NOM BLOG

Rallying for Marriage



Dear Marriage Supporter,

As we gear up for the March for Marriage on April 25th in Washington, DC, we can see that all around the country, people are rallying in defense of marriage.

Despite the media's best efforts, the American people continue to support marriage. The 2015 March for Marriage is our best opportunity to harness this support and show the Court that the American people want their voice and votes respected and marriage preserved.

Indiana Steps Up

The state of Indiana has stepped up to the plate in defending marriage and religious freedom.

If you remember, a federal judge recently struck down Indiana's state marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That decision will be subject to whatever Supreme Court ruling is issued this summer.

But the marriage champions in the Hoosier state wouldn't sit back and wait. They acted to defend marriage and religious liberty by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act this week by overwhelming majorities in the state House and Senate. Governor Pence just signed the bill yesterday.

The new legislation protects individuals who wish to live their lives and run their businesses in keeping with their sincere and deeply held religious beliefs.

I'd like to thank Governor Pence and the brave legislators of the state of Indiana for being pro-active in defending marriage and religious liberty, and urge every state in the union to follow their lead in passing similar legislation.

A Call to Action In Texas

Our friend Reverend Bill Owens and the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) helped put together a rally in Texas in defense of that state's law (also recently struck down by a federal judge and subject to the Supreme Court's ruling this summer) defending marriage in conjunction with Dr. Steve Hotze and the Conservative Republicans of Texas.

The rally was headlined by Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice and marriage champion Roy Moore, who called on other states to follow the lead of Alabama in pushing back against federal government overreach:

There is today another threat... not only in Texas and Alabama, but across our country... where state and federal judges have overruled constitutional amendments passed by the people of those states... and people just sat by and watched it out of fear of the federal government.

But nothing in the constitution of the US, nothing in the laws or precedence of the federal courts, give federal courts any authority over domestic policy and marriage in the state of Texas, in the state of Alabama, or anywhere else.

Special and heart-felt thanks to all of these heroes who are bravely standing up for the rights of states, the rights of voters, our precious religious liberties and the amazing truth, goodness and beauty of marriage.

You can see Judge Moore's full remarks here.

International Movement to Defend Marriage: Australia

And the movement in defense of marriage is gaining traction internationally as well.

Just this week, plans to advance on same-sex marriage came to a halt as debate over the posed legislation was postponed after 20,000 people emailed politicians in support of marriage.

Special thanks to Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby for his work on this issue.

You can see Lyle speak powerfully in defense of marriage in this video interview.

Defending Marriage At The Federal Level

NOM is working with our allies to move forward several pieces of legislation at the Federal level in defense of marriage and religious liberty.

New pieces of legislation should be introduced shortly, but please don't forget about the incredibly important Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), which ensures that faith-based institutions and individuals can continue to provide services for those who need them free from fear of reprisal or punitive measures from the government for their beliefs about marriage.

If you haven't already done so, please click here to contact your elected officials asking them to support this common sense legislation.

And if you have, please forward the link to family and friends and encourage them to do the same.

Our elected officials need to know that they work for we the people... and we the people must hold them accountable for their actions representing us. Please take a moment to get involved.

Why We're Marching For Marriage

As I said at the beginning of this email, the 2015 March for Marriage is our best opportunity to harness this support and show the Court that the American people want their voice and votes respected and marriage preserved.

States all across our great nation have taken steps to defend marriage only to see their votes and values callously tossed aside by radicals using any means necessary — in particular by what is amounting to judicial tyranny — to impose their radical agenda on the entire country.

But, as you can see, people are standing up and fighting back!

Marriage Supporter, won't you please join all of these marriage heroes in defending marriage by supporting the 2015 March for Marriage?

Some of you can make an immediate, tax-deductible donation to the NOM Education Fund in support of the March — which will instantly be matched, dollar-for-dollar by another generous donor. And for those who can — at any level — I'm asking you to do so to help us get the word out and bring as many people to our nation's capital as possible in this last month before the March.

