as well as university educators and former U.S. ambassadors.
Titled "No Mob Veto" (in conjunction with the group's nomobveto.org Web site), the ad first acknowledged philosophical differences among group members but called for the violence and intimidation against the Church to stop.
"Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism. Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission."
The 450-word text added: "Despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship – Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever – from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve."
In saluting the ad's signatories, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve said: "This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation."
Abovethehate.com letter
A project of the National Organization for Marriage, abovethehate.com, posted an open letter/petition to President Thomas S. Monson in appreciation for the Church and its members' efforts in helping to protect traditional marriage in California and Arizona and also to "express our outrage at the vile and indecent attacks" that any faith community "should be singled out and attacked in this way by powerful, well-funded political forces determined to 'make them pay' for participating in the normal political processes of democracy."
Saying that organized protests to disrupt places of worship, calls to investigate and "dig up dirt" on Americans of a particular faith and crude media campaigns to incite fear and hatred of a religious community shouldn't happen, the letter continued: "We urge more and other responsible voices to say 'enough.' "
Posted online since Nov. 15, the online letter/ petition had gathered nearly 5,300 signatures through the first week of December, headlined by leaders and representatives of national and state religious, family and educational organizations including National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and California Family Council.
Anti-Defamation League
The Anti-Defamation League, which opposed Proposition 8, said defacement and destruction of supporters' property is unjustified:
"To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion for all of us."
Marriage Wins Big at the Ballot Box HUMAN EVENTS
By Maggie Gallagher
November 17, 2008
On Election Day, in the middle of a Democratic sweep of Congress and the White House, voters in three states approved amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. The wins lent encouragement to those who argue America remains a center-right country ideologically, despite major Democratic gains.
The Florida win was by an impressively large margin: 62% to 38%. The Arizona win, 56% to 44%, was important because in 2006 Arizona earned the dubious distinction of being the only state in which voters had ever turned down the chance to protect traditional marriage. The victory in Arizona means state marriage amendments are now 30 for 30 at the ballot box.
But the biggest victory was Prop 8 in California, where voters surprised pundits by overturning a May state supreme court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Gay-marriage advocates dominated the airwaves during the summer with a $6 million pro-gay-marriage television ad campaign (run during the Summer Olympics), which was reinforced by an almost uniformly sympathetic mainstream media. By September the polls – which initially favored Prop 8 – suggested the amendment was doomed to ignominious failure.
It didn't help when Democratic Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown rewrote the ballot language, changing the title from "California Limits to Marriage Amendment" to "Elimination of the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" (a move that polls suggest cost the amendment 5 to 10 percentage points of support).
But a coalition of Catholics, white and black evangelicals, Mormons and people of other faiths were quietly building a campaign to reach the hearts and minds of California voters – and their war chest allowed them to get the message out. Traditional marriage supporters raised close to $40 million, unprecedented for a social issue, with about 40% estimated to have come from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons).
The polls turned dramatically as soon as the Yes on 8 campaign went on the air on September 23, with ads developed by campaign manager Schubert Flint Public Affairs. The first ad featured San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's smug proclamation that gay marriage is coming "whether you like it or not." The ad also raised questions about what gay marriage would mean for teaching in public schools and for religious institutions that do not view same-sex couples as marriages.
In early October, gay-marriage advocates sent out an SOS to their supporters, admitting that the polls had turned. Barbra Streisand and Melissa Etheridge staged a concert that reportedly brought in $4 million. Seven-figure donations came in from the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, labor unions, national gay-rights organizations and out-of-state gay millionaires (Michigan's Jon Stryker donated $1 million).
But despite the flood of big names and big dollars, on Tuesday, November 4, California voters once again opted to protect marriage, by 52% to 48%.
How have gay marriage advocates responded? By reaching for their lawyers. On November 17, a court will consider a request by the ACLU and gay-rights groups to issue a preliminary injunction against Prop 8. Gay-rights groups are arguing that a single, one-sentence definition of marriage constitutes a full-scale revision of the constitution, which must come from the legislature, rather than an amendment that can be passed by the voters under California law. They are urging the state supreme court to strike down an amendment to the state's own constitution approved by a clear majority of voters.
The Oregon Supreme Court has already rejected this line of argumentation. As UCLA law Prof. Daniel Lowenstein says:
"The contention that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision rather than an amendment borders on the frivolous."
But given the high-profile support of the challenge to Prop 8 among powerful politicians, backers of the measure remain worried. Even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for the court to strike down Prop 8, telling CNN:
"I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
The second response by gay-marriage advocates has been massive threats of retaliation against those participating in the political process, the LDS church in particular, as well as African-Americans, 70% of whom voted for Prop 8, according to exit polling.
Large, disruptive protests are being held at LDS places of worship in California and Utah. In the waning days of the campaign, gay-marriage advocates actually ran an outrageous hate-filled television ad "Home Invasion," inciting religious hatred against the LDS church because its members donated to Prop 8.
These tactics however may backfire. Gay-marriage advocates are no longer looking like a movement devoted to love and tolerance. They are affirming the Yes on Prop 8 campaigns contention that religious liberty is on the line in the marriage debate. Gay-marriage advocates now appear to view anyone who thinks marriage means the union of one man and one woman is the equivalent of a racist, and can be treated as such. (See, for example, the video of gay-marriage advocates verbally harassing an elderly woman: http://gatorgop.blogspot .com/2008/11 /crazylefties-attack-old-lady-at-no-on.html )
Singling out minority religious communities because they exercised their basic civil rights to vote, organize and donate is a truly ugly new development. I'm not sure it's what the Obama campaign meant, but in California it's the change we are getting.
What lesson can we take from the marriage victories? Here's one obvious one: Americans really care about protecting marriage. It's not a wedge issue or a political convenience (California was never at play in the presidential campaign). The Protect Marriage Yes on 8 Campaign raised more money and summoned more volunteers than any social issue in America ever has.
There are only temporary victories in this fallen world. But the victory for marriage was a big one.
"The National Organization for Marriage has launched a new website to respond to the incendiary attacks from gay activists in California, in collecting signatures to thank the Mormon church for their involvement in Prop 8, a marriage protection amendment. The website is called AboveThe hate.com."
Energized by a comeback win, conservative activists want to apply the same formula they used to outlaw same-sex marriage in California to prevent other states from recognizing gay unions and President-elect Barack Obama from expanding the rights of gays and lesbians.
Leaders of the successful Proposition 8 campaign said an unusual coalition of evangelical Christians, Mormons and Roman Catholics built a majority at the polls Tuesday by harnessing the organizational muscle of churches to a mainstream message about what school children might be taught about gay relationships if the ban failed.
Same-sex marriage bans also won in Arizona and Florida. But in putting together the California victory, the coalition overcame opposition from the state's political establishment and assumptions about how voters in the famously tolerant state would respond to taking away the rights the state's highest court granted this spring.
"Everyone told me it could not be done, people do not care about this enough, you will be overwhelmed and you will lose," said Maggie Gallagher, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group that provided seed money early this year to qualify the measure for the ballot. "This is an issue people care about when they understand what is at stake and we mount a vigorous and visible defense of marriage," Gallagher said.
Same-sex couples are expected to start marrying next week in Connecticut, the third state after Massachusetts and California where courts have held it was unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marrying.
Unlike California, Connecticut doesn't have an initiative process that would allow voters to override the judicial decision. So Gallagher said anti-gay-marriage groups plan to focus next on New Jersey and New York, where the state Legislatures are being lobbied to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage.
