Making the Argument

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"No rational basis."

Those are the words our opponents throw around about laws that recognize marriage for what it has always been, the union of one man and one woman. They are repeated often in academia, and tragically have been picked up by judges who have cavalierly invalidated vote after vote enacting marriage amendments in blue states and red.

Our opponents in academia and the elite circles of influence and power chuckle and chortle as this rush to redefine marriage heads to the US Supreme Court, where they have convinced themselves they are "destined" to prevail because, well, they can't think of any "rational basis" why they wouldn't.

Of course, the truth of marriage is that there is not only a rational basis for states to protect marriage by enacting laws and state constitutional amendments, but there are principled and persuasive reasons for them to do so.

NOM is at the forefront of fighting for marriage in the courts, legislative bodies, Congress and the court of public opinion. If it weren't for us, it's fair to say that there would be no group left in America with its main and principle purpose being to fight for the preservation of marriage. Will you help us today with a gift of $25, $50, or $100?

You are familiar with our work that attracts public attention, such as the tremendously successful March for Marriage, and our important project to boycott Chase Bank for their inexcusable attempt to gather private information about whether individual employees consider themselves to be an "ally" of the LGBT community. But you may not be familiar with efforts of marriage leaders to fight for marriage in the belly of the beast — in academia and among the powerful and influential.

Professor Robert George is one of our nation's most prominent scholars and intellectual leaders. A distinguished professor at Princeton and, like me, a graduate of Oxford, he currently serves as Chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. He also was a co-founder of NOM, served as our Chairman, and continues to be a valued member of our Board of Directors.

Professor George has been a champion for marriage for many years, and continues to be so. In fact, he is in the midst of a brilliant debate on the website Public Discourse where he is delivering a stellar and principled defense of marriage as a historic institution that "did not originate in the book of Genesis, and is not rooted in animus." Rather, he describes eloquently:

The judgment that marriage is the committed sexual union of man and woman, sealed in coitus and inherently oriented to procreation and domestic life, is shared by the common and civil law traditions as well as the Jewish and Christian faiths (among other religious and philosophical traditions). Its core is found in the teaching of philosophers ranging from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophanes, Musonius Rufus, and Plutarch in antiquity to Kant, Anscombe, and Gandhi in the modern period.

Professor George makes the critical point in his presentation that the question of how marriage should be defined cannot be answered until we confront the issue of, "What is marriage?":

What is marriage—considered not just as a word or legal status, but as a form of relationship with a distinctive value and set of shaping norms, which law has reason to facilitate and even promote? After all, to know whether marriage policies violate equality—whether they fail to treat like relationships alike—we must know what makes a type of bond a marriage and distinguishes marriages from other types of companionship or relationship.

In thoroughly dismantling the arguments of his adversary, Professor George not only eloquently articulates a coherent "rational basis" for preserving traditional marriage laws, but establishes how such laws should be promoted in the interests of the common good of society:

There is something distinctive (and even intrinsically valuable) about the particular form of sexual partnership—historically known as "marriage"—that brings together a man and woman as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children born of their union, conferring on those children the blessing of being reared in the stable bond of the man and woman whose love brought them life.

NOM will continue to work in the public square, in academia, with legislators and judges, encouraging young people and scholars, and challenging the elite and powerful all in defense of marriage. But we cannot be effective if we don't have the resources to engage our opponents across the breadth of the battlefield.

Please help us with a generous gift so that we can continue to argue for the "rational basis" — indeed the essential truth — that preserving marriage is profoundly in society's best interests.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

Still no answers...

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It's been nearly a week since we announced our boycott and petition against JP Morgan Chase. Since then, over five thousand activists have signed up at to demand answers and an apology from the bank for the invasive and inappropriate survey issued to employees that sought to discover whether they were in step with the bank's pro-LGBT agenda.