But everyone reading this email can help get the word out. You can go to www.MarriageMarch.org and download fliers to put up and pass around in your community or at your Church. You can download icons that can be used online through social media vehicles like Facebook and Twitter.

And — most importantly — you can find information about how you and your friends and family can come to Washington, DC and join us in this historic March.

Marriage heroes are standing up... and I hope you will have the chance to march alongside them on April 25th!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Orthodox Christians to Gather at March for Marriage

A message from The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America:

dv1350008Book your flight and plan your trip for April 25, 2015, on the National Mall in Washington D.C., for the March for Marriage. This year's March will include an Orthodox Gathering, sponsored by the group Crown Them With Glory. (More details to follow soon.)

On January 16th, 2015 of this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex "marriage," and "rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex [so-called] marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state" (details here).

The March for Marriage is supported by the National Organization for Marriage who is working diligently to communicate the necessity for the defense of marriage between one man and one woman. April 25 represents the third March for Marriage in Washington D.C., and is set to take place within days of when the Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on the cases before them that will decide the national legal status of civil gay "marriage." It is projected that this ruling will seriously impact religious freedom in the USA.

The March is a peaceful rally, comparable to the March for Life. We invite you to make every effort to attend the rally, and encourage your priests, brothers and sisters in Christ, and leaders and members of religious communities in your area to do likewise. Come out in support of marriage between one man and one woman, modeled from our Lord's love for His Bride: the Church. With a blessing to pursue this work from a number of our bishops, many priests believe it is time we had a national pan-Orthodox Christian movement. A strong, vibrant, and clear message is needed from our Church on the matter of the Mystery of Holy Matrimony, as well as an enumeration upon God-blessed sexuality and gender roles, toward the strengthening of family life. This action is necessary in order to dispel confusion which has been stirred up by our secular culture, and most egregiously, even by some of our own clergymen.

Such an effort would be blessed by God to the building up of our faith in the hearts of our Orthodox people. This is what our nation's people need to see: that the Orthodox Church has preserved its timeless teachings on the sacrament of marriage, and, as a place of refuge, the Church offers healing through Christ for us all, boldly proclaiming a blessed path toward salvation.

Source: Antiochian.org

Marriage Defenders Gather in Texas

ThinkstockPhotos-163659274On Monday afternoon, a crowd of 250 gathered at the Texas Capitol to defend marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The rally was headlined by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, a prominent champion for marriage. During his speech, Moore encouraged other lawmakers to stand up to defend the biblical definition of marriage:

“No court has any authority to redefine what God proposed in Genesis,” Moore said. “The definition of marriage, you want it by man, it doesn’t come by man, it comes from God.”

But Moore was not speaking merely to those in attendance:

Moore also called for Supreme Court of the United States Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from this summer’s arguments on same-sex marriage because they’ve officiated gay weddings.

Because he’d advised probate courts not to recognize gay marriage licenses, he said he abstained from an Alabama Supreme Court vote ordering judges to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“I didn’t vote in my case, because I had expressed my opinion,” Moore said. “They should do the same thing.”

In addition to Moore, several other prominent political leaders spoke, including GOP Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The Texas Observer reports:

ThinkstockPhotos-144336507Patrick said the rally, organized by the Conservative Republicans of Texas, was about two issues: supporting “traditional marriage” and defending states’ rights.

“It’s not about being anti-anyone,” Patrick said. “It’s about being for marriage between a man and a woman.”

Secondly, Patrick said, “It’s not the federal government’s business to tell Texans what to do in Texas on any issue.”

And don't forget to sign up for the 2015 March for Marriage to join us on April 25th!

Updated March for Marriage Website Launched!



Dear Marriage Supporter,

With only one month left before the 2015 March for Marriage, I'm happy to announce the launch of the 2015 March for Marriage website!

Click here to see the updated website.

This year's theme is: March for Freedom... March for Truth... March for Marriage!

