Home
|
Contact Us
|
NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Releases Statement Regarding GOProud's Participation in CPAC

February 10, 2011 at 7:46 pm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : February 10, 2011

CONTACT: Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING GOPROUD'S PARTICIPATION IN CPAC

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), reacts to the controversy surrounding GOProud's participation in CPAC:

"NOM's position on GOProud and CPAC is being misstated by many in the media and particularly even the conservative media. We want to clear the record.

We went to CPAC last year in good faith, knowing that GOProud was also attending. It was at CPAC we learned from repeated interviews they gave that GOProud leaders favor gay marriage. It's not who people are, it's the positions they take that concern us.

Now Erick Erickson points out that some key GOProud leaders also used to work for Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, which may be of concern to many in the prolife community as well.

At NOM, we've repeatedly invited all people, including gay people, who support marriage as the union of husband and wife to join us in this great fight. There probably aren't a large number of gay folks who want to defend marriage, but they do exist and we welcome their participation at NOM, CPAC, or anywhere else.

I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between a party--which is an aggregation of voters to make a majority--and a movement. A movement has two choices: either it is based on coherent, core principles or it becomes just another political party. The conservative movement is at an inflection point about which of these two things it seeks to be."

See Erick Erickson's piece "This Is Too Much For Me" here.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected] [email protected]@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, [email protected] [email protected]@crcpublicrelations.com, (x105) at 703-683-5004.

###

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Same Sex Marriage | Comments (3)

Celebrity Trumps Politics

February 10, 2011 at 4:00 pm

The Donald came out as a conservative at CPAC, saying "I'm pro-life, I'm against gun control, I'll end and replace Obamacare, and I won't raise your taxes." He says he'll decide by June whether to run for president. Other candidates say what this country needs is "you." The Donald says what the country needs is him. Someone who is successful, competitive, used to winning, who understands "life is war." His platform includes fair trade, kick China for manipulating its currency, demand OPEC lower oil prices and generally make America great again.

He got into a fight in the middle of his speech with Ron Paul supporters by telling the crowd, half of which was booing half of which was applauding, that "I like Ron Paul, he's a good man, but he has zero chance to be president."

He certainly doesn't back down from a fight.

The Grade

Life: C+
Marriage: D
Social conservatism: D

But wow, it was fun.

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Election Watch 2012 | Comments (5)

NOM National Newsletter - February 10, 2011

February 10, 2011 at 3:54 pm

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Marriage is on a roll!

In Providence yesterday, a hearing was held about two bills: one which would redefine marriage--and one sponsored by Rep. Jon Brien which would refer the question to the people of Rhode Island.

Both Maggie Gallagher and Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse were there, so I had a live report.

It was jammed! The media is reporting roughly similar-sized crowds (both in Providence and Rhode Island)--so that tells you how many of our folks turned out. On “Capitol TV,” behind the witnesses testifying were a sea of blue “one man, one woman equals marriage” signs.

Congrats to Chris Plante of NOM-Rhode Island and to all the hard-working Rhode Islanders who showed up to make sure their voices are heard!

You know who didn't show up to the hearing to testify? The speaker of the House. Or the governor.

Why not? First gay speaker in Rhode Island history. A governor who says gay marriage is his economic development plan in his inaugural address (I kid you not!). Why didn't they show?

I don't know for sure, but word on the street is: They don't have the votes.

Maggie tells me it was very clear at the hearings that the reps on the Judiciary Committee are struggling. They are getting hammered with phone calls and letters from their constituents. Keep it up--you are lighting a fire!

As one young woman told Maggie in the hallways just before the hearing, “113 people should not get to decide for all of Rhode Island what marriage is. The people should have the right to vote!”

Maryland also had a great turnout for our side; thank you.