But we still have not gotten any response from the bank about how this information was handled and what it could be used to accomplish. Nor has the bank's leadership owned up to the wrongness of their actions and issued a necessary apology to their employees and customers.

So I need you to take action today, if you haven't already done so, and join the VoidChase movement! Visit right away and sign your name to this important cause.

You may have read that yesterday President Obama signed an executive action ostensibly aimed at preventing workplace discrimination against LGBT persons, but which could in reality be used as a weapon to punish and harass individuals and groups who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In the context of such action by our government, it is more important than ever that we let corporate America know that thought-policing in the workplace and the enforcement of political agendas through discrimination against pro-family employees is unacceptable.

Help us send that message loud and clear by adding your voice to the growing number of advocates who have joined the campaign at If we remain silent, the small but powerful lobby of gay activists that have so much influence in Washington and on Wall Street will continue trimming away at the fundamental rights and freedoms granted to us by nature and enshrined in the First Amendment!

In these moments, it is crucial that we take a stand, and stand together. So please, when you are done taking action today, forward this message to your friends and family and encourage them to do likewise. Together, we'll show the ruling elites that we will not stand idly by while pro-marriage Americans are relegated to second-class citizenship in law and in the culture of corporate values.

Thank you in advance for your help with this critical initiative.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

P.S.: Don't forget to share this message with your family and friends by using the buttons below. Thanks!

National Organization for Marriage Expresses Concern Over New Executive Order, Calls on Congress to Protect People of Faith Against 'Reverse Discrimination'

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"The fact is that non-discrimination rules like the order issued by President Obama can become a weapon used to punish and harass individuals and groups who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman." — Brian Brown, NOM president —


Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) expressed concern over President Obama's signing today of a new executive order ostensibly aimed at preventing workplace discrimination against LGBT persons but that in reality could target Christians and other people of faith for reverse discrimination and harassing lawsuits. The executive order applies to all groups, including religious employers, who contract with the federal government.

"The fact is that non-discrimination rules like the order issued by President Obama can become a weapon used to punish and harass individuals and groups who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president. "As with the flawed ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) legislation that was rejected by Congress, President Obama's order has the great potential of putting employers in the position of standing up for their faith values or violating the new order. This will unnecessarily subject people of faith to harassing complaints and lawsuits."

Brown surmised that this executive order could lead to Christians and others with belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman facing reprisal and even punishment simply for expressing their views in the workplace.

"All manner of frivolous lawsuits could result from an action like this, and that's a dangerous thing when the courts have already shown such a lack of restraint when it comes to the question of the definition of marriage," Brown maintained. "This is nothing more than an agenda to create a cultural narrative wherein the belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman becomes the legal and social equivalent of bigotry or hate speech. It is the next step on a path we've already seen this administration proudly pursuing, a path toward a new thought-policing state where those who hold traditional values about marriage and family are to be marginalized."

Brown called on Congress to pass legislation overturning the new executive order and to revisit the issues of conscience protection and religious freedom for believers in traditional marriage. He urged citizens to contact their Senators and Representatives about these concerns.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Cardinal George: "American Liberties" Are "All Being Traded Off in Favor of Freedom of Sexual Expression"

It is becoming more and more apparent that the redefinition of marriage is incompatible with religious freedom. In his recent column, Francis Cardinal George of Chicago reflected on this rising conflict within the United States. Subtly taking to task those who claim marriage supporters are on the "wrong side of history,"  Cardinal George warned that "We should also be concerned that we are on the wrong side of what nature teaches us and therefore at least over the long run, headed for historical failure as a society."

The Cardinal's scholarly and pastoral words embody wisdom we should all heed:

Cardinal GeorgeIn this country, we do not fear being killed for our faith. What, then, are we afraid of? We are afraid that the institutions that perform the works of mercy that have been integral to the church’s mission for centuries will be forced to become, effectively, government institutions, given permission to exist only if they do not act as Catholic. At stake are Catholic hospitals, Catholic universities and Catholic social services, precisely as Catholic. At stake also is a society that once permitted many different voices and faiths to contribute to the common good without compromising their collective conscience.