The site has multiple features, including information about this year's march and downloadable promotional materials to help spread the word about the march.

Please look through the website and help us get the word out far and wide — whether you can download, print and pass around fliers at your church or in your community or post links online using email and social media — we need your help to ensure everyone who can be at the March is at the March this year.

Thank you for everything you do in defense of marriage!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

T-Minus 32 Days!

 

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The 2015 March for Marriage is set for April 25th - almost exactly one month away.

So far, we've been able to raise over $80,000 online in support of the March toward our $100,000 matching goal.

That means we have almost $20,000 left in matching funds that we need to realize!

Won't you please help us reach the full $100,000 in matching funds for the 2015 March for Marriage by making a fully tax-deductible gift to the NOM Education Fund right away?

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Remember, any gift you give will be matched by another generous donor, dollar-for-dollar!

Marriage Supporter, with one month left, we're kicking our advertising and promotion plans into high gear to let people know about and bring people to the March.

Now is the time when we have to place print and online advertisements; now is the time when we have to place radio spots; now is the time when we have to mobilize an army of volunteers...

Please join us in supporting religious freedom, the truth of marriage and this historic March for Marriage.

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Thank you in advance.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Victory for Religious Freedom in Indiana!

ThinkstockPhotos-466956854Here's some great news out of Indiana! The Indiana House has passed a bill with a 63-31 vote to protect the religious liberty of business owners in the state.

SB 101, known as the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” will be heading back to the Senate, where a similar version has already passed. If the House’s version is found in accord with the Senate's version, the bill will head to Governor Mike Pence, who has made it clear that he will sign the bill into law.

Supporters of the law attest that the law does not allow discrimination of same-sex individuals, but rather, honors the rights of business owners who for example, may not in good conscious provide wedding services to same-sex couples.

Supporters of the law say it will keep government entities from forcing business owners - such as bakeries and florists who don't want to provide services to gay couples - from acting in ways contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Gay marriage became legal in Indiana last year following an appellate court ruling.

Supporter Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, tweeted after its passage in the House on Monday that the bill was a "good, tested, protective shield for all faiths."

ThinkstockPhotos-466073636While opponents claim that SB 101 would allow for discrimination against same-sex couples, what SB 101 actually achieves is protecting individuals from suffering discrimination based on their religious beliefs. Specifically, SB 101 prevents state and local governments from "substantially burdening" citizens from being able to exercise their freedom of religion, unless the government can prove that it has compelling interest and is doing so in the least restrictive means.

Supporters of the bill explain that the measure protects people, organizations, and business owners from government intrusion.

"It's important that we allow our citizens to hold religious beliefs, maybe even those we might be appalled by, and to be able to express those," said Rep. Tom Washburne, R-Inglefield.

What is more, opponents should be aware that SB 101 is based off of a 22-year-old federal law, dubbed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, the same act that was influential in the Hobby Lobby decision.

While this bill awaits full adoption in Indiana, nineteen other states have already adopted similar religious freedom bills, and there are several others that are considering legislation.

While the opposition will not respectfully admit defeat, bravo to the state of Indiana for recognizing the importance of religious freedom and the true right of individuals to practice their religious beliefs, both in their private and public lives. Well done, Indiana. Our founding fathers would be proud.

Please Help This Catholic School Teacher

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I've told you about Patti Jannuzzi... she was suspended from her job teaching theology at a Catholic school because she posted comments (in response to Dan Savage's attacks on Dr. Ben Carson) saying the "gay agenda" is trying to "re-engineer Western civ."

She was immediately attacked by celebrities like Susan Sarandon... and it appears that she may be soon fired.

Her family has started a defense fund, which you can donate to by clicking here.

And, if you have one, can you post on your Facebook page? And socialize this message, passing it along to as many people as possible?

Please donate to support this family, which is under assault from radical activists. The Christian community needs to come together in times like these, and I hope you will be able to assist.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Consequences



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Another week, another series of news providing more evidence about the many negative consequences when marriage is redefined...