The plan is to mobilize the same religious factions that joined forces in California to deter lawmakers from “taking on this divisive social issue while we are in the middle of a huge financial crisis,” Gallagher said.
Campaign operatives attribute their success to the churches, which served as voter registration centers, phone banks and volunteer recruitment hubs.
Religious institutions also gave Proposition 8's sponsors an avenue to a range of ethnic voters, including many Democrats, said Mat Staver, who heads the Florida-based Christian legal group Liberty Counsel.
Meanwhile, about 1,000 protesters angered by the passage of Proposition 8 marched through downtown San Francisco during rush hour yesterday afternoon, carrying signs and snarling traffic. Gay rights groups and same-sex marriage proponents have filed three court challenges against the ban.
Gays vow to keep fighting for right to wed
Prop. 8: Same-sex marriage banned DAILY NEWS (Los Angeles) By Justino Aguila
November 6, 2008
Gays, lesbians and their supporters have filed three lawsuits, asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex-marriage ban narrowly approved by California voters this week, and vowed Wednesday that thousands will keep fighting the divisive measure.
At least until the court acts, Los Angeles County officials said on Wednesday that they had indefinitely suspended issuing licenses for same-sex marriages, which had been available since June.
Proposition 8 rewrites the California Constitution to define "marriage" as a legal union only between a man and a woman – voiding a state Supreme Court ruling in June that legalized same-sex marriages.
Yes on Proposition 8 campaigners said they expected opponents to file lawsuits, but were confident that the courts would ultimately side with the voters.
"Americans have rights to pursue their legal theories in court, but I think it's fair to say that the Proposition 8 victory is one for the record books in California," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage.
"The final vote shows that when it comes to marriage, there are no blue or red states. The majority of Americans believe there's nothing wrong with marriage between a man and woman."
Lawsuits were filed by a group headed by the American Civil Liberties Union; by Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles; and by Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred, representing a married lesbian couple from North Hills at the center of the June court decision in favor of gay marriage.
The ACLU suit, joined by Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, urged the court to invalidate Proposition 8 "because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group, lesbian and gay Californians."
The unfolding legal battles will be closely watched by the state's gay and lesbian population. "We have a lot at stake as a community," said Ron Galperin, a Los Angeles attorney who recently married his partner, Rabbi Zach Shapiro. "The idea the voters can take away someone's marriage, take away our marriage, is just a complete personal violation. It also goes against everything that we stand for as Americans."
Thousands of provisional and mail-in ballots still waited to be counted but were not expected to change the outcome. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, the measure was ahead 52 percent to 48 percent, according to the California Secretary of State's Office. The No on 8 side conceded defeat at the polls but vowed to fight on in the courts.
Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community in West Hollywood spent Wednesday coping with the result. Despite the loss, they said, they believed that eventually they would have the same right to marry as the state's heterosexuals.
Doug Ogden, owner of Village Cleaners near West Hollywood City Hall, offered his business as a polling location this year. A total of 900 people voted at his business, and many were confident they would defeat Proposition 8.
"Now the mood is bittersweet," Ogden, 46, said. 'Today was a sad day. There's a hush over the city. Everyone is wondering what the next step will be."
At West Hollywood City Hall, employees were taking calls from people who wondered whether they could still get same-sex marriage licenses. They were referred to the county Registrar-Recorder's Office.
Office spokeswoman Marcia Ventura said a small number of same-sex couples took out licenses and were married Election Day, after paying $70 for a license and $25 for a civil ceremony.
Sky Johnson, deputy campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, was scheduled to attend a rally in West Hollywood to motivate same-sex-marriage supporters.
"There are a lot of people determined to continue supporting the cause, and now we're looking at moving forward in a strategic way," he said.
Politicians and others in Los Angeles also spoke out the day after the election.
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, archbishop of Los Angeles, who has been relatively quiet in recent months about the Catholic Church's backing for Proposition 8, thanked the community for its support of the measure and its "commitment to the institution of marriage as fashioned by God, and to work with such energy to enshrine this divine plan into our state's constitution."
"Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society. Its sole focus is on preserving God's plan for people living upon this Earth throughout time. The Catholic Church understands that there are people who choose to live together in relationships other than traditional marriage."
Editor's Note: The Bulletin's election coverage featured a frontpage story showing that California's Proposition 8 failed to pass. This story only reflected 3 percent of the counted vote, as California polls closed mere minutes before the publishing deadline, forcing the paper to report on a largely uncounted election. Dewey did not defeat Truman, and The Bulletin is proud to bring its readers the news of the completed vote.
California voted to adopt a ballot measure making gay marriage illegal, overturning the California Supreme Court's June decision granting marriage rights to gay couples.
Proposition 8 was hotly-contested issue down the stretch. Voting ended at 11 p.m. Eastern Time Tuesday in California, and by yesterday, with 95 percent of precincts reporting, the ballot measure showed a 'yes' vote for the measure of 52 to 48 percent.
Supporters of the measure said that their position is not based on an attack on the gay lifestyle, but is rather an effort to preserve traditional marriage. They included the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage.
Similar measures were on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. By 10:30 p.m. Tuesday night, with 67 percent of precincts reporting, the Florida ballot measure was approved with 62 percent voting; yes and 38 percent voting no. The Arizona ballot measure also passed, by 56 to 44 percent.
A vote in Arkansas banning adoption of children by unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, passed at 57 percent to 43 percent.
In Michigan, citizens of the town of Hamtramck voted 55 to 45 percent to strike down an ordinance enacted by their City Council in June of this year, which gave special rights to homosexuals and "transgendered" individuals. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., represented the citizens group and joined community religious leaders in urging a 'no' vote on Tuesday.
The challenged ordinance had made it legal for men who perceive themselves as women to use women's bathrooms in any school, business or public facility. The ordinance defines such behavior as "Natural Rights of Hamtramck Residents." Under the ordinance, any attempt to prevent such activity would have subjected the person to investigations, criminal prosecution, civil litigation and fines of up to $500 per day.
"Radical homosexual groups have lost statewide attempts to impose their agenda on the public," said Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. “They are now engaged in a strategy of putting pressure on municipalities – in many cases successfully – to enact draconian provisions like Hamtramck’s. In this case their new strategy failed as the will of the people prevailed.”
The passage of Proposition 8 represents a crushing political defeat for gay rights activists, who had expected that public opinion on the issue had shifted enough to help them defeat the measure.
It also represents a legal question concerning the thousands of couples from California and others states who got married in the brief window of legality presented this summer. Legal experts have said it will have to be resolved in court whether their unions still are valid.
Opponents were not finished following its passage and filed a challenge yesterday with the California Supreme Court following its passage, claiming the referendum violated their 14th Amendment equal-protection rights. John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - Opponents of gay marriage say their easiest political work is done: Most states have passed laws or constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex unions.
Now they say their task is getting more difficult: Seeking to ban same-sex marriage in some of the nation's most gay-friendly states.
A Princeton-based group, the National Organization for Marriage, is targeting its message against gay marriage in California, one of two states that currently allow it, and a handful of other states that might consider it in the next few years.
The organization, known as NOM, is leading the support of a constitutional amendment in California that would put an end to the same-sex marriages that have been allowed there since last month.
While most of its efforts between now and the November vote will likely be in California, the group also is gearing up for battles over gay marriage in Florida, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
NOM is targeting Democratic-voting states on the coasts because those are the places her opponents think they have the best chance, according to Maggie Gallagher, a syndicated columnist who founded the organization a year ago with Robert George, a PrincetonUniversity professor.
"They're not choosing to push gay marriage through legislation in Alabama," Gallagher said.