The issue has clustered around the HHS mandate that insists that any institution serving the public must treat women’s fertility as an enemy to be suppressed for the sake of women’s freedom. In fact, the government has made many exceptions to this rule, but has steadfastly refused to exempt Catholic institutions. The issue is therefore in the courts.

ChristianityThe imposition of a definition of marriage that destroys the natural meaning of marital union is becoming another test case for religious liberty. The law now holds that men and women are interchangeable in marriage, as if children did not need both a mother and a father to be born and raised with some security. These are laws that mark societies in decline, demographically as well as morally.

What has happened to our vaunted American liberties? Except for property rights, they are all being traded off in favor of freedom of sexual expression.That “freedom” has become the trump card in almost every social dispute. While the public conversation plays the game of liberal versus conservative, there is really only one issue: freedom versus tyranny, a tyranny masquerading as compassion and suppressing legally differences that seem to threaten abstract “equality” [emphases added].

Americans are concerned about the economy, and rightly so. We are concerned with the loss of our place in the world, and rightly so. We should also be concerned that we are on the wrong side of what nature teaches us and therefore, at least over the long run, headed for historical failure as a society.

Read the rest here.

"The Implications of Redefining Marriage are Staggering..."

The consequences of redefining marriage are formidable and grave, Michael Brown recently wrote at Charisma News.  Brown pointed out some of the absurdities of California's new law deleting the "biased" and "outdated" terms "husband" and "wife" from the state's marriage law.  The terms have been replaced with "spouse."

Women cannot be fathers and men cannot be mothers, Brown wrote.  He argued that marriage cannot be redefined unless words that are foundational to our existence are rendered meaningless:

Allow me to make some very simple statements...

Note to California: A woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother.

California-FamilyFurther note to California: The terms "husband and wife" are neither discriminatory nor outdated.

Further, further note to California: Your social experiment will fail.

I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who love each other deeply and who are committed to each other long-term, and I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who are absolutely devoted to their children.

I am simply pointing out that their union cannot rightly be called "marriage" (regardless of what the courts might say) without rendering foundational words and concepts meaningless, a sure recipe for cultural chaos.

To repeat: The implications of redefining marriage are staggering, and those of us who love and cherish marriage and family need to redouble our efforts and renew our courage to stand up for what is right and what is best, making a fresh determination to swim against the current flood tide of semantic and social confusion.

True marriage and family will prevail in the end.

The "cultural chaos" to which Brown referred is what has brought about intolerance and bigotry toward those who believe in marriage between one man and one woman.

Catholic Bishops Respond to ENDA News

Following the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, many prominent anti-religious liberty groups that support redefining marriage withdrew their support of the misleadingly-named Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  President Obama said he is writing an executive order on ENDA and many religious groups and leaders have called on him to include in it conscience protections.

Writing for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Archbishop William Lori, Archbishop Thomas Wenski and Bishop Richard J. Malone responded to these developments:

The Washington Post reported July 8 that the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups were no longer supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The reason, said the executive director of one of the lead organizations: the Hobby Lobby decision opens the door for private companies to determine that “LGBT people are not equal…and fire them.”

But the Hobby Lobby decision does no such thing. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was an application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires that, if the federal government wants to impose a “substantial burden” on the religious exercise of its citizens, it must prove that the burden serves a “compelling government interest” and does so by the means “least restrictive” of religious exercise.Archbishop Lori

The decision was the Court’s recognition that in the case of the HHS contraceptive mandate the government failed to use the “least restrictive means” of providing coverage for certain contraceptives. The Court deliberately said nothing about whether the government had a “compelling interest” in requiring that coverage. In any event, the current debate about ENDA does not focus on its interplay with RFRA, but instead on whether ENDA itself should have any exemption for religious employers – as all prior versions have – and if so, how broad it should be.