Because marriage is a public institution — tied closely to the wellbeing of both couples and children — changing its definition (and consequently, what the government promotes in society) necessarily has consequences.

It's an obvious point, but one that proponents of redefining marriage refuse to accept.

Let's look at this week's evidence.

Heather Has Two Mommies, But Wanted a Dad

A wonderful, stunning article by Heather Barwick chronicling her life as the daughter of a lesbian couple brings up several extremely interesting points.

Foremost among them is something we have been saying for years: no mother can be a father and no father can be a mother. Men and women are different and bring different qualities to parenting — they are not interchangeable. Men and women are complementary and the union of the two is the very basis of marriage — it is what marriage is — and provides the best environment for raising children who need the unique qualities of both.

No matter how loving and committed a parent, a woman cannot be a father... and a man cannot be a mother.

Depriving a child of a mother of a father is inherent in redefining marriage to include same-sex couples... it intentionally does so.

And, as Heather points out, that is causing a burden on children.

Which leads to another interesting facet of the article — the fact that those pushing for redefining marriage refuse to allow any discussion of the issue. She points out:

Kids of divorced parents are allowed to say, "Hey, mom and dad, I love you, but the divorce crushed me and has been so hard. It shattered my trust and made me feel like it was my fault. It is so hard living in two different houses." Kids of adoption are allowed to say, "Hey, adoptive parents, I love you. But this is really hard for me. I suffer because my relationship with my first parents was broken. I'm confused and I miss them even though I've never met them."

But children of same-sex parents haven't been given the same voice. It's not just me. There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you're not listening. That you don't want to hear. If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.

But there MUST be a discussion of this critical issue, which impacts children and the future of society so profoundly.

What Happens When We Try to Discuss It?

And what happens when people who defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman aren't engaged in discussion but simply labeled a "hater?"

Just look at Patricia Jannuzzi, a teacher at Immaculata High School in New Jersey, who is coming under intense fire for voicing her opinions about the true nature of marriage on her Facebook page. She responded to a post about the incredibly vulgar, gay rights activist Dan Savage's comments about Dr. Benjamin Carson.

Her comments were strong and clearly her own opinion ... and also completely in keeping with the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage and family.

Yet, immediately after posting her comments, she was targeted by those who want to redefine marriage at all costs, and became the victim of a petition asking for her termination and for the school to implement a "school-wide Stop Hate Speech awareness day and sensitivity training for students and teachers."

If you haven't done so already, please click here to add your name to NOM's petition defending Ms. Jannuzzi.

But this is exactly what happens when marriage is redefined and subsequent discussion is shut down because of the supposed moral superiority of the radical left. Disagreement is met with a "might makes right" attitude and dissent is not permitted.

Even when the person in question is a Catholic... teaching in a Catholic school... and speaking in a manner that is utterly consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Not All In The Gay Community Are On Board With Redefining Marriage

Another astonishing piece came out of Europe this week, where fashion design icons Dolce & Gabanna have again spoken out saying that "the only family is the traditional one."

They go on:

'The only family is the traditional one,' they said. '... life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed.'

'You're born and there is a father and a mother. Or at least it should be. So I am not convinced that I call children of chemistry, synthetic children.

'Procreation must be an act of love. Today even psychiatrists are ready to face the effects of these experiments.'

...

'I am gay, I cannot have a child. I guess you cannot have everything in life,' he said.

'Life has a natural course, some things cannot be changed. One is the family.'

What makes this so compelling is the fact that these two men are themselves homosexual. They were, in fact, in a longstanding relationship with each other until they broke up in 2005.

Not surprisingly, rather than provoking an open and honest discussion about what's best for children, as if on cue those who want to redefine marriage launched a vicious celebrity-led counter-attack that just as predictably forced the designers to reassure people that they are not haters, "We love gay couple. We are gay. We love gay adoption. We love everything."

The apparent retreat was completely predictable. It is the fashion industry after all.