After Maggie testified in Maryland, I was so moved to get this note from a woman we have never met who drove for two hours to attend the hearing:

Greetings to Brian Brown and all of the hardworking staff at NOM:

"I am a Marylander and drove two hours with a friend yesterday to attend the SSM hearing in Annapolis. I am so glad I spent the day doing this. I've only been recently getting politically active, as I see my Christian values being torn apart by angry wolves in the marketplace of ideas. Enough, I say.

I just wanted to share my appreciation of the fine testimony Maggie Gallagher gave to the senate panel, a panel that was clearly hostile to supporters of traditional marriage. She articulated a wonderful statement about the purpose of marriage, which is not to give people access to federal benefits, or to make them feel happy, or included, but to provide the proper environment for procreating and raising the next generation. Marvelous! My quiver of arguments just had a giant arrow added to it.

I thought you might like to know, however, what was going on in another part of the building from where Maggie was. Because there were so many people attending the hearing, they opened up an overflow room on the first floor, where I sat with my friend. Unlike the actual hearing room, where no clapping, cheering, or other sound could be made, it was easy to take the temperature of the attendees in the overflow room. It was quickly apparent that many of the attendees were traditional marriage supporters: black, white, old, young.... Once traditional marriage witnesses took the stand, the excitement level in the overflow room went up several notches, and there was a lot of applause regarding the arguments being made not only by Maggie, but by Alliance Defense Fund and other pro-traditional marriage/family values groups.

Although Maryland is extremely liberal, and many government officials want to see progressive ideals instituted in this state, I was encouraged to see that this is not the slam-dunk for same-sex marriage proponents that I thought it was.

Don’t believe the mainstream media's message of despair!

“Although I realize the deck is stacked against us, I can see now that same-sex marriage will never be the law of the land here. If it gets out of committee, and if it passes the senate, and if it passes the house, there will immediately be a referendum to let us vote on it, and I suspect Marylanders are never going to vote for it. I have the first ray of hope I've felt about the issue in this state for some time.

I've been supporting NOM to the best of my ability for the last year or so, and yesterday I saw my dollars hard at work. Thank you for continuing to tirelessly stand up to defend traditional marriage. Your efforts are noticed and appreciated.”

Christine ended up on an energized and optimistic note I really want to share with you:

Thank YOU Christine, so much, and thanks to everyone from all the organizations that are working so hard to protect marriage.

These are still very close votes in Rhode Island and Maryland. We haven't won yet. Keep the pressure on!

But the good news and the momentum keeps building.

In Indiana, a state marriage amendment just passed a critical hurdle in the House Judiciary Committee. We expect a vote on the floor soon--maybe today--and we fully expect another encouraging victory for marriage. The marriage amendment has already passed the Senate several times, so we don't expect problems there.

We've helped in Indiana, but the people we really need to thank for this victory is the Alliance Defense Fund, Focus on the Family, Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute and Micah Clark of AFA-Indiana. You guys rock! We are all in your debt and we will all be cheering your great Indiana victory for marriage!

And Wyoming is another state with a great marriage victory pending--one which has been flying under the media's radar (natch!).

Thanks to ADF, Focus, and especially WyWatch Family Action, a marriage amendment just passed the Senate 20-10--a two-thirds margin required and achieved!

On the House side, a marriage amendment passed through the House Judiciary committee by a 6-3 vote on Tuesday. A full vote is pending in the House.

A state DOMA statute protecting marriage just passed the full House too.

So many people of all races, creeds, and colors are working together to defend a great good, and a great truth: To make a marriage you need a husband and wife.

I've got to get back to work. Maggie's over covering speeches by presidential contenders at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, for how well they address why social conservatism matters to conservatism--do they speak for life and marriage?
Check it out over at the American Principles Project's getconservative.com blog. Or you can find it up on the NOM site too.

I'm grateful to God for these victories. They are your victories, in defense of His truth about marriage.

God bless you,

Brian Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. As we fight for marriage in state after state, we need your help! Please consider whether you can make a monthly gift of $5 or $10, or a one-time gift of $50 or $100, to speak out for marriage.