A decade ago, the idea of gay marriage seemed like a pipe dream to its supporters and nothing to worry about to its opponents.
But since the high court in Vermont ruled in 2000 that gay couples should be treated the same as opposite-sex couples, expanding recognition of gay couples has become an attainable goal for it supporters. And the fight against gay marriage has become a priority for social conservatives.
Twenty-six states have adopted constitutional amendments to bar gay marriage _ nearly all of them after the Vermont court's decision.
Since then, the top state courts in Massachusetts and California have legalized gay marriage and same-sex couples in eight other states _ including New Jersey _ and the District of Columbia have gotten some legal protections.
Most of the gains for gay couples have come through the courts, but the key debates are shifting from the courtroom to voting booths and state legislatures.
In California, Arizona and Florida, voters are being asked in November whether they want to ban gay marriage. In New Jersey and New York, legislatures are expected to consider laws to allow gay marriage in the next few years.
Evan Wolfson, founder of the national gay rights group Freedom to Marry, said groups like NOM are fighting an uphill battle as people see how gay marriage works in Massachusetts and California.
"It's become clear to most Americans that there is no real good argument against allowing gays to marry," Wolfson said. "They can see with their own eyes that the gays didn't use up all the marriage licenses."
Len Deo, the president of the Family Policy Council of New Jersey, one of the state's leading socially conservative political organizations, said his group is usually overmatched by liberal interests in the Statehouse and can use the help of national organizations.
That's where Gallagher's group comes in _ with the aim of helping conservative state organizations fend off gay marriage, particularly in states where gay rights groups get help from national organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign.
"It's a strategic and tactical mismatch to have their best national people going up against our best state people," Gallagher said.
NOM, a taxable political advocacy group that can raise money without contribution limits, has quickly built up some fundraising muscle.
It started a California chapter in January. By March, the group had raised just over $775,000, according to campaign finance filings. Only the California umbrella group ProtectMarriage.com has raised more for the cause.
While NOM's biggest chunk in California _ $250,000 _ came from the Knights of Columbus, the group has also raised smaller amounts from individuals. The group says it has now raised more than $1 million in California and more than $2 million overall.
Wolfson, of the Freedom To Marry organization, says that while NOM's name may be new, the concept is not. He said much of the money seems to come from the same donors who give consistently to socially conservative political efforts.
In California, the organization used some of its money to hire people to collect signatures to get the marriage amendment on the ballot. Now that the question is on the ballot, the emphasis is on campaigning for it.
Gallagher said the group, which has aired some radio advertisements in New Jersey and New York, is also producing television and radio advertisements that can be adapted for use in states across the country.
June 17 marks the date that gay and lesbian couples can marry legally in California, following a landmark ruling by the state's Supreme Court in May that struck down the ban on same-sex marriage. The day will be marked by joyous celebrations and eager couples earning a right they have waited years to obtain.
Yet, the occasion will also be punctuated by the division it creates throughout the state. On the one hand,San FranciscoCounty has added additional staff and expanded hours so the clerk's office can accommodate the surge in demand from same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses and wedding ceremonies. The office has 170 same-sex couples signed up to receive marriage licenses on the first day, says Karen Hong Yee, director of the county clerk's office.
* * *
Opponents are similarly girding for the next fight. "We are focused relentlessly on November, says Maggie Gallagher, president of National Organization for Marriage, a Princeton, N.J., organization whose mission is to protect traditional marriage. The group helped sponsor the measure through its California unit.
Brian Brown, executive director of the group's California arm, will be speaking Tuesday about the impact of the ruling by the state Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage. The group will be meeting with supporters throughout the state, developing its email list, buying advertisements and organizing grass-roots groups, Ms. Gallagher says.
(CBS)Even for a state used to earthquakes, the California Supreme Court's decision last month to legalize same sex marriage was a jolt. But even as gay couples make plans to wed this week, opponents say tradition should - and will - be restored. Our cover story is reported now by John Blackstone:
In the cheery rotunda of San Francisco's City Hall … always a great place for a wedding … it's a moment of calm before the storm.
Tomorrow this grand old building will reaffirm its place at the epicenter of the same-sex marriage debate, with what's likely to be the very first legal gay wedding in California performed by San Francisco's mayor Gavin Newsom.
"I don't know what's the big deal at the end of the day to allow people to be treated fairly," Newsom said. "My gosh, what more American value is there than that?"
But American values have generally viewed marriage as joining a man and a woman. Thirty days ago in California that all changed.
Gay couples cheered and began making wedding plans when, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage.
When the ruling takes effect at one minute after 5 tomorrow afternoon, California becomes the only state besides Massachusetts where it's legal to marry someone of the same sex.
For Mayor Newsom it was an unexpected victory in a controversial movement he unleashed in 2004 when he authorized the City Hall marriage of one couple, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both in their 80s, together more than 50 years.
"I never imagined that at 9:01 when the courts opened after we had married that couple, that they didn't shut us down," Newsom said. "And another couple got married."
As the word spread, dozens and then hundreds of same-sex couples showed up at City Hall, to get licenses and get married.
"And then all of a sudden, 4,036 couples from literally 46 states and 18 countries came together over the course of a month, and then there was a different energy and a different expectation," Newsom said.
Finally the State Supreme Court ordered it to stop. Some couples, who were waiting in line for their chance at marriage, were crushed.
Now the lines will begin again. And not just in San Francisco, but at city halls and county offices across the state.
"There are thousands and thousands, and thousands of couples that want to see their lives affirmed," Newsom said, "but the fact is we're gonna be fine. This is all going to be okay."
For many gay couples, that's an understatement. Some of the more high profile marriage seekers include Ellen Degeneres, who publicly came out on TV more than a decade ago. She announced her intention to wed actress Portia de Rossi.
Actor George Takei, best known as Mr. Sulu on "Star Trek," plans to wed his partner of 21 years, Brad Altman.
Blackstone asked Takei what was the reaction in his household when the news of the Supreme Court decision came.
"We didn't know about it," Takei said, "and we were having a bite to eat in the kitchen over there. And I think I bit into a sandwich when the word came down.
"And all of a sudden Brad fell down to the floor. I mean, he got down on his knees. And I said, you know with my mouth full of food, 'What are you doing?' And he was on his knees and said, 'George, will you marry me?' And I said, 'Darn it! I meant to ask you. You beat me to it!'"
"I just want to be a part of the mainstream American society, which I am," Altman said. "But I don't want to feel like I'm a second-class citizen - That I can have a domestic partnership but I can't have a marriage."
Opponents of same-sex marriage say marriage is much more than a word; it's an important concept with only one meaning.
(CBS)
"By definition marriage is the union of a man and a woman, said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (left).
He is among those urging Californians to vote in November for a constitutional amendment to again ban same-sex marriage.
"Now what's gonna happen in the interim?" Brown said. "Likely all the effects we've seen around the country - parents being taught they have no say in what their kids are taught in school, and that Johnny needs to be taught that it's the exact same thing to grow up and marry Jimmy as it is to marry Mary, that there's no distinction at all. That's what the law now says."
Brown says the state supreme court improperly overturned the will of the people. In 2000 California voters approved a measure declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
But California does recognize domestic partnerships. Arguing against gay marriage, the state attorney general said domestic partners have rights equal to those of married couples, just under a different name. The state supreme court however ruled that "separate but equal" is not equal.
Twenty-eight percent approve of civil unions, 30 percent for allowing gay couples to marry - the highest number since CBS began asking that question in 2004.