Standing Up In Defense of Marriage

Some are standing up boldly for marriage despite the attacks and backlash from the intolerant proponents of redefining marriage.

One example is a group in Alabama, organized under the banner "Sanctity of Marriage, Alabama."

They have already organized a couple of rallies — one in defense of marriage and one in defense of Chief Justice Ray Moore. You can see video of the first here, and the second here.

These marriage heroes could have sat back and said, 'well, the Federal Courts have ruled and we're stuck with the result...' or 'well, the Supreme Court is going to rule in a couple of months, so we'll just wait...' — but they didn't!

They organized and took immediate action in defense of marriage and the sovereign laws of their state. I'd encourage everyone across the country to do the same.

Join Us In Standing For Marriage

Just a couple of quick reminders for you in closing...

First, the 2015 March for Marriage is the best opportunity to show the justices of the Supreme Court — immediately before they hear oral arguments in a case that could determine the legal future of marriage in American for years to come — that the American people believe in the good of marriage and want our laws to defend it.

Taking place on April 25, 2015 in Area 15 of the Capitol Grounds — right in front of the Capitol Reflecting Pool off of Third Street in Washington, DC — NOM will be gathering thousands of marriage supporters from all across the country to deliver that message in the most dramatic and powerful manner possible!

Please mark your calendar to join us in Washington, DC, if possible. And if you aren't able to join us, please keep an eye out for our forthcoming announcement about the Virtual March for Marriage, which should only add to the number of marriage supporters able to participate in and support the March.

And, if you are able, please consider making a financial contribution in support of the March. Your gift will be fully tax-deductible and matched dollar-for-dollar by another generous donor.

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Thank you so much for all your support!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Ted Cruz Takes Steps to Protect Religious Liberty in D.C.

This week, Sen. Ted Cruz introduced two joint resolutions to overturn recently enacted D.C. Council legislation that undermines religious liberty.

via Sen. Ted Cruz's website:

"The D.C. Council is attempting to force religious institutions to provide services, make employment decisions, or participate in activities that directly violate their faith," said Sen. Cruz. "No government entity should be able to coerce organizations - whether they be non-profits or religious schools - into funding abortion services or promoting gender policy that is contrary to the organization's fundamental mission.

"D.C.'s legislation would require pro-life organizations to fund abortions. It would require Catholic schools to pay for abortions, in direct contravention of their faith. That is wrong, and unconstitutional. Despite pending legislation that might provide a temporary exemption limited to insurance coverage, the D.C. Council is ultimately telling institutions within the District that a day will come when they must make the intolerable choice between complying with the law and abiding by their religious convictions. Rather than discriminating against pro-life and religious organizations, D.C. should welcome diversity of thought and protect the freedom of conscience. We must stop this assault on the Catholic Church, and we must act to protect religious liberty. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the nation's capital, and I urge my colleagues in both houses to pass this resolution and affirm the First Amendment rights of all citizens."

Avoiding Dred Scott



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Imagine the barbaric nature of the logic used and the opinion adopted: a person, a certain type of person, is a piece of property who can be owned, traded, bought and sold. Whether man or woman, no matter where born this type of person could not be considered a citizen and an act of Congress adopted to protect them was invalid.

The type of person involved was African American, whether free or slave, and the decision is the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. We mark the 158th anniversary of this unimaginable decision by the US Supreme Court this month.

The Dred Scott decision was wrong on so many levels that it’s difficult to cover them all in this email. But the most important thing to realize about the decision is that it ignored both natural law and the principles of the American founding to impose a political ideology on the country.

Does that ring a bell for you with anything in the news today?

Some people think that the US Supreme is the final arbiter of controversial topics — whether slavery or marriage — and we must accept whatever they decide.

We don’t.

Our nation is founded on constitutional principles and a reflection of the natural law. When a decision by a court violates those principles, it is an illegitimate decision that people of good will must resist.