So what is really the matter with ENDA according to these groups?

They argue that ENDA in its current form would leave religious employers free to “discriminate” based on their religious convictions. They argue that religious people cannot “impose” their morality on others. This ignores the fact that these advocates themselves seek to impose their morality on religious people and runs directly counter to the religious diversity that modern societies aspire to.

As Pope Francis wrote: “A healthy pluralism… does not entail privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet obscurity of the individual’s conscience or to relegate them to the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques. This would represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism” (Evangelii Gaudium no. 255).

To dismiss concerns about religious freedom in a misguided attempt to address unjust discrimination in the workplace is not to advance justice and tolerance. Instead, it stands as an affront to basic human rights and the importance of religion in society.

The U.S. legacy of religious freedom has enabled the Catholic Church and other faith communities to exercise their religious and moral convictions freely and thus contribute to the good of all in society. No good can come from removing this witness from our social life.

Bravo to the USCCB for issuing such a beautiful statement outlining the fundamental freedoms that are at stake!

Read the rest of the statement here.

National Organization for Marriage Announces Boycott of JP Morgan Chase for Offensive Survey Questions and Dishonest Dealings with the Public

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"Chase was clearly pushing an LGBT agenda with these invasive survey questions, and also created an intimidating and threatening atmosphere for their employees who wondered what the 'right' answers were and how 'wrong' answers would be dealt with. Furthermore, we have evidence that Chase has lied to the public about this matter, constituting a major betrayal of trust. Therefore, we are launching a boycott and international petition drive at to give consumers a way to object to the bank's offensive actions." — Brian Brown, NOM president —


Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced a boycott against JP Morgan Chase in protest of what deemed "offensive and inappropriate questions" given to employees in an annual survey. In addition to launching the boycott at, NOM's president also revealed new evidence today that shows JP Morgan Chase has misled consumers and employees about the survey, which asked workers if they are an "ally of the LGBT community." After the survey was brought to light by whistleblowers and reported in several news outlets, Chase has repeatedly insisted that the survey was "voluntary and anonymous." But NOM has released a screen shot provided by a Chase employee establishing that employees had to "log in" to the Chase computer system using their unique employee ID number in order to complete the survey, allowing the megabank to learn which employees are loyal to the LGBT community.

"Asking employees whether they're allies of the gay community is a highly inappropriate question in the first place, but it is particularly offensive when the answer can be tied directly to individual employees, as is the case when someone must enter their Employee ID number to ‘log in' to complete the survey," Brown said. "And now, to top it off, we have the 'smoking gun' that shows Chase has lied about this matter to both their employees and to the public."

NOM produced a computer screenshot of Chase's internal employee publication, the "Daily Bulletin" dated March 28, 2014, urging employees to "log in and complete the 10 minute survey." This screenshot was provided by a Chase employee, who confirmed in an email that "employees were required to identify themselves with their employee Standard ID Number prior to taking the survey." This information corroborates employee reports provided by Professor Robert P. George at Mirror of Justice and by Breitbart News.

And while participation in the survey is technically voluntary, employees are subject to substantial internal pressure to participate. The employee said, "There was a big push to make sure that all employees completed the survey. About a week before the survey all employees received an email from CEO Jamie Dimon stressing the importance of completing the survey. Then, all employees in my department received an email from the head of our department emphasizing the importance of 100% participation in the survey....This was followed up by my immediate supervisor confirming with me and all my co-workers to make sure that we took the survey. So, no, this was not voluntary or anonymous."

Despite this evidence, Patricia A. Wexler, a Chase spokesperson, told several people who inquired about the matter that, "The news report is not correct. These surveys are anonymous and voluntary." Another JP Morgan Chase spokesperson, Jaclyn D'Aversa, also told the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal that the survey was "completely voluntary and anonymous."