Massachussetts issues same-sex marriage licenses only for residents. Since California has no residency requirement, gay couples from across the country are expected to head west - and then go home to an uncertain legal future.
Right now, 44 states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Eight states do provide some spousal rights to same-sex partners, but only New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
"So this is something that's gonna challenge a lot of people," Newsom said. "But I think when they realize that this is really about humanity, this is about human love and expression, it's nothing more than that, then they'll soften. And they'll understand. 'You know what? It's okay. Let's move on to other things.'"
But the opposition in California is strong…
Citizens in Kern County lined up to show their support for County Clerk Ann Barnett. She dodged a reporter's questions after announcing that her office will no longer perform wedding ceremonies. It's an issue several county clerks in California are wrestling with.
Even the most ardent supporters of the new law say it's going to be, well, different.
(CBS)
Blackstone asked Contra Costa County Clerk Steve Weir (left) what was changed about the marriage application.
"Well, instead of 'bride and groom,' it's 'party A and party B.'"
"That's not very romantic!" Blackstone said.
Weir, who said he plans to be the first in line at his own office Tuesday morning to marry his longtime partner, John Hemm ("I will be 'party B'") admitted, "Yeah, it's not very romantic. It's just the way it is. I'm doing it for the ceremony. I'm doing it for the public ritual, which I believe in.
"I like to see people go to the polls to vote because it's a ritual, and I like for people to declare their love for each other and also have some responsibility, and some benefits that come from it, and we're looking forward to all of that."
For the 18 years Weir and Hemm have been together, the closest they got to a marriage ceremony was a staged photo, taken after one too many cocktails. Hemm was wearing white.
"I was just waiting for the time when you could just do it like everybody else does in the world, you just go down to City Hall or to the county clerk's office, get the paperwork done, and not make anything different or special," Hemms aid. "You know, some people in the world want it to be different. They want to be able to point that finger and say, you know, 'Oh, there go those gay people again, making a spectacle of themselves.' No, it's just like anybody else."
But it's not like anybody else, says Brian Brown. To him, gay marriage is an attempt to normalize something that isn't normal at all.
What's normal for George Takei is a world that's ever changing.
(CBS)
"People change," he said. "There was a time when there was no role for women in the institutions of American society. And the strongest contender against the African-American candidate was a woman. People have changed.
"And I know that people can change. Because I grew up behind the barbwire fences of American interment camps. That was in my lifetime. And here I am now, a popular actor, supported by many, many people throughout the country. America changes. America is made up of decent people."
But when the weddings begin again in California, some decent people will see only indecency.
Though that is not likely to diminish the joy for those who thought marriage could never be theirs.
The National Organization For Marriage plans to start running radio ads in New York City and in Albany and Rochester beginning tomorrow, ripping Gov. Paterson for beginning to recognize gay marriage in New York.
“So many people in New York have called us and phoned us and emailed us and demonstrated concern about Gov. Paterson’s unilateral decision to recognize same-sex marriage in New York, when the Supreme Court said it’s up to the Legislature,” said Maggie Gallagher, a WestchesterCounty woman who is president of the organization, which opposes gay marriage.
The ad will run in New York City on WABC-AM; in Rochester on WHAM-AM; and in Albany on WGY-AM.
Here’s the ad, which begins and ends with a child’s voice and at the end says, “I want a mommy and a daddy.”
Here’s the script:
Grandma, my teacher says if grandpa was a girl it’s okay, you can still be married…
ANNCR: If we change the definition of marriage…
GIRL 1: God creating Adam and Eve? That was so old-fashioned…
ANNCR: Our kids will be taught a new way of thinking…
BOY 1: If my Dad married a man, who would be my mom?
ANNCR: This is an URGENT marriage alert!
Governor David Paterson just ordered state officials to use our tax dollars to help same sex couples evade New York’s marriage laws.
These are the same politicians who can’t figure out how to lower our taxes, or our gas prices, or fix our schools…but they have time to mess around with marriage! Marriage in New York means a man and a woman.
Go to Nation-For-Marriage.org and send Governor Paterson a message: Stop messing with marriage and get back to work! That’s Nation-For-Marriage.org.
GIRL 2: I want a mommy and a daddy.
PROVIDENCE — Jenn Steinfeld celebrated an anniversary of sorts in a crowded committee room at the State House last night.
For the 10th year running, the executive director of Marriage Equality RI testified in support of same-sex marriage.
Change, she said, takes time. But ultimately, it is inevitable.
In what may be a sign of changing times, the perennial legislative debate over gay marriage saw a new addition last night: the question of whether same-sex couples married in other states should be allowed to divorce in Rhode Island.
Sponsored by House Majority Leader and Providence Democrat Gordon D. Fox, an openly gay man, that proposal would do what the Supreme Court elected not to in a decision late last year –– allow couples to opt out of an unhappy marriage.
“Divorce can be a more fundamental principle than marriage because it has to do with the due process that’s the bedrock of American jurisprudence,” Fox said before the hearing. Prohibiting it effectively denies “a fundamental principle of democracy.”
The passionate testimony before the House Judiciary Committee late last night came hours before another critical proceeding in the same-sex divorce debate. This morning, the state Superior Court is expected to hold a hearing to determine whether that court can grant a divorce to a Providence couple who were married in Massachusetts.
In a December 2007 decision that drew national attention, a divided state Supreme Court ruled that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the divorce. The majority opinion said that under the law allowing Family Court to handle divorces, the word “marriage” means just one thing: the union of a man and a woman.
Inherent in that ruling was the suggestion that the question was more a matter for the legislature than the courts, which is what led Fox to craft the proposal.
Same-sex divorce was just one of the bills that drew dozens of advocates, families and clergy members on both sides of the issue to the State House last night.
Rep. John J. McCauley Jr., D-Providence, submitted a bill that would give domestic partners the spousal benefits of family medical leave, nursing home visitation and funeral planning.
Rep. Jon D. Brien, D-Woonsocket, sponsored legislation that would place on the November ballot a question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to wed. After years of debate with little resolution, Brien said it’s time to put the question to the voters of this state.
But it was the matter of gay marriage and divorce that prompted the most emotional of speeches.
On one side, Maggie Gallagher, president of the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization For Marriage, traveled to Rhode Island to defend the idea of marriage as “the way we bring together the two great halves of humanity — male and female — to make and raise the next generation.”
On the other, members of the newly formed Lawyers for Equality and Diversity said it creates a legal mess to prevent a rightfully married couple from legally divorcing in this state.
By 10:30 last night, the committee had taken testimony from dozens in the audience, with more lined up waiting to speak despite the late hour. Chairman Donald J. Lally Jr., D-Narragansett, said members did not plan to immediately vote on any of the bills.
The fate of these proposals remains unclear. House Speaker William J. Murphy and Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano have in the past opposed same-sex marriage along with Governor Carcieri, whose administration reiterated his opposition yesterday.
A Murphy spokesman said the speaker has not yet reviewed the same-sex divorce legislation.
But Fox, his second in command, said he remains optimistic about his bill. “I hope to get it to the floor and hopefully to the Senate,” he said.
Effort Intensifies for Same-Sex Marriage Ban by Matthew Yi
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
Friday, April 25, 2008
(04-25) 04:00 PDT Sacramento --- The battle over same-sex marriage in California heated up Thursday, when supporters of an initiative to ban it in the state's Constitution submitted more than 1.1 million signatures in an effort to qualify the measure for the November ballot.
Representatives of a conservative coalition called Protect Marriage delivered boxes of signed petitions in each of the state's 58 counties. Opponents immediately pledged to wage what is expected to be a costly campaign to defeat the measure if it goes to voters.
In the next several weeks, county and state officials will make sure the signatures are valid. To qualify for the ballot, the measure needs at least 694,354 signatures, or 8 percent of the votes cast in the last governor's race. A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen said the verification process could last until the middle of June.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said two weeks ago that he would fight such an initiative, and the state Supreme Court is weighing whether to overturn or leave intact Proposition 22, an initiative approved by California voters in 2000 that barred recognition of same-sex marriage in the state. Justices are expected to rule in June.
Backers of the new measure, known as the Limit on Marriage initiative, say voters should have the final say in the matter.
"The California marriage amendment will allow the people of California, not politicians or courts, to decide the meaning of marriage and place that meaning inside the Constitution," Joseph Infranco, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona group helping the initiative campaign, said as he delivered about 44,000 petitions to Sacramento County's registrar of voters office.
"While the Supreme Court can overturn statutes, they can't overturn constitutional amendments," Infranco said.
Critics of the initiative have called the measure hateful and divisive by narrowly defining marriage.
"The state Constitution was created to provide everyone equal rights, and what these extreme, right-wing groups are doing is to take away from entire groups of people protections under the Constitution," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group.
The measure by Protect Marriage, which is based in Sacramento, is one of two current initiative efforts to ban same-sex marriage in the state. A second campaign, by a group called Vote Yes Marriage, would ban same-sex marriage and repeal domestic partner benefits, but that effort might be stalled.
The measure needs the same number of signatures as the Limit on Marriage initiative, and the petitions must be turned in by June 30. But supporters of that measure haven't received any campaign donations in recent months, and the group has only $42,106 in its coffers, according to campaign filings with the secretary of state's office. A telephone call to the group was not returned Thursday.
Protect Marriage, on the other hand, received more than $1.6 million in campaign donations since January, with the largest chunk, almost $900,000, coming from the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit in Princeton, N.J.
Backers of the proposed measure also have garnered endorsements from conservative and religious groups around the nation, including Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition.
If the initiative qualifies, campaigning will be fierce, opponents and supporters said Thursday.
"We have been working to prepare for this for several years, and if they do qualify, we will mount a vigorous and hard-fought campaign," Kors said.
Infranco said he expects both sides to spend "tens of millions" of dollars to sway voters.
Schwarzenegger jumped into the same-sex-marriage fray this month, when he told a group of gay Republicans in San Diego that he would fight against the initiative for a constitutional amendment if it qualifies for the ballot.
His comments surprised some Capitol observers because the governor has twice vetoed bills to legalize same-sex marriage in California. But Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor was honoring the will of the voters and enforcing the law under Prop. 22.
But if the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 22, the governor would support that decision as well, McLear said. The governor doesn't think the state Constitution should be amended on an issue such as the prohibition of same-sex marriage, McLear also said.
Coming up
-- The Limit on Marriage initiative would amend the California Constitution to recognize marriage only as between a man and a woman.
-- The California Supreme Court is expected to rule in early June whether to affirm or overturn Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2000 that reaffirmed marriage as between a man and a woman.
E-mail Matthew Yi at myi@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle.
SAN FRANCISCO – The sponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage in California said Monday they have gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.
A coalition of religious groups called Protect Marriage collected more than 1.1 million signatures in support of the amendment, said Brian Brown, executive director of the California office of the National Organization for Marriage.
The initiative needs 694,354 signatures, or 8 percent of the votes cast in the last governor's race, to make it onto the ballot.
"We have gone against tremendous odds to do this, and now the voters in California will have the chance to protect marriage," Brown said.
Supporters of the Limit on Marriage initiative plan to deliver their signed petitions to county registrars this week, ahead of the April 28 submission deadline set by the California Secretary of State's Office. The signatures must be verified before the amendment can be approved for the election.
Although gay men and lesbians cannot legally wed in California, opponents of same-sex unions want the ban written into the state Constitution. In that way, neither the Legislature nor the California Supreme Court can legalize gay marriage without approval from voters.
They were especially anxious to put the question before voters this fall because the state Supreme Court is scheduled to rule by early June on a series of lawsuits seeking to toss out California's existing one man-one woman marriage laws.
If passed by a majority of voters, the constitutional amendment would overturn a court ruling in favor of gay marriage advocates. They hope California will become the second state after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage.
"We shouldn't have to be guessing. This shouldn't be something left to the court either now or in the future," Brown said. "The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."
If it qualifies for the ballot, the measure promises to be the center of a hard-fought campaign.
Protect Marriage raised more than $1.5 million in contributions to support its petition drive, money that allowed the group to hire paid signature collectors to supplement the volunteers it recruited from churches, Brown said.
A coalition of gay rights groups called Equality for All launched an aggressive counter-campaign to persuade people not to sign the qualifying petitions.
Its "Decline to Sign" volunteers approached patrons outside the shopping centers where the signature gatherers were working and asked them instead to sign pledges supporting same-sex marriage.
Representatives from the two sides have accused each other of trying to squelch free speech. There were reports of heated debates and even fisticuffs in some locations.
Dan Hawes, an organizer with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force who has spent two months on the effort to keep the initiative from qualifying, said he had never seen such a coordinated attempt to prevent a marriage amendment from making it to the ballot.
"There is a real sense of hope and possibility here because of the court ruling that is coming down in June," he said. "The fact that could be taken away in five months is really painful for people who want to marry."
Earlier this month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger upset the amendment's backers when he told a gathering of gay Republicans he thought the measure was unnecessary and that he would actively oppose it. He has twice vetoed bills seeking to make gay marriage legal.
"When Governor Schwarzenegger publicly opposed this constitutional amendment, he said the people of California are much futher along on this issue, and the governor is right. The voters have moved on," said Seth Kilbourn, political director of Equality California, the state's largest gay-rights lobbying group.
Kilbourn said the amount of money the initiative's sponsors spent and their use of paid petition circulators showed that California voters may be reluctant to write a same-sex marriage ban into the state Constitution.
"We are confident we will be able to defeat this measure, when and if it appears on the ballot," he said.
The National Organization for Marriage, headquartered in New Jersey, and the Colorado-based Focus on the Family have contributed heavily to the Protect Marriage campaign. It also has received significant backing from the Knights of Columbus.
###
Date: 4/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
California Decline to Sign/Stop the Initiative Campaign Update Story
By CHRIS JOHNSON
Human Rights Campaign
3/12/2008
Terry McGuire, one of 6 HRC’s field organizers who has racked up an amazing number of frequent flier miles this year, landed on the ground in California to join the efforts of the other field operatives who have been working for two weeks to stop the “Limit to Marriage” petition currently gathering signatures. HRC sent Terry and Charlie Mumford to join Field Director Sarah Scanlon and Regional Field Organizer Karl Bach in Orange County where they are working to build a voter education program in conjunction with Equality for All. Equality for All is a coalition of organizations that have banded together in a campaign to stop the initiative. Here is a dispatch from Terry after a long first day on the ground:
From: Terry McGuire
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:13 AM
To: Christopher Johnson; Rachel Balick
Cc: Darrin Hurwitz; Jeremy Pittman; Marty Rouse; Karl Bach; Charlie.Mumford
Subject: California Decline to Sign/Stop the Initiative Campaign Update
IT'S LATE, WE HAVE TO LEAVE EARLY IN THE MORNING FOR A TRAINING IN LOS ANGELES, I'VE BEEN UP SINCE 7AM, BUT I WANTED TO SEND A QUICK UPDATE!
I'm back in California! Yesterday I was reunited with Team HRC here in Orange County. We now have four full time organizers dedicated to stopping the anti-marriage equality initiative. To reiterate, well-financed opponents of fairness are working tirelessly to gather enough signatures to qualify for a place on the November ballot. HRC, along with our coalition partners at Equality for All, is dedicated to fighting this unnecessary, hateful effort to enshrine discrimination in the California State Constitution.
After getting settled in with my hosts and acquainting myself with the campaign updates it was time to get to work today. We spent the morning and afternoon working on some e-advocacy efforts, scouting turf, and preparing for tonight's phonebank.
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was kind enough to donate space in her campaign headquarters. Seven phonebankers hit the lines tonight and called about 350 Orange County progressives! It was a challenging list, as many of these folks are not regularly contacted for political activities. We managed to have a lot of great conversations, however. We gave a lot of updates to folks who were unaware of the anti-equality efforts taking place, signed up some volunteers, and tested out some messaging in our script. As you can see from the photo, we were also able to have a good time and enjoy a break for some tacos!
I'm off to bed for now. Keep an eye out for more updates on our work here in California - things are sure to heat up as we approach the mid-April filing deadline!
Gay marriage debate intensifies as conservatives get organized Story
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
The Associated Press
12/15/2007, 10:24 a.m. ET
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey's well organized gay rights advocates are finding their adversaries are also getting prepared for a coming legislative debate over gay marriage.
The National Organization for Marriage, established earlier this year in Princeton, made itself known over the past few weeks with radio advertisements urging people to call their lawmakers to tell them that allowing gay couples to marry would undermine the institution.
The group set up in left-leaning New Jersey because it is one of a few states where there's a realistic chance in the next few years that lawmakers will vote to allow gay marriage. That makes it a battleground for the issues nationally.
"If our side continues to increase in its activism, I think we can stop this in 2008," said Brian Brown, the executive director of the new organization.
Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, said the emergence of the new group shows how close New Jersey is to becoming the first state to enact a law to allows gay couples to marry.
"We're not surprised at the right wing's panic," he said. "We're ready for this battle."
The only state that currently lets gay couples marry is Massachusetts — and that was because of a ruling from the state's top court.
Last year, New Jersey's state Supreme Court declared that gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples. The Legislature responded adopting a civil unions law, which allows those benefits — but stops short of allowing gay couples to wed.
Goldstein and his allies have promised since then that they would keep pushing for full marriage. But instead of going to the courts again, he vowed to go first to the state Legislature.
It's a relatively new strategy for gay rights advocates. Only in California has a legislature that passed a similar bill. There, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed the measure.
Just a year ago in New Jersey, it seemed a longshot that lawmakers would pass a marriage bill anytime soon. Back then, Goldstein acknowledged that only a handful of lawmakers were solidly behind the cause then.
But civil unions have received poor reviews from couples, many of whom say their employers, and others, are not recognizing the rights they're supposed to bring with them.
Nearly one-fifth of the more than 2,000 couples that had licenses for civil unions as of mid-November have complained to Garden State Equality that some of their rights have been denied.
Now, Goldstein says, he might have enough support to get a law passed. His group and another liberal organization, Blue Jersey, have aired television commercials explaining their position.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a gay marriage bill into law, but added that he did not want to deal with the issue before the 2008 presidential election.
Goldstein is pushing for a discussion about a year from now.
The opponents, who say the majority of people agree with them, are trying to get mobilized in case it comes up before then.
Brown, who previously ran the Family Institute of Connecticut, says gay marriage would affect people other than gay couples and their families.
For instance, he says allowing it would mean that children in public schools would have to be taught that it's OK to be gay, that people who oppose gay marriage could be seen as bigots and that religious organizations that teach homosexuality is wrong could lose their tax-exempt status.
"Can't people care about their culture? Can't people care about the effects it will have on society at large?" he asked. "It affects legal structure, religious structures."
Brown's organization is also waging campaigns in other states, especially places in the Northeast and West where gay marriage is most likely to become reality.
Brown's group believes that if gay marriage is allowed in multiple states, there would be more lawsuits from gay couples married in one state and seeking to have their unions recognized elsewhere. He seeks to head that off by blocking gay marriage in states where it's most likely to be allowed.
Most states already have laws or constitutional amendments that prohibit the unions.
His group and others opposed to gay marriage have sent e-mails to followers and aired radio commercials for two weeks recently urging them to contact their lawmakers to oppose gay marriage.
The district office of Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts Jr., a Democrat and one of the most powerful lawmakers in Trenton and an advocate of gay marriage, has received more than 500 calls from opponents over the past few weeks.
"The radio ads have definitely gotten people's attention," Brown said.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
NJ Lawmakers Urged to Move on Gay Marriage Bill Story
NewsCenter Staff
365Gay.com
1/10/2008
(Trenton, New Jersey) The group that won a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that said same-sex couples must have the same legal rights as married pairs is urging the state legislature to move forward on a marriage equality bill.
Following the high court ruling the legislature passed civil unions bearing the rights of marriage but not the name. (story) Since then, despite the law, gay and lesbian couples say they are not being treated on an equal footing with married couples.
Lambda Legal which won the 2006 ruling this week called on lawmakers to amend the law to provide for full marriage.
"Marriage equality for same-sex couples in New Jersey is inevitable ---- prolonging the wait leaves countless families across the state without the security and dignity of being able to explain to their children, their neighbors, or their children's teachers that they are married," said Lambda Legal Executive Director, Kevin Cathcart in a letter to members of the legislature and Gov. Jon S. Corzine.
"Civil unions label same-sex couples as different and inferior and no amount of tinkering with the rules and benefits can erase that stain of inequality.
"While the civil union law helped immensely to reduce the harm that New Jersey causes same-sex couples, most New Jerseyans will never read the law. Instead, they know gay people were denied marriage, and they take away a discriminatory message from that.
Corzine has said he expects that eventually the law will be amended and at least one openly gay lawmaker is reportedly working on a bill.
But it is doubtful any legislation will be introduced before the November election.
Democrats who overwhelmingly control both houses in the Legislature are concerned any move right now on gay marriage would provide Republicans with a wedge issue.
Late last year a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage launched radio ads throughout New Jersey using children's voices to denounce gay unions. The ads begin with an announcer saying "If we change the definition of marriage.." but is interrupted by a child.
"Grandma, my teacher said if grandpa was a girl that's ok, you can still be married,'" the voice says. The announcer then returns to say: "Our kids will be taught a new way of thinking: 'God creating Adam and Eve is so old-fashioned.'"
"Thinking the unthinkable: 'If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?'" The ads were paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.
Lawmakers are awaiting a report from a commission it set up when the civil union law was passed to monitor whether civil unions are meeting the requirements set down by the court.
It is widely expected the commission will recommend amending the law to provide for marriage.
At public hearings throughout the state last year commissioners heard from same-sex couples who faced discrimination.
Garden State Equality said more than 300 same-sex couples have complained to it that employers won't recognize their civil unions and refuse to provide insurance for their parters and children.
"When the government itself discriminates, it sets an example for others to follow, and causes more discrimination everywhere else. The harm has only just begun, and it will never stop as long as same-sex couples are assigned a separate status," the letter from Lambda Legal to lawmakers this week said. "The New Jersey Legislature and the Governor should end the harm it created with the civil union law by ending discrimination in marriage."
Vineland Defines Marriage
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
By JASON LADAY jladay@sjnewsco.com
VINELAND -- Wednesday night, Vineland became the second municipality in the state, after Elizabeth, to send a resolution to lawmakers in Trenton making known its preference for defining marriage as between one man and one woman only.
City council voted 4-1, with President John Barretta dissenting, to approve a resolution titled, "A resolution in support of preserving, protecting and defending the institution of marriage, as being between one man and one woman and insuring that civil union partners are not the subject of discrimination regarding benefits."
The vote was followed by an extended, thunderous applause from the larger-than-average crowd within the council chambers -- mostly made up of pastors and congregates of area churches.
According to its wording, a copy of the approved resolution will be sent to 1st District Sen. Nicholas Asselta and Assemblymen Jeff Van Drew and Nelson Albano.
Council decided to take up the issue after local pastor Rev. Ralph Snook addressed the body in early November, asking them to "send a message" to state politicians as a response to gay rights advocates and many state legislators currently pushing for a Marriage Equality Law.
"Legislators in Trenton tried to sneak this in during a lame duck session, but after a great letter writing campaign, they have decided to take it up at a later date," said Snook, addressing the council Wednesday. "I ask you to use your influence to convince them to have a referendum; all we ask is that the people have a chance to decide on this important issue."
The reverend then read from a prepared statement, in which he referred to homosexuals as "confused," and warned that if gay marriage were codified into law, bestiality and incestual pedophilia would soon follow.
"I want to make it clear that I am not a gay hater," he said. "The church needs to reach out and help these people instead of being just another source of judgment to them."
After Snook, a procession of pastors from other churches followed, as well as other socially conservative residents urging the council to pass the marriage resolution.
Not one person spoke out against the proposal.
"We are right-thinking individuals," said Frank Ippolito, senior pastor at Calvary Chapel on North Main Road. "But they're trying to create a situation where wrong is right and right is wrong. It is common sense; marriage isn't going to work for (homosexuals), and it cannot work for them. Soon, marriage will be obsolete.
"We can't even express our thoughts without being called offensive names," he said. "It's what we think, and we have good reason to think it."
Pastor Randy Salter, of Life on the Vine Church on Spring Road, said homosexuality is the product of sexual abuse suffered as a child, as well as the confusion that stems from being a part of a "broken home.
"Don't let it happen, where future generations are asking this council not to allow fathers to marry their daughters," said Salter. "Where will it stop? I don't know where it will stop.
"It's not the politically correct thing to do. It's the pure thing to do."
This last line was met with an "Amen" from the crowd.
Each of the council members gave their reason for either supporting for not supporting the resolution.
Representing the only dissenting vote, Barretta began by stating he is "one of the more conservative members on the council.
"I have not really given much thought to this issue before the resolution was first recommended," he said. "However, I believe marriage, with respect to benefits, is an issue of semantics. If two adults who love each other want to get married, they should be able to, and receive all the benefits that go with it."
The council president also referred to some of the arguments heard that night as "out of hand," stating, "I don't feel gay marriage will lead to bestiality. The resolution does not call for a referendum, carries very little weight and is a bit discriminatory.
"I do not feel it is something we should be pursuing."
Following the meeting, Snook said he was pleased with the overall decision.
"I am glad we got a majority," he said. "I'm disappointed in Barretta -- if he really is a conservative, he voted against those values tonight."
The reverend admitted the resolution does not "have a lot of bite." However, he referred to the decision as "one step, and an important one.
"I am confident that once put to a referendum, the people of New Jersey will choose to keep the definition of marriage as one man and one woman," said Snook.
When asked about the state's reputation as one of the more liberal in the union, the reverend replied, "Our politicians are liberal, ordinary people on this issue. I feel they will decide to support a resolution like the one passed tonight."
The New Jersey Legislature in December 2006 passed the Civil Union Act giving same-sex couples "substantially all of the rights and benefits of marriage," according to a formal opinion issued by state Attorney General Stuart Rabner in February.
The law also created the Civil Union Review Commission responsible for investigating how the law is being enforced.
So far, thousands of same-sex couples who have entered into civil unions have reported they are still being denied benefits by their employers.
The commission in October conducted three hearings in which many stated they want the state Legislature to pass a marriage equality law.
Gov. Jon Corzine has previously stated, through spokesmen, he would sign such a law, and would take up the issue in 2009 in order to avoid the national spotlight during next year's presidential election.
Opponents of gay marriage launch all-out N.J. campaign Story
Thursday, November 29, 2007 BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG AND JOSH MARGOLIN Star-Ledger Staff
A national campaign to block gay marriage came to New Jersey this week as conservative groups began airing radio advertisements and bombarded a key lawmaker's office with as many as 200 phone calls an hour.
The National Organization for Marriage debuted a radio ad warning "powerful special-interest groups want to redefine marriage," and the N.J. Family Policy Council sent out an e-mail urging people to phone legislative leaders and Gov. Jon Corzine.
Leaders of both organizations said they were trying to block an effort to legalize same-sex marriage during the lame-duck session of the Legislature that ends Jan. 8, when new lawmakers are sworn.
Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) yesterday said no vote on same-sex marriage will be taken during lame duck, but those who fear it had succeeded in tying up his phone lines.
"At this point, they're just wasting their money with the phone calls. Somebody's giving them bad information," Codey said. "It's jamming our phone lines and we can't do our work here." He said his office got as many as 200 calls per hour. Corzine's office got 133 calls yesterday while Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) got about 200, according to their press secretaries.
Brigid Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, said the anti-gay marriage campaign may be aimed not just at lawmakers, but at voters casting their ballots in the presidential primary on Feb. 5.
"This is something that is a wedge issue," Harrison said. "It drives people to the polls."
But Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said he doubts the ads are intended to influence the primary, which is still "a long, long time away."
Leaders of the anti-gay marriage effort said they would be happy if they have a national impact but their immediate goal is to stop New Jersey from legalizing same-sex marriage during the lame duck session.
For more than a year, a bill to do so has languished in the Assembly. But when Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) introduced an identical bill this month, defenders of traditional marriage took note.
"To me, that triggers an alert," said Len Deo, president of the N.J. Family Policy Council, which sent e-mails to 3,000 to 4,000 people.
Weinberg said marriage equality for same-sex couples "is something that is overdue."
"I would certainly push it in the lame duck, and if it doesn't get through in the lame duck I will be advocating as hard as I can in the new session," Weinberg said. She added, however, "I don't have the power to move it."
Codey, who as Senate president does have that power, said, "There's no intention to do the bill. It's not going to be posted."
Told of that, Deo replied, "I think we nipped something in the bud." Brian Brown of Princeton, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, said, "If the bill doesn't come up and legislators hear from their constituents, that's also a success for us. We're going straight to the public."
Brown declined to say how much his group paid for the radio ads on radio station NJ 101.5 and its sister station, 97.3 FM, but called it "a substantial buy."
In the ad, a young boy asks: "If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?" The female narrator warns the "special interests" backing gay marriage "want your tax dollars to teach your kids -- and your grandkids -- that your idea of marriage is just bigoted."
Evan Wolfson, executive director of the pro-gay marriage group Freedom to Marry, said, "I think it's no coincidence that we see these kinds of right-wing, anti-gay campaigns in election years. They are appealing to their base of supporters who they hope will turn out and do their political bidding."
Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay advocacy group Garden State Equality, said its goal is marriage equality for same-sex couples, but not during the lame duck session. "We see it happening in 2008," Goldstein said. "The incoming Legislature is even better on marriage equality than the outgoing one."
Billboard attacks gay marriage vote
Saturday, October 06, 2007
By DAN RING dring@repub.com
BOSTON - A New Jersey group yesterday unveiled a massive billboard in Springfield that compares a local legislator to Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold for switching his vote on gay marriage.
Called "Betrayed," the billboard, posted on Interstate 91 near the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, targets state Rep. Angelo J. Puppolo Jr., a freshman Democrat from Springfield.
Puppolo changed his position on gay marriage and voted "no" to placing a question on next year's statewide ballot that sought to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex unions, legal in Massachusetts since May 2004. During the campaign last year, Puppolo said he would support the ballot question.
"Tactics like this reinforce my belief that I did the right thing," Puppolo said. "I voted to keep discrimination off the ballot and out of the Massachusetts constitution."
Puppolo said the billboard is hateful and offensive.
Brian S. Brown, director of the newly created National Organization for Marriage, of Princeton, N.J., which financed the billboard, said yesterday Puppolo betrayed marriage and the public trust.
The billboard is an effort to highlight Puppolo's vote and educate the public, said Brown, former executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut.
"If Angelo Puppolo is whining about this being hateful, that's over the top," Brown said. "Come on. He's a big boy. He's a legislator."
During a June 14 joint session of the state Legislature, the proposed question fell five votes short of the 50 it needed to appear on the ballot.
Brown said his group will post billboards or take other measures against 10 other state legislators who changed their votes or stated positions - including Sen. Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham - and opposed the proposed amendment on June 14. The group launched a Web site to announce a billboard campaign across Massachusetts.
Brown called Puppolo one of the most "egregious examples" of a legislator who changed his mind on gay marriage. He wouldn't comment on the billboard's cost or how long it will stay up.
Puppolo, 38, said the billboard goes too far.
"It's unfortunate that small-minded groups like this from out of the area come in and spread this kind of hate and inflammatory statements," he said.
The billboard underscores his belief the ballot question would have sparked a divisive, nasty advertising campaign next year, he said.
Puppolo, a Catholic who is married with two small children, said he attends Mass each week.
"To bring Judas into the equation really shows how desperate this group is," he said.
Melissa A. Threadgill, a spokeswoman for MassEquality, a group that opposed the proposed ballot question, said Puppolo did the right thing with his vote in June.
"I don't think people in his district will respond favorably to tactics like this," she said of the New Jersey group's intervention.
Sunday, October 14, 2007 Anti-Puppolo billboard champions free speech
I was delighted to hear about the billboard exposing Springfield Democrat, state Rep. Angelo J. Puppolo Jr.'s betrayal of natural marriage. Contrary to what "Dear Abby" and some of your readers think, there is no scientific evidence to support the theory that people are born gay. I do agree with "Dear Abby" that they definitely need to be loved.
Calling the billboard "hateful" is a tactic to try to silence the First Amendment rights of people who esteem natural marriage. The only side that promotes "hate" and "bigotry" regarding the marriage issue is the side that continuously uses such terms so they can claim victimhood and play on the sympathies of the public.
ELLEN WADE
Springfield
Monday, October 15, 2007 House Speaker DiMasi owes Puppolo, Candaras
I don't mind seeing the billboard on the highway in honor of state Rep. Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr., D-Springfield. It gives me something to read and ponder while I wait to see what he (and Sen. Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham) will be getting from Gov. Deval L. Patrick and/or House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston, in return for undoing my right to vote in the initiative petition process.
I know the Legislature hasn't been abiding by the binding referenda anyhow, but it still must be such a pain for them to have to hear about that nuisance of a process. Well, now that's all taken care of, thank you both, Rep. Puppolo and Sen. Candaras, and I'll keep on watching and waiting for your goodies to arrive.
LINDA FITZGERALD
East Longmeadow
Puppolo denied voters chance to express views
Recent letters to the editor criticize the National Organization For Marriage for running an ad describing state Rep. Angelo J. Puppolo Jr. as a Judas or a traitor for his having switched his vote, thereby taking away his constituents' rights to express their opinion on gay marriage.
These letter-writers fail to understand the reason so many voters are upset with Puppolo, and that is the fact that he switched his position on the issue in the middle of the night before the vote.
Whether it was to relieve political pressure on himself, or for other motives, Puppolo promised his constituency right up to the day before the vote that he would support their right to vote on the issue. Then he went back on his promise. I'd say that that qualifies him as a Benedict Arnold to his constituents.
Puppolo describes his sudden change of heart in the middle of the night as a matter of principle, to do the right thing. That wasn't the issue. He could have waited until after the vote, and - if it turned out to be not to his liking - could have joined with the other legislators to kill the bill, just as they have done countless times with voters' initiatives they disagreed with. No, the issue was the citizens' right to an initiative petition, which he helped kill. I'd say he'll fit in well in the Massachusetts Legislature.
R. PATRICK HENRY Jr.
East Longmeadow
Puppolo should be held accountable for his vote
It's both ironic and humorous that letter writers are using their free speech rights within the pages of The Republican to decry another group's use of those same free speech rights on a billboard.
George H.W. Bush ran on a platform of no new taxes. He then raised them. Highlighting the betrayal of the voter trust, the Democratic Party rightly ran video clips of Bush proclaiming, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Bush lost.
What separates state Rep. Angelo J. Puppolo, D-Springfield, from other state elected officials is - like Bush - he ran saying he was going to do one thing, and then when elected did the other.
While the billboard is over the top - people died because of the betrayals of Judas and Arnold - it is accurate; Puppolo did betray the trust of voters who elected him on that issue. There have been millions of dollars on both sides of the issue pouring into Massachusetts. Clearly the court's decision set precedent and has national implications. New Jersey is affected.
Most of the letters ignore those points and are advocating what amounts to censorship. This is America. Celebrate the fact that we can have a public discussion on the matter. Really, celebrate it, be happy. Many throughout the world cannot.
Puppolo Speaks About Betrayed Billboard
By Lisa Tanner
CBS3 Springfield
October 9, 2007
Judas betrayed his friend, Benedict Arnold his country, and now a brightly lit billboard on I-91 in Springfield accuses State Representative Angelo Puppolo of betraying the sanctity of marriage.
"All three are examples of betrayal, so I think it was a clear, stark example of what Angelo Puppolo has done," says Brian Brown, the Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage
The New Jersey-base group paid for the billboard, as a response to Representative Puppolo's vote this summer against a 2008 ballot question that would let voters define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"It was all about equality," says Puppolo. "It was all about keeping discrimination out of the Massachusetts Constitution."
Politics aside, the National Organization for Marriage, says Puppolo did more than betray marriage, he betrayed his voters.
"He campaigned strongly on the idea he would protect marriage and actually received money from people who believed he would protect marriage," says Brown. "And when the vote came, he betrayed the voters. He betrayed the public trust."
But Puppolo says he made no promises on either side of the gay marriage debate during his campaign.
"When I went door to door this is not what I talked about, when I went to the debates this is not what I talked about," says Puppolo. "And I think that is going to show overwhelmingly at the end of the day."
Puppolo isn't the group's only target. They say ten other Massachusetts legislators committed a similar betrayal, and they are currently deciding who else deserves to be featured on a billboard.
NOM Launches "Betrayed" billboard campaign in Massachusetts
Sending a message to Massachusetts politicians who betrayed marriage
The National Organization for Marriage launched a statewide billboard campaign exposing Massachusetts legislators who voted to betray marriage in a June 14 vote on the Massachusetts Marriage Amendment. The first in what will be a series of billboards went up in Springfield, highlighting Angelo Puppolo's betrayal of marriage. Puppolo was one of eleven Massachusetts' legislators who had earlier voted for the marriage amendment, and who had repeatedly assured voters of his intent to protect marriage, only to betray those voters when it counted on June 14.