When the Dred Scott decision came down, Chief Justice Roger Taney hoped the decision would settle the question of slavery. After all, the Supreme Court was supreme, as another ruling fifty years earlier (Marbury v Madison) had established, and the American people would have little choice but to accept it.

They didn't.

Instead, Abraham Lincoln decided not to go along with the Dred Scott decision. The nation fought a civil war, Congress eventually passed legislation designed to overturn the terrible Supreme Court decision, and then the American people adopted the Thirteenth Amendment to put a stake in the heart of this morally bankrupt idea, birthed by corrupt politics and the nascent notion of judicial supremacy.

My friends, we have an opportunity right now to act to avoid a Dred Scott decision on marriage. In a little over five weeks, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that could give us a legal definition of marriage that either complies with natural and moral law and the principles of the American founding, or like Dred Scott ignores those principles to impose a political ideology on the nation.

What we do together between now and then is critical. Will you help us do everything we can to avoid a Dred Scott decision on marriage?

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a quick donation of $1000.00

I'll make a larger donation...

We are working overtime to make it clear to the Supreme Court that the American people will not accept a ruling purporting to redefine marriage, any more than the people accepted a ruling purporting to redefine humanity as the Dred Scott decision attempted to do. Organizing the upcoming March for Marriage is a critical element of our plans.

We have a very short period of time to pull off this critical undertaking. The Supreme Court has set oral argument in the marriage case for April 28th, which forced us to move up the march to April 25th. We have just five weeks to secure the logistics, get permits, rent buses, produce materials, launch promotional activities and complete all the myriad other activities that are critical to organizing an event like this.

Will you help us?

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a quick donation of $1000.00

I'll make a larger donation...

It would have been easy to throw up our hands and conclude that it was too difficult. In fact some of our supporters said we shouldn’t try. But we have faith in you, believing that you will be there for us at this most critical time, so we have forged ahead.

And fortunately, one of our most loyal supporters stepped up and has agreed to match any contribution you make dollar for dollar up to a total of $100,000. So your gift will instantly double, helping us immensely!

Please act today to support us.

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a quick donation of $1000.00

I'll make a larger donation...

The US Supreme Court can no more redefine marriage than it could decide that some people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and others are not. If the court does issue a Dred Scott decision on marriage, we will resist it, refusing to comply, because it will be illegitimate. But our best outcome is to convince the Court not to issue such a ruling.

We have five weeks and not a moment to spare. Please act today by giving your most generous contribution.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — Remember, your contribution will be doubled thanks to a generous matching gift so please give the most generous gift you can so that we can immediately put double that amount into the fight to avoid a Dred Scott decision on marriage.

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a quick donation of $1000.00

I'll make a larger donation...

The Alabama Supreme Court Battle

The US Supreme Court has set a precedent upholding the right of states to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. All federal and state judges—including those in Alabama—are bound by that precedent.

148044182In a recent post for the Public Discourse, NOM Chairman Dr. John Eastman outlines the underlying questions and facts that current developments in Alabama are bringing to the surface. When Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered probate judges to withhold issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, news stories abounded with accusations of discrimination on the part of Chief Justice Roy. After all, a federal district judge had already declared that the law defining marriage as between a man and woman is unconstitutional: surely Moore’s stance would be swiftly dismissed.

rmooreHowever, while same-sex marriage proponents cried “injustice” the entire Alabama Supreme Court ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance with a 7-1 ruling. As same-sex marriage proponents continue to accuse Alabama of unconstitutional actions, Dr. Eastman reminds us that we have not one, but two judicial systems in America, and explains why a single order by a federal judge does not decide what the Constitution “really” says.

Federal courts exist side by side with state courts, and both have a duty to follow the US Constitution. Indeed, as Article VI of the Constitution makes clear, “All . . . judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Decisions of the lower federal courts—what the Constitution calls “inferior courts”—are not binding on the state courts. If the lower federal courts in a state interpret the Constitution in a way that conflicts with the interpretation adopted by the state courts, neither decision has binding effect on the other.