Brian Brown
By Brian Brown | Posted in NOM Marriage News, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (5)

Rick Santorum's Speech

February 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Rick Santorum spoke off the cuff, from notes, not text, with great passion and energy, and when he stopped speaking, he got a standing ovation.

If anyone is wondering whether CPAC delegates care about that social issue, wonder no more.

His great theme was that America is a special place because it was founded on the idea of moral truth.

Perhaps his biggest applause line was “The judiciary cannot create life, and it did not create marriage—and the judiciary has no business redefining either.”

He ended with a beautiful and moving encomium to his youngest daughter Bella, who is stricken with a disease (Trisomy 18) that kills almost all babies who have it before the age of 2. She’s two and half and a “miracle.”

“Some have told us it’s time to move on, to let go, to try something different, because she’s not perfect and they are embarrassed. But Karen and I fight for her because we see in her something valuable, we love her, we feel blessed to be with her. . . .The truth is that it is not evident that 'all men being created equal' but it is true.”

Some excerpts from his explanation for the place of social conservatism within conservative principles (He was talking faster than I can type, so this is as close as I can get it for now):

“We hear a lot about the three-legged stool. I believe in it because it is based on our founder’s vision of this country. (applause) . . .

Because we trusted people, for the first time in the history of the world, we liberated the world. He quotes the Declaration of Independence, “endowed by our Creator with certain rights.” The idea that our rights come from God and not from the government – that was revolutionary.  Rights come from God not the government. . .In Europe they believed rights flow from God to the king and from there he sort of shares the wealth. (laughter)

We believe different: we don’t believe that people are there to serve the sovereign.. . .

The third leg of the stool is the leg that is often overlooked. Some believe that there is an optional one, one that there should be a “truce”. Start sawing off one leg of a three legged stool it’s not going to be stable for long.

America is about a moral idea: the belief in the dignity of every person. “All people are created equal” is not based on fact. He is not equal her. He is not equal to him. We are equal only in the eyes of God. People come to America because of what we are: we believe in the dignity of life, we believe in the stability and strength of the family; we believe in self-sufficiency, the very basic network of family, community and self.

Those are “the social issues”; those are the issues that matter, those are the issues that bind us together, those are the issues from which we cannot retreat.

I know this isn’t a popular thing. I got criticized in the Senate for standing up for the social issues. Just because it’s not popular doesn’t mean it’s not true. It is true. Our founders understood truth and about pursuing the truth.

We talk about the tyranny of Obamacare and all this government control and government telling us what to do, taking freedom away from us. That applies to judges too.

You live in the social conservative trenches, and you see a judiciary that is interfering in social issue, a group of smart people get together and decide they have the right to redefine life—we’re going to take that decision away from you on life, take that power away from you on marriage.

All of this government control of our lives, and government telling us what to do, if you lived in the trenches of the social conservative movement you know what this is, on the issue of life, judges took this power to decide away from the people. Or the recent issue of marriage. The judiciary cannot create life and it cannot create marriage, and it has no right to redefine either one of them (strong applause).

Two Q&A responses:

Can states challenge decisions of the courts?

“The federal government didn’t create the states.” The states have a right to challenge the constitutionality of laws. States have sovereignty and have a right to contest the decisions of the Supreme Court.

How do we know we’ve won?

We repeal Obamacare. We limit the size of government. We can take these decisions the court has made, and get the courts to back away from injecting themselves into the “social issues”, and allow Americans to make these decisions themselves.

[Full disclosure: Rick probably had an unfair edge in getting a good evaluation from me, because he's the only candidate who showed me an early draft of his speech and asked for my comments. The draft I read was not the speech I heard, however.]

The Grade

On Life: A
On Marriage: A
On Social Conservatism: A+

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Rhode Island | Comments (3)

Newt Gingrich's Speech

February 10, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Newt got a theatrical introduction—a rock star intro—at CPAC, weaving through the adulatory crowd as the lightbulbs flash to the throbbing beat of “eye of the tiger.”