Brown said the Chase survey potentially subjects those employees who do not answer in the "politically approved way" to discrimination and sanctions: "As one employee put it, this could be a way to create a ‘fire these people first' list."

"It's clear that Chase has lied to its employees and customers about the survey and its attempt to push the LGBT agenda. This is a major violation of trust, the central value in any banking relationship," Brown said. "We are launching an international boycott and petition drive at to give consumers a way to object to the bank's offensive actions, demanding that they issue an apology and pledge never again to engage in this conduct."

To kick off the boycott, Brown said that he would be moving his own home mortgage, presently held with Chase, to another company. He also said that and had additional information about the scandal and contained news reports to show how the evidence has mounted against Chase in this matter.

Brown also noted that NOM was partnering with and the international advocacy organization CitizenGo to distribute the "Void Chase" petition across the globe. These partnerships give the initiative an initial reach of several million activists worldwide.

"Based on their actions to date, we expect that JP Morgan Chase will continue to try to cover up their conduct, but we are determined to hold them accountable," Brown said. "We will keep up this boycott and petition drive until JP Morgan Chase issues a formal apology for their offensive conduct and pledges never again to invade the privacy of their employees by attempting to learn their private views about LGBT issues."

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Boycott Chase Bank

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This is the smoking gun. NOM has obtained new evidence that shows Chase bank not only violated its employees' privacy with invasive and inappropriate questions on an employee survey aimed at pushing an LGBT agenda, but that the company has lied to consumers and its own employees about the now infamous questions.

Today, NOM is launching an international petition and boycott at to send the message that this kind of invasiveness and dishonesty is unacceptable and will not go unchallenged. I urge you to read on to get the facts for yourself, and then head over to to join this important effort.

The news about this survey has already been reported far and wide. But after NOM called on our members to contact Chase and demand answers about the invasive question to employees about whether they were "allies of the LGBT community"—and answers about how this information was to be used—the bank's leadership went on defense.

Several of you forwarded me responses received from Patricia A. Wexler, a Chase spokesperson, who said that, "The news report is not correct. These surveys are anonymous and voluntary." Another Chase spokesperson, Jaclyn D'Aversa, reiterated to the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal that the survey was "completely voluntary and anonymous."

That the survey was administered, and contained the offensive question, is simply beyond doubt. This screenshot, published Friday by Breitbart News, has finally laid all such questions to rest—even though, as the Breitbart piece notes, several liberal media elites had been claiming that the survey didn't even exist :

The mere fact of the survey and this kind of inappropriate question is troubling enough. But, in the face of Chase's denials and obfuscations, we must ask anyway: Was it, as Chase spokespersons have claimed, "completely voluntary and anonymous"?

Well, NOM has obtained evidence that lays this question to rest as well.


On March 18, 2014, Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sent an email announcing the annual survey to all employees (figure 1). Here Dimon says that "the survey takes 10 minutes to complete and individual responses are confidential; only aggregated results at the group level will be reported" [emphasis added].

This email was provided by a Chase employee. We also have a screenshot of another internal employee communication, the "Daily Bulletin" of March 30, 2014 (see figure 2). Here, we see all employees being urged to "log in and complete the 10-minute survey" [emphasis added].

A Chase employee confirms that this 'log in' means exactly what one would think: "employees were required to identify themselves with their employee Standard ID Number prior to taking the survey" [emphasis added].

This is not "anonymous." Even Jamie Dimon, in announcing the survey to employees, did not choose that word, but said results would be treated confidentially—which is a very different thing. The fact is that the data from each respondent was tied to his or her unique Employee ID number, and Chase was simply asking its employees to trust that that information would not be misused. Given the track record of bullying and intimidation we've seen in the pushing of the LGBT agenda, it is understandable that employees would be uneasy with this line of questioning.

Another internal message to Chase staff, this time from Pablo Sanchez, JPMorgan Chase's National Director of Consumer Banking, is important for two reasons. In the email—dated April 8, 2014 (figure 3)—Sanches urges participation in the survey, and dedicates a one line paragraph to claiming: "[Y]es, your individual responses are anonymous. I stake my reputation on that" [emphasis added].