While a federal district court order declaring a state law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement can have statewide effect if there is a statewide official involved in the case before the court, that order can only bind the defendants named in the suit, their officers and agents, and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with” them, as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order cannot bind people not before the court or acting in concert with them.

Under Alabama law, probate judges—who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Alabama—are judicial, not executive officers, and are entirely independent of the executive branch of government. Therefore, the order issued to the Attorney General of Alabama did not and could not bind probate judges.

479208815Dr. Eastman also explains that it was not Chief Justice Moore who failed in his duty, but Judge Callie S. Grande, the federal district judge who struck down the Alabama law defining marriage as between one man and one woman:

...the ethical considerations that led some to chastise Chief Justice Moore were misdirected. It is federal district judge Callie Granade who acted lawlessly by failing to follow existing Supreme Court precedent that remains binding on her. Indeed, were Chief Justice Moore to follow Granade’s order, he would be violating his duty to comply with the binding authority of the Supreme Court, in deference to a lawless order by a single federal trial court judge. In a well-reasoned and lengthy opinion adopted by a 7-1 vote, the Alabama Supreme Court has concluded just that.

You can read Dr. Eastman’s powerful article here, which not only explains what is happening in Alabama, but why states have every right to define marriage as the union of one man one woman.

Designers Dolce & Gabbana: "The Only Family is the Traditional One"

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have spoken out strongly against same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting, and the use of surrogacy to procreate.

The pair, business partners since 1985 who were once romantically linked, spoke out this past weekend about their support for the traditional family – children raised by a mother and father – while also expressing their belief about the irresponsibility of conception through surrogacy or IVF.

In an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, Dolce and Gabbana explained their reasoning on these very sensitive topics:

The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offspring and rented uterus. Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed.”

They also said, “Procreation must be an act of love.”

Mr. Dolce has been attributed with the following remarks:

I'm not convinced by what I call chemical children, synthetic babies. They are wombs for hire, semen chosen from a catalogue.”

As Mr. Gabbana added, “The family is not a fad. It is a supernatural sense of belonging.”

Following this bold defense of the family, celebrities and other outspoken opponents have been calling for a boycott of the Dolce&Gabbana label, with the most vocal opposition coming from Elton John, who claimed the pair was “out of step with the times, just like your fashions.”

While Dolce and Gabbana continue to be attacked as “hypocrites”, what their critics have failed to do is prove them wrong. Every child is born to and deserves to be raised by a committed, married father and mother, and same-sex marriage will always strip away at least one essential piece of the family.

Bravo to Dolce and Gabbana for daring to speak the truth; they are as bold in their speech as they are in their designs, and deserve to be applauded. While others will continue to vent their disagreement, the billionaire pair are wonderful advocates for the true definitions of marriage and family.

Mark Your Calendars for the 2015 March for Marriage!

"This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it." - G.K. Chesterton

2015 March for Marriage

When: Saturday, April 25, 2015, at Noon ET

Where: Union Square, South of Capitol Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC

 

Who: Marriage defenders, champions, and leaders from across the nation join together to defend marriage, family, and American liberties!

Why: To defend marriage as the unique union between 1 man and 1 woman; to protect the family as the building block of society; to ensure that our children will have a future where basic American rights and liberties are honored, preserved, and protected.

Stayed tuned for more information to come!

The Time Is Now



Dear Marriage Supporter,

We are now just six weeks away from one of the most important events in our cause to preserve marriage — the 2015 March for Marriage taking place on April 25th in Washington, DC.

The importance of this march cannot be overstated — it is our last, best hope to show the justices of the US Supreme Court that the American people demand that their views, values and votes be respected and that marriage be preserved!

Please make plans for joining us for the March for Marriage this year as we make the case for marriage. Three days after the justices of the Supreme Court see the outpouring of support for marriage, they will hear oral argument in the case that could shape the legal definition of marriage in America for years to come.

In the weeks ahead, I will be sending you more specifics on ