2009 April | NOM Blog

NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: April 2009

National Organization for Marriage and Carrie Prejean Launch New Ad Showing Intolerance of Gay Marriage Activists, Illustrating Threats to Religious Liberty

April 30, 2009 – 5:20 pm

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."

To view the ad and read the letters from legal scholars, go to www.nationformarriage.org.

###

By Brian Brown | Posted in Religious Liberty | Comments (556)

The Institution Formerly Known As Marriage

April 27, 2009 – 8:55 pm

by Jennifer Roback Morse
Public Discourse
April 24, 2009

The Iowa court's recent decision does not simply broaden marriage, it radically changes its nature. While marriage previously served public purposes of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and one another, now marriage merely serves as affirmation of adult feelings.

The Iowa Supreme Court recently proved that the critics of same-sex "marriage" are correct: we are not being urged to make marriage more inclusive, but to radically redefine the nature of marriage itself. With its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court covertly but profoundly changed the meaning of marriage. The Court abolished the essential public purpose of marriage, and replaced it with a new understanding of marriage that is neither essential nor public. The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage will be an empty shell in Iowa. As the movement to redefine marriage spreads across the country, citizens should look to Iowa to see what this actually entails.

The essential purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Absent this purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution. Human beings are not born as rational autonomous actors, they are the immature products of sexual relations between a man and a woman, and they need the assistance of adults to survive. Marriage exists, in all times and places, to solve this social problem. If our offspring were born as adults, ready to live independently, or if we reproduced through some form of asexual process, we would not need anything like marriage.

Marriage also has a profoundly social purpose. Marriage creates its own small society consisting of mother, father, and children. That small social unit contributes to the larger society by creating a functioning future-the next generation. Everyone benefits from having a next generation that can sustain the society and keep its institutions going. Even when I personally am old, and even if I have not had any children myself, I benefit from the fact that younger people are building cars and houses, providing medical and legal care, starting new businesses, and running old ones. In modern developed countries, the family also saves the state a lot of money by taking care of its own dependent young, rather than foisting that responsibility onto the taxpayers. Thus, the benefits of marriage go far beyond the benefits to the individual members of the family.

So, what did the Iowa Supreme Court have to say about the purposes of marriage? Did they view the requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman as a violation of the principle of equal protection? Indeed. As the Court argued, "Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are 'similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.'" If the Court can convince itself that the dual gender requirement bears no relationship to the State's purpose in having a marriage statute in the first place, then that requirement violates the Equal Protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

It should be evident that if the purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then the dual gender requirement is perfectly permissible. Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not the same with respect to this purpose. The Court had to come up with a very limited understanding of the purposes of marriage in order to maintain that opposite-sex and same-sex couples are in fact similarly situated.

The Court enumerated several purposes directly. Marriage provides an institutional basis for defining relational rights and responsibilities; marriage allows people to pool their resources; marriage recognizes people's commitments; marriage provides comfort and happiness; marriage is a status, not a contract.

But these reasons do not explain why we need marriage in particular. I have a relationship with my next-door neighbor. My family pools resources with other members of a boat club. I have commitments to my employees and business associates. A pet brings me comfort and happiness. We do not need the unique relationship called marriage for any of these purposes.

The Court alluded to several other possible purposes, without including them within its list of state purposes. "Therefore, with respect to the subject and the purposes of Iowa's marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples."

The Court does not seem to realize that if these purposes really exhaust the list of legitimate state purposes of marriage, then there is no reason to have marriage as a distinct legal structure in the first place. Moreover, these are all private purposes, not public purposes, of marriage.

The same-sex couples before the Court claim to be committed and to love each other. Why do we need marriage for that? I'm committed to my sister. I love my best friend. Are we second class citizens because we are not married to each other? There is no state purpose whatsoever to be served by my having some legal statement or affirmation attached to my love for my sister. Besides, who really wants the Court, or the state or anyone else saying that our love is important to the state? People's feelings are none of the state's business.

The Court seems to understand this, for it gently and subtly elides the key issue of marriage law when it goes on to say: "Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children . . . just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples." But wait a minute: How in the world does a same-sex couple obtain a child that is "theirs?"

This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.

The social purpose of marriage has always been to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and to each other. This universal social purpose does not even make it onto the Iowa Court's short list. The reason should be obvious: opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that purpose of marriage. If the Court found that attaching children to their parents and parents to one another is a purpose of marriage, they would be unable to sustain their claim that man woman marriage violates the principle of equal protection under the law.

Society needs marriage because children have rights to care from their parents, rights which they can not defend on their own. Societies create marriage to pro-actively protect the legitimate entitlements of children, and to provide for the future of the society. According to the Supreme Court of Iowa, these provisions for children are no longer the purpose of marriage. We are left to guess as to how this truly essential public function will be performed, now that the Court has surreptitiously removed it from the list of marriage's jobs.

Iowa is a relatively homogenous and prosperous state. This newly created lacuna in the purposes of the law may not harm Iowa much at first. But other states have more diversity of opinion and practice about socially acceptable behavior, as well as greater economic and social stresses on married life and childrearing. In those states, the cost of redefining marriage is likely to be more pronounced and immediate.

In sum, the Court has elevated the private, inessential purposes of marriage to the highest point in the hierarchy of values of marriage. Given this new understanding, neither the longevity of marriage, nor fidelity within marriage can remain as important values. By the time the opponents of conjugal marriage are finished with their redefinitions, marriage will be little more than a five-year renewable-term contract. The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage will be nothing but a couple of individuals, loosely stapled together by the state.

Advocates of natural marriage, as opposed to genderless marriage, believe that society needs marriage to be a child-centered, gender-based social institution. We have been arguing all along that same-sex "marriage" will be a gender-neutral institution, in which children are only a peripheral concern. When the Supreme Court of Iowa established same-sex "marriage" by judicial decree, they proved our point for us.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage.

By Brian Brown | Posted in Iowa | Comments (266)

NOM Marriage News: April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009 – 11:49 am

NOM Marriage News.

Dear Friends of Marriage,

I have so much good news to tell you about marriage.

Good news? On a week that started with Miss California losing her dream of the Miss America crown--just because she thinks, like you and me and the Main Street majority--that marriage means a man and a woman?

Yes! Read More »

By NOM Staff | Posted in NOM Marriage News | Comments (0)

Thanks, Colbert Report!

April 18, 2009 – 2:04 am

I learned this morning NOM has officially made it to the big stage, being parodied last night on the Colbert Report! Thank you, Colbert Report, for the publicity. Those who enjoy the irreverent satire of the Colbert Report can catch the segment here (parental discretion).

NOM's statement released this afternoon is below:

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.

“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?"

By Brian Brown | Posted in Miscellaneous | Comments (140)

NOM Marriage News: April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009 – 12:03 pm

NOM Marriage News.

Dear Friends of Marriage,

Wow.

What an extraordinary two weeks!

Let me step back from the news headlines and tell you what is really happening out there.

The ultimate goal of the architects of gay marriage in this country is to get inside your head and make you feel despair. Make you feel alone. Make you feel powerless. They need you and me to give up. That's the only way they can win. Read More »

By NOM Staff | Posted in NOM Marriage News | Comments (0)

WashPost Highlights Religious Liberty Threat

April 11, 2009 – 1:18 am

This article from today's Washington Post highlights the religious liberty threats (including two mentioned in our Gathering Storm ad) that religious organizations and individuals are facing in jurisdictions mandating recognition of same-sex unions.

Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights

. . . The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."

By Brian Brown | Posted in Religious Liberty | Comments (269)

Gathering Storm Background Facts

April 10, 2009 – 9:37 pm

I've been busy doing interviews most of the past three days, but wanted to take a minute to set the record straight here as well:

The response from the Human Rights Campaign (and others) to the release of the Gathering Storm ad this week is nothing new. It's the exact same tactic we saw last year in California: Call us liars with no substantiation on particular facts.

To HRC: People are smarter than this. Check out our background facts here.

And for those who keep asking about the actors -- It's a professionally produced ad. Of course we used actors. We say so right in the ad. Is that the best talking point HRC could come up with? If so, we struck more of a nerve than I originally thought.

I challenge the Human Rights Campaign to try to refute any of the incidents described in the ad. Please. The fact is you can't (the WashPost just verified them again today) -- so you simply cry "liar" and hope that it sticks. Sorry, we're smarter than that.

By Brian Brown | Posted in Religious Liberty | Comments (101)

NOM Marriage News: April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009 – 12:13 pm

NOM Marriage News.

Dear Friends of Marriage,

As I write it's Holy Thursday. Tomorrow is the darkest day of the year for Christians like me: the day when our sins crucified our Lord.

And yet in the midst of that darkness is the greatest ray of Light ever to flash across our human horizons: God Himself died for our sins, for my sins.

And in three days He will rise to give us new life.

I'm not going to write you a long letter, or ask you for money. It's been a very busy week for those of us committed to defending God's truths in this fallen world.

(You can see some of the media coverage below. Thank you for helping us get out the word.)

Those of you who share my Christian faith: Have a blessed and happy Easter.

For all of you who've joined this merry band of brothers (and sisters!) on our quixotic mission to protect marriage: Thank you.

And may God richly bless you for your caring and your courage,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

NOM in the News: MSNBC Hosts Debate on Gay Marriage -- Joe Solmonese vs. Maggie Gallagher
Hardball -- MSNBC
April 8, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM2MNdIGT7g

Video:

Same-Sex Marriage: For Some a Beginning, for Others an End
The Takeaway
Maggie Gallagher interviewed
http://www.thetakeaway.org/stories/2009/apr/09/same-sex-marriage-some-beginning-others-end/

"Takeaway" interview quoted on National Public Radio's Morning Edition
http://www.criticalmention.com/components/url_gen/play_flash.php?clip_info=877788567|0|60^877773406|0|60^877774267|0|60&autoplay=1

Brian Brown on CNN -- Anderson Cooper 360
April 8, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwr7T_dmVM0

Gay Marriage in the Midwest
Maggie Gallagher on CBS Early Show
April 9, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4931097n

PrintA Push Is On for Same-Sex Marriage Rights Across New England
New York Times
April 4, 2009
"Activists have targeted these states because they think it's going to be easier to convince legislators than the populace," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a group established to fight same-sex marriage. "They're doing everything they can to keep the public from having a part in this process."

Advocates on Both Sides Seek Momentum on Same-Sex Marriage
New York Times
April 8, 2009
"This is just the beginning," said Brian Brown, executive director of the organization, who insisted that the momentum was building in favor of those who oppose same-sex marriage. "We just won in California. We won in the state where everybody else said we couldn't win, and we were told that this was inevitable there. Well, that was wrong. It was wrong there, and it's wrong when you apply it to Vermont."

Iowa, Vermont gay marriages spark debate in Calif.
The Associated Press
April 9, 2009
If the court overturns Proposition 8, "it would be devastating to the democratic process and any future initiative or referendum," said Bryan Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage. He noted that when the California Supreme Court overturned the death penalty, the voters amended the state constitution in 1978 to uphold it.

Same-Sex Marriage: Opposing Views
Washington Post
April 7, 2009
David Catania, a D.C. City Councilmember who voted for the amendment to recognize gay marriage, and Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, who opposes legislation allowing gay marriage, were online together Tuesday, April 7, at 3:45 p.m. ET to discuss today's votes, their significance and national reaction.

Vermont, DC Gay Marriage Decisions Give Conservatives Reason for ...
U.S. News & World Report
April 8, 2009
Of course, as I suggested last week, the gay marriage wars will have big political implications. Mike Huckabee especially is working to capitalize on it, regardless of whether it was a legislature or courts. An activist group called the National Organization for Marriage is plunking down $1.5 million to run ads opposing gay marriage in other states currently considering similar measures.

$1.5 Million Spent On Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
CBS News Hot Sheet
April 8, 2009
A group called the National Organization for Marriage, which worked to overturn gay marriage in California, is out with a controversial new ad that suggests opponents of same-sex marriage are now being victimized for their beliefs.

"What Vermont Gave Gay Marriage Foes"
Maggie Gallagher column
New York Post
April 9, 2009
But the Vermont bill was a breakthrough in another way: For the very first time, a Legislature has formally acknowledged that gay marriage poses a serious threat to the religious liberties of Vermonters who disagree with the government's new definition of marriage. And the gay-marriage movement has permitted that Legislature to enact some imperfect yet substantive religious-liberty protections, instead of the fake protections generally offered.

Preliminary vote backs same-sex marriages in DC
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
April 9, 2009
"It's a bad day for the country," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a group established to fight same-sex marriage. "There is a palpable sense that something has changed and people need to get active."

Iowa Court Voids Gay Marriage Ban
Gainesville Sun
April 4, 2009
"The gay marriage movement has once again used the power of the courts to push an untruth on unwilling Iowans," said Brian S. Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a group formed in 2007 to preserve traditional marriage. "Same-sex unions are not marriages, and Iowans should not be forced by law to treat them as such."

Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one ...
DesMoinesRegister.com
April 3, 2009
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group, said, "Once again, the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject."

Steve Rothaus
MiamiHerald.com
April 8, 2009
GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has launched a campaign against the National Organization for Marriage's new video,which will begin airing on television tonight.

Caucus: Hitting the Airwaves
Hartford Courant
April 9, 2009
Following setbacks in Iowa and Vermont, opponents of same-sex marriage are taking to the airwaves.

The National Organization for Marriage is launching a $1.5 million television ad campaign "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 group said.

New campaign fights same-sex marriage
Politico
April 8, 2009
"The biggest argument -- and the biggest lie -- put forward by those who want to redefine marriage is that it's not going to have any affect on you. 'Why should you care? It's not going to have any effect on your marriage," said NOM executive director Brian Brown. "In state after state we've seen same-sex marriage directly conflict with people's religious beliefs."

Group Speaks Out for Traditional Marriage
Christian Broadcasting Network
April 9, 2009
The National Organization for Marriage kicked off the two-year campaign, Wednesday, with a budget of $1.5 million. NOM president Maggie Gallagher says the ads are a clear representation that "the American people oppose same-sex marriage."

"Every time they have had an opportunity to vote on it, they have rejected it in favor of upholding traditional marriage," she said. "Two recent national surveys state that 55 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage has served our country well since its founding."

Do Our New Marriage Rights Have Conservatives Energized? Or Terrified?
Queerty
April 8, 2009
"Several groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggested Tuesday that the successive victories for gay rights advocates would give the opposition movement new energy," reports the New York Times. "[Brian Brown, executive director] of the National Organization for Marriage, said the developments in Iowa and Vermont had prompted his group to start running advertisements against same-sex marriage in several states now, instead of in late spring, as originally planned. In particular, he said, the ruling in Iowa caught opponents off guard and invigorated them because they had not expected it so soon."

Anti-Gay Group Launches Nationwide Campaign Against Same-Sex Marriages
AHN
April 8, 2009
The National Organization for Marriage on Wednesday began its Religious Liberty Ad Campaign with a one-minute ad that features ordinary people speaking about their fears and experiences about gay marriage legislation. The various statements, "My freedom will be taken away... Those advocates want to change the way I live," do not make detailed arguments about the legislation, and focus primarily on warning people about losing their religious freedom.

Pro-Family Leaders Warn Battle Over Marriage Will Reach Federal Level
Christian Post
April 8, 2009
"To the millions of Americans who care about marriage, we say get ready: President Obama and Democrats will use Vermont as an excuse to overturn the bipartisan federal Defense of Marriage Act," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), according to The Associated Press.

"The next step is to ask the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states."

VermontVermont joins 3 states in allowing gay marriage
Philadelphia Inquirer
April 8, 2009
"Today is a truly sad day for Vermont and this nation," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage.

Brown said he hoped the ad campaign, which he said would eventually include more than $1.5 million worth of air time, would "highlight 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."

Vermont lifts drive for gay marriage
Seattle Times
April 8, 2009

"To the millions of Americans who care about marriage, we say get ready: President Obama and Democrats will use Vermont as an excuse to overturn the bipartisan federal Defense of Marriage Act," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which waged a radio campaign against the Vermont measure. "The next step is to ask the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states."

Vermont's Gay Marriage Decision Reignites Right
Women on the Web
April 8, 2009
Those celebrations, however, may be curtailed by news that the lawmakers' decision -- and a Supreme Court ruling in Iowa -- have only reinvigorated opponents of gay nuptials. The National Organization for Marriage, which believes marriage should remain between a man and a woman, vowed yesterday to take a tougher stand in other states.

The group's executive director, Brian Brown, told the New York Times that he and his allies planned to start airing commercials across the country that stress the importance of maintaining traditional definitions of marriage.

Rhode Island

Lawmaker's hopes are dim for RI gay marriage bill - Boston.com
Apr 8, 2009
The state chapter of the National Organization for Marriage unveiled a television ad to be rolled out first in Rhode Island, later in other battleground states.

In the commercial, dark clouds and lightning rumble in the background as speakers warn that advocates for same-sex marriage are threatening their rights and beliefs.

"We're not naive about the momentum that is being gained," Chris Plante, the group's executive director.

RI Gov. Don Carcieri backs traditional marriage campaign
Boston Herald
April 8, 2009
The Republican governor will appear Wednesday at a news conference with members of the state chapter of the National Organization for Marriage. The group plans to unveil an ad campaign that will run in states viewed as battlegrounds in the debate over same-sex unions.

Carcieri to attend anti-gay marriage press conference
Providence Journal
April 8, 2009
With a high-profile bill to allow same-sex couples, married elsewhere, to divorce in Rhode Island scheduled for a hearing Wednesday, the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage has called a State House press conference for 9:45 a.m. Wednesday to announce the "launch of its latest media campaign to protect marriage and the religious liberties of Rhode Island's families."

Carcieris speak at anti-gay marriage event
Providence Journal
April 8, 2009
The press conference centered on a new TV ad that the National Organization for Marriage intends to air in Rhode Island and other battleground states.

Titled "Gathering Storm,'' it features actors -- standing against an ominous, grey-sky backdrop -- saying things like: "'There is a storm gathering and I am afraid...I am a parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay...I am a church charity punished because we cannot treat two men just like a husband and wife...But we have hope a rainbow coalition of peoples of every creed and color are coming together, in love, to protect marriage.'' At the bottom of the screen is a disclaimer: "The stories these actors are telling are based on real life incidents.''

Gov. joins anti-gay marriage campaign
Providence Eyewitness News
April 8, 2009
A group against gay marriage has a very prominent politician in its corner. Gov. Donald Carcieri and his wife, Sue, joined the Rhode Island Chapter of the National Organization for Marriage Wednesday morning at the State House as it launched its new media campaign.

Rhode Island Governor joins anti-gay organization citing needs of ...
Metro Weekly
April 8, 2009
Republican Governor of Rhode Island, Donald Carcieri, as reported by the Providence Journal. He appeared at a press conference where he was joined by his wife, Sue, and a spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay group helmed by Maggie Gallager, which is releasing a scare-the-public commercial called "The Coming Storm." Christopher Plante from N.O.M. was questioned aggressively when he also tried to state that gay marriage is an attack on the needs of children.

Carcieri denounces gay marriage
NECN
April 8, 2009
"We are not naive about the momentum that is being gained we are not conceding anything," says Christopher Plante of National Organization for Marriage.

Rhode Island Governor Joins Anti-Gay Group
On Top Magazine
April 8, 2009
As Rhode Island prepares to become one of the next battlegrounds in the gay marriage debate, Governor Donald Carcieri has announced he and his wife, Sue, have joined the Rhode Island Chapter of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a group that opposes gay marriage.

New JerseyNational group targets state with anti-gay marriage ads
NorthJersey.com
April 8, 2009
The effort by the National Organization for Marriage was in the works before recent decisions in Iowa and Vermont allowed same-sex marriage, but those events make it more timely, said Brian Brown, the organization's executive director.

The goal of the campaign is "activating those millions of Americans who already agree with us," Brown said this morning during a news conference in the State House in Trenton.

By NOM Staff | Posted in NOM Marriage News | Comments (0)

NOMBlog Launch!

April 7, 2009 – 1:01 pm

With the fight over the future of marriage heating up across the country, NOM is working overtime to make sure that we can get news and information out to our supporters as quickly as possible. With our e-mail action alerts, Facebook Page, and Twitter accounts we're already reaching tens of thousands of supporters of traditional marriage.

Now we're launching a new blog that will get you the marriage news you won't hear about from the mainstream media. We'll have posts by NOM's president, Maggie Gallagher, our Chairman, Professor Robert George, from me, and from guest contributors.

If you like what you see, or if you've got some suggestions for improvements, send us an e-mail at nomblog@nationformarriage.org.

By Brian Brown | Posted in Miscellaneous | Comments (100)

Emergency Iowa Action Alert!

April 7, 2009 – 12:55 pm

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.

1. Send an email to the 33 Iowa House members whose support is critical to the passage of HJR 6 this year. Time is short. Do it right now. Click here to send your message.

2. Forward this message to all of your friends and family, especially those who live in Iowa. If enough voters speak up, even the most stubborn politician will eventually pay attention. Let's make sure all our politicians get the message loud and clear -- spread the word today! Click here to forward this message to five friends.

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!

By Brian Brown | Posted in Iowa, SSM | Comments (63)

Home Pressroom NOM Blog About Us Donate Get Informed Get Involved