This shows us two things. First of all, it shows between late March and early April, there seems to have been some blowback and concern within the Chase community about the offensive question about being "an ally of the LGBT community" and about the answers being tied to the employees' unique ID numbers. Sanchez is the first to claim that the answers are "anonymous"—a lie that has now been repeated by spokespersons for the company after the fact. But he obviously knew this was a hard line to sell, adding dramatically that he 'staked his reputation' on it. But Sanchez's assurance simply does not line up with the facts. He knew that there is a way to gather data anonymously—and that tying data to each individual's unique identification number is not within the normal definition of "anonymity."


Here is the second thing Sanchez's email tells us: the survey was hardly "voluntary." And this gets back to what Chase spokespeople have claimed in the face of protests: they also claimed that, in addition to being anonymous, the survey was "completely voluntary."

Anyone who has worked in a corporate structure knows how that line goes: how many "mandatory voluntary" exercises comprise a corporate employee's life at work?

The Sanchez email here represents the second high-ranking official "urging" participation in the survey—and this doesn't count the "Daily Bulletin" from March 30th. Furthermore, these are just the emails to which NOM has gained access. How much more "urging" was done at Chase to "encourage participation" in this "completely voluntary" exercise?

One Chase employee's anecdotal account sheds some useful light on this question, as well. The employee writes:

There was a big push to make sure that all employees completed the survey. About a week before the survey all employees received an email from CEO Jamie Dimon stressing the importance of completing the survey. Then, all employees in my department received an email from the head of our department emphasizing the importance of 100% participation in the survey....This was followed up by my immediate supervisor confirming with me and all my co-workers to make sure that we took the survey. So, no, this was not voluntary... [emphases added].

Time to Make a Withdrawal

The facts are clear:

  • Chase pressured its employees to participate in a survey that asked offensively invasive questions pushing an LGBT agenda, and it doubtful whether they felt it to be truly "voluntary."

  • Individual responses were tied to each employee's unique identification number, which was required as part of the survey, so it can hardly be called "anonymous".

  • Chase has subsequently lied and obfuscated by means of corporate double-speak and euphemism, insulting and misleading consumers and employees alike.

... which is why I am calling on each of you to join me in boycotting Chase until they issue a formal apology and pledge never again to invade their employees' privacy in this way! Join the movement right now—click here to visit

And as a first gesture in this protest, I am moving my own mortgage—currently held by Chase—to another bank. This situation is unacceptable and deplorable, and a clear message must be sent that it simply will not be tolerated.

Visit right away to sign up. But, marriage supporter, I need to ask one more thing of you today.

We must spread this story far and wide. Many of you have been following this story, but many more still need to know about it so that they can join in action with others from around the globe in this historic protest.

JP Morgan Chase is the largest bank in America, with assets over $2.4 trillion — they should be busy with the business of banking, not thought-policing and harassing their employees and lying to the public. They must be held accountable.

Sign and share the petition at to show that the we are not willing to sit by while a company bullies its own workers this way.

And share this story with co-workers, friends and family using the buttons below so that they have all the facts to counter Chase's misinformation, and so that they will join in our movement as well.

Together, we'll continue to chase down the truth of this matter and ensure that justice is demanded.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: We need your help to disseminate this news and our call to action as widely as possible. You can do this by sharing it right now with your friends and family. But please also kindly consider making a generous donation to NOM so that we can spread the word about the radical agenda being pushed at Chase. Whatever you can spare--$25, $50, or $100--will help us make sure as many folks as possible know about this corruption and add their voices to our petition at!

North Carolina Pastors Rally to Protect Marriage

North Carolina pastors are calling on Governor Pat McCrory to defend the state's constitutional amendment protecting marriage, which an overwhelming 61 percent of voters approved.Your vote counts

The North Carolina Pastors Network condemned the judicial activism behind much of the push to redefine marriage and urged McCrory to use his power as governor to defend the voter-approved constitutional amendment.

On the issue of marriage, "the people have spoken loud and clear," Rev. Patrick Wooden of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ said.

In the push to redefine marriage in this state and many others, there has been no shortage of lawlessness, intimidation, coercion, and, as these courageous North Carolina pastors put it, "judicial tyranny."

It's inspiring that so many religious leaders are standing up for the truth about marriage!

When It Comes to Parents, It Isn't "The More The Merrier"

Blogging for the Ruth Institute, Jennifer Johnson recounted her experience of growing up with five parents.  The piece responds to claims by Masha Gessen, a prominent LGBT activist who was recently honored by the state department, who has famously celebrated her own unorthodox family as the shape of things to come:

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

Johnson's mother and father divorced when she was about three.  Her mother remarried once and her dad remarried twice, so she has experienced what life is like with five parents--a mother, a father, two stepmothers and a step-father.  Johnson's experience shows that growing up in such a structure is not as rosy of a picture as LGBT activists paint or something to be approached casually:

Child Custody

In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child...adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.

Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates... Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask [activists]: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.

If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.

It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.

Johnson's experience shows such structures have a profoundly negative impact on children--putting the desires of adults over the needs of children does a giant disservice to the young, vulnerable children involved.

Advocates of redefining marriage can push junk science through the liberal media and claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but when push comes to shove, science and common sense demonstrate otherwise.  Children like Johnson who were raised in unstable environments rarely wish the same on anyone else.

Is it just and fair for adults to put the well-being of children on the backburner so that adult desires can trump everything else?

Johnson also asked readers:

Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them.

Johnson's experiences say a lot about redefining marriage: it hurts children and even advocates of redefining marriage are glad that they benefitted from being raised by both a mother and a father.

Gessen has also advocated for the abolition of marriage altogether, saying: is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

LGBT Views on Marriage Differ Sharply From Most Americans

Wells Fargo recently surveyed LGBT investors and found stark contrasts between Americans' overall attitudes about marriage and LGBT respondents' views.

According to the San Francisco Business Times, the survey "found that 80 percent of Americans overall consider love and commitment to be the most important reasons to get married, whereas just 54 percent of LGBT respondents said that those are the most important reasons to marry" [emphasis added].

Bride and GroomSixty-one percent of the LGBT respondents said the ability to make healthcare decisions for one's partner is the most important right or benefit of marriage.  Fifty-eight percent of LGBT respondents said insurance and healthcare coverage was the most important and 56 percent said inheritance rights were the most important.

Interestingly, however, many states already have laws allowing same-sex couples to make healthcare decisions for each other; and in any case, this concern and others like it can be resolved through specific policies without redefining marriage.

It's also worth noting that federal regulations require hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to adopt written policies and procedures regarding patients’ visitation rights that allow hospital visitation for same-sex couples.  In short, it is not necessary for marriage to be redefined in order to allow same-sex couples to visit each other in the hospital or make healthcare decisions for each other.  As Ryan Anderson has pointed out, single people need to be visited in the hospital, too:

Every individual has those concerns. I am not married. When I get sick, I need somebody to visit me in the hospital. When I die, I need someone to inherit my wealth. That situation is not unique to a same-sex couple. That is a situation that matters for all of us.  So we need not redefine marriage to craft policy that will serve all citizens.

Specific policy changes can be made on matters like hospital visitation without redefining the institution of marriage.  Marriage isn't simply an institution that exists to grant any two people who care about each other the right to visit each other in the hospital; it's an institution that connects children with their biological parents and ensures that they have the chance to grow up benefitting from the unique contributions of both a mother and a father.  Marriage is an institution that reflects the complementary of the sexes and comprehensively unites husband and wife. 

It is imprudent and unnecessary to redefine marriage simply to address matters like hospital visitation policies.

Married for 58 years, and the joy of it is still evident

A trending viral video from YouTube user Roy Thigpen gives a charming display of how married love is built to give lasting joy.

Thigpen describes the video thus:

To celebrate 56 years together, here's a short video of my Mom,aged 82, playing "La Galopera", a traditional Paraguayan polka, accompanied, as usual, by her dance partner, and my dad, George, 91.

Check it out!

Congrats to the happy couple!

Do you have any positive, pro-marriage videos you'd like to share? Please share them with us!

Six Myths About Monogamy

Young people haven't given up on marriage.  Monogamy is still of great value to marriage and society.  Monogamy and marriage endure constant attacks, which frequently lack substance or logic, from determined progressives, yet commitment and marriage still prevail.

2012-11-26 Wedding CoupleAmy Otto takes on the six most common myths about monogamy in a post at The Federalist, exploring the benefits of monogamy and society's need for marriage.  Most young people do want to get married, contrary to sketchy polls that indicate otherwise, and popular fallacies about monogamy do not render monogamy archaic or a waste of time.

Six myths about monogamy are that it is dead because we are living longer than ever; it is only possible because of hormones, and those fade; other animals aren't monogamous, so there's no need for humans to be, either; "science-sounding stuff must be true"; the redefinition of marriage will make man-woman couples re-think fidelity; and people marry to meet all of their needs.

Otto writes:

Unrelenting denigration of marriage as an institution has been an obsession of “progressive” folks for some time. They tend to use whatever blunt instrument is handy to push the ideal of marriage out of the public square. Whether it’s in the name of feminism, gay marriage, or naïve hipsterism, a full-frontal assault on the institution, not just by gay-marriage-minded folks, but by those who truly don’t believe the standards of marriage like monogamy are possible, has only intensified.


Believing that marriage is a purely transactional relationship based on mutual-needs gaps is the precise thing leading to the illogical assumption that monogamy and marriage are dead ends.

The next time you see yet another piece declaring monogamy is “dead,” remember the writer wants you to lower your expectations. But marriage and its necessary component, monogamy, are still the best game in town.

Read the full article here.

Rick Santorum on Chase Bank Scandal

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said Friday that he found Chase Bank's invasive questions to employees about their sexual orientation and loyalty to the LGBT cause "shocking."

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Santorum said, "It seems like there’s an element of  intimidation in trying to shape people’s points of view, and maybe even have punishment for people who don’t share the ‘proper’ point of view."

He also said he was surprised that Chase Bank got the "legal go-ahead" to do something like this.

Watch the full video here:

New Study Suggests It's Better to Leave Religion Off Your Résumé

Do you list your involvement with religious organizations on your résumé?  You may want to cease revealing your religious affiliation on your résumé, a new study by the Southern Sociology Society suggests.  The study found that applicants whose résumés included faith affiliations were 26 percent less likely to be contacted by employers.

PapersThe Southern Sociology Society researchers sent out 3,200 fake résumés, one a control group of résumés without any religious affiliations and one group of résumés with various religious affiliations indicated by membership in a religious organization in college.

The study suggested that in order to improve their résumés, applicants refrain from publicly displaying their religious affiliations.

Natalie Wyman at The Family Foundation writes:

What does this say about our society? Citizens are advised to hide their religious beliefs so it will be easier to get a job. Shouldn’t we be advising employers to stop discriminating against applicants just because of their religious beliefs? The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly lays out this fundamental right to freedom of religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” So why does the study suggest that Americans need to restrict their free exercise of religion in order to get a job?

Unfortunately, religious discrimination in the workplace has been escalating in recent years. Studies like this one exemplify the need for more protections for religious liberty in our state and in our country. The purpose of religious liberty is not that everyone must hide their faith for fear of offending others; rather, everyone should be allowed to express their faith in public without fear of being punished.

So much for diversity.