He begins with the news that the NYSE will soon be German-owned—makes that a symbol of the Democrats' job-killing policies.

He challenges Obama to move to the center by doing 7 things—seven steps to the center:

1. Sign repeal of Obamacare. 58 percent favor repeal. That should be the center. . .

2. Sign tort reform for doctors

3. Sign the permanent repeal of the death tax - 78 percent support

4. Sign the new Hyde amendment so no taxpayer money funds abortions in the U.S. (big applause here)

5. Sign a Paul Ryan-style balanced budget act

6. Sign laws that will decisively control the border now

7. Sign a tenth amendment implementation act returning power to the states and the people, and influences how Medicaid is disbursed

By the way, Newt’s call to ban taxpayer funding of abortion got even bigger applause than his endorsement of Paul Ryan-style budget cuts (as others observed).

Unlike Mitch, Newt clearly believes in poll-testing. As in the Contract with America—the Gingrich strategy is to point to conservative idea that he says large majorities support - 58 percent want to repeal Obamacare. 78 percent want to repeal death tax.

If 78 percent aren’t the center, he asks, where will you find it?

He focused on an American energy plan to replace the EPA, which he says will become the site of President Obama’s effort to control the non-health care economy, as Obamacare will come to control the health care economy.

Back on our evaluation criteria, Newt gets high marks for mentioning the new Hyde Amendment. He said nothing about marriage and really made no mention of social conservatism at all. This is in part because Newt’s speeches are the speeches of a charismatic policy nerd (if that’s not an oxymoron): he thrives on the poll-tested policy points.

It’s a smart speech and very substantive: He has just announced that “American energy” is his new theme for the next year and probably 2012.

The Grade

On Life: B+
On Marriage: D
On Social Conservatism: D

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (4)

MotherJones Reporter: "Social > Fiscal @CPAC?"

February 10, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Suzy Khimm is a political reporter for Mother Jones, commenting on Newt Gingrich's call for the President to sign a new Hyde amendment into law.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012 | Comments (1)

Mitch McConnell's Speech

February 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Mitch McConnell’s main theme: do what’s right not popular. “Don’t confuse what’s popular with what’s right. If our conservative principles are universal they are right for all people at all time.”

(He had a great line about how hard it was during the Bush administration to focus anyone’s attention on how campaign finance reform would hurt free speech—“It was like trying to get a deaf dog off a meat truck!”)

That he said is the great lesson of the Obamacare fight:

“When we started this fight the President’s vision of reform had the support of 70 percent of the people. But we didn’t swear an oath to uphold whatever was popular, we swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Nobody in Washington has the right to force anyone to buy something against their will... We’ll keep fighting in House, Senate, in the courts and in different forum until Obamacare goes the way of Hillarycare!

Democrats say they want to put this issue behind them I assure them it’s still very much ahead of them.

Let’s see if we can get a waiver for everybody in the United States! What’s not good for the union buddies is not good for you either. “

They know this bill is a disaster that’s why they are handing out waivers to their union buddies...

The Senate Minority Leader repeatedly called for us to stand on principle. What are our principles?

McConnell put it this way:

“So when the whole world running the opposite direction, we stood firm. We stood for imited government and we stand for freedom. We stand for strong defense and we stand for traditional values. And most certainly we stand for American exceptionalism. We insist the constitution means what it says.”

In an allusion to the internal debate he said, “Our movement is greater than any individual matter. If we stick together—we will continue to change the conversation in Washington.”

Grades

On Life: D
On Marriage: D
On Social Conservatism: D+

I like the speech and I like the man. But he didn’t speak to our issues at all.

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Election Watch 2012 | Comments (1)

Marriage at CPAC

February 10, 2011 at 11:57 am

The Daily Caller says 14 potential GOP presidential candidates will speak at CPAC. That's a lot of words from politicians! We'll be covering whether and how candidates speak of life, marriage and the place of social conservatives here at the NOM blog, so stay tuned.

To be clear: we're not evaluating the candidates--just their speech at CPAC.

For more commentary from me and others on this question, you can also check out APP's website: getconservative.com

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Election Watch 2012 | Comments (1)

Rhode Island Update: "Abolish Marriage" is a Compromise?

February 10, 2011 at 11:55 am

It was clear to me when I attended the hearing in Rhode Island yesterday that the legislators, getting hammered by their constituents, are desperately seeking compromise.

But what kind of self-described "conservative" would say the compromise is: "abolish marriage for all?"

It's a measure of the pressure Democrats are feeling in Rhode Island that this idea is being floated.

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Rhode Island, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (11)

Michelle Bachmann's Speech

February 10, 2011 at 11:38 am

[Maggie Gallagher is going to be evaluating what the potential presidential candidates speaking at CPAC today have to say about marriage and life. First up - Michelle Bachmann who had the morning keynote address.]

Here was the question I had about Michelle’s speech: the Minnesota firebrand is testing the presidential waters in a long-shot bid; her social conservative credentials on life and marriage are impeccable. Would she veer libertarian at CPAC?

Michelle’s main theme seemed to be: let’s all applaud the way we stomped the liberals in the last election.

YAY!! The crowd loved it.

It’s hard to judge a speech like this, a nice opener for CPAC, well-chosen for that purpose. But it doesn’t tell us very much about Michelle—except she likes to win and she’s running as one of "The People."

Michelle’s best line: with all we owe to China we might as well now say “Hu’s your daddy!”

I'm going to grade all the speakers on three things: their stand for life, for marriage, and their ability to explain why social conservatism is a key part of conservatism—on principle.

Frankly, Michelle Bachmann didn’t do very well on any of these fronts on this occasion.

She never mentioned life or marriage; she did include a call to stick with Reagan’s three-legged stool:

“Solomon said: a cord of three strands is not easily broken. As distressing as the economy may be, for our coalition to be victorious, it will take every one of us - everyone must bring together the fiscal conservative, national security, and social conservative groups together for 2012. This is as valid today as it has been for 35 years. some would have you believe that the rise of the tea party that conservatives only stand for one thing, namely reducing our deficit and debt. And while that's important, I strongly disagree that's all it is, and most conservatives would agree with this. Such a narrowly based political agenda is neither appropriate nor is it conducive to the broad base that will determine our success and help us win in 2012. I call on our movement to affirm our time-tested winning platform that rests equally on all three legs. I believe you are incredible talented, filled with excitement, motivated for 2012, and we need to win the triple crown of 2012, keeping a conservative House and winning the Senate and White House!”

I'm glad she doesn’t want to jettison social conservatives but what reason did Michelle offer as to why life and marriage matters to conservatism? Political pragmatism, sure, but nothing on principle.

The CPAC delegates loved Michelle Bachmann’s speech, but I'm not sure Iowa voters are going to be as impressed.

Grading Michelle Bachmann’s Speech

On Life: D
On Marriage: D
On Social Conservatism: B

[Note from MG: I upgraded Michelle to a B on social conservatism, because well, comparatively she's looking better!]

(I’m leaving room in these grades for the pro-gay marriage or pro-abortion candidate, if one shows up!)

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Election Watch 2012 | Comments (2)

Big Crowds Turn out For Marriage in Rhode Island

February 10, 2011 at 11:26 am

From the Providence Journal:

The same-sex marriage debate played out at high volume at the State House on Wednesday, with advocates waving “vote for love” signs, and opponents arguing that nothing less than the soul of Rhode Island, the well-being of its children and the “sanctity of marriage” are at stake in a year when the state’s new governor and openly gay House speaker are enthusiastically backing gay nuptials.

From a news conference to a rally to a lengthy House Judiciary Committee hearing, the arguments for and against same-sex marriage raged with so many people packing the marble stairs and hallways, the Capitol Police, in a rare but not unprecedented move, temporarily closed off the Smith Street entrance to the State House. [source]

Maggie Gallagher testified at the hearing yesterday, along with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute and Christopher Plante, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage-Rhode Island. Here are some of Maggie's posts during the event:

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Rhode Island, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

A useful thought experiment on alternative marriage laws

February 10, 2011 at 9:00 am

James Thunder writes at The American Spectator:

"We have presumed that, if traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional, the remedy is to make marriage eligibility less restrictive and allow same-sex couples to marry. What if, instead, we chose an alternative method to meet constitutional requirements, namely, revising our marriage laws to make them more restrictive?"

The results may surprise you.

For those of you who want to get right to Thunder's eventual answer:

This thought experiment demonstrates that current marriage law is tailored to fit -- as tightly as we should dare go -- the justification of "responsible procreation" for traditional marriage of one man and one woman.

Traditional marriage reflects and upholds who we are. Biologically, we are of two genders and only women can bear children. While women can bear children without benefit of marriage, marriage does indeed provide a benefit -- in the first instance to the children, and second, to the mother, the father, and society. The focus of traditional marriage is on the needs of children, not, as one brief put it, on "the glorification of the adult self." If the institution of marriage is not focused on children, but rather, as the opponents of Prop 8 assert, on the affective emotions of the adults, then government has no particular interest in the institution because it has no particular interest in the (mere) lifelong companionship of adults.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage | Comments (7)

Maggie in Providence: Dr. J's Testimony

February 9, 2011 at 7:45 pm

Dr. Morse is testifying now: "Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. The legal presumption of paternity are presumed to be the child of her husband. Marriage equality requires a change from the presumption of paternity to the gender-neutral presumption of parenthood."

She continues: "Are you really prepared to accept responsibility for detaching legal parenthood from biology? Are you ready for three or four legal parents? Are you ready for contract parenting? That is what's coming...

If will take at least 30 years to see the impact of redefining marriage just as it has taken a full generation to see the impact of no-fault divorce."

She goes on to highlight the "pettiness" of gay couples suing wedding photographers: "As if you have a right to have your picture taken by the photographer of your choice."  Good line.

She ends with "Stay strong - you have history on your side!"

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Rhode Island, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

Maggie in Providence Update 2

February 9, 2011 at 7:43 pm

I just got out of the hearing room. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is about to speak (we should have tapes of both available later on).

The hallways are jammed with people from both sides. The argument that marriage, if it is to be redefined, clearly is resonating. The people of Rhode Island want to be heard.

The representatives appear to be really struggling. They are clearly getting a massive number of phone calls. Rep. Lima is looking for some way to satisfy both sides by putting gay marriage in a separate section of the bill. She also is concerned with what happens in say, Providence College's married housing.

She almost got the pro-gay marriage lawyers to say they'd agree to protect Providence College's right to reserve married housing to opposite-sex couples. The lawyer said the issue had not been litigated--and then backtracked and says that shows conscience protection is not needed. Both in Maryland and Rhode Island the gay marriage folks appear resolutely set against adding conscience protections, on the grounds that they say it's not necessary.

If gay marriage will not impact religious liberty, why not codify that with conscience protections? Why oppose them? Saying you don't want to "clutter" the bill with "caveats" is not very persuasive.

Two young people testified for gay marriage, and now two young people are testifying against gay marriage. Waiting for Dr. Morse to speak...

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Rhode Island, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

Maggie in Providence: Photos!

February 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm

I'm sitting next to Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute, who's also testifying. What is she doing right now? She's posting photos of the hearing to her Facebook page.

Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Rhode Island, Same Sex Marriage | Comments Off on Maggie in Providence: Photos!
Home NOM Blog Donate Advocacy Center
Copyright 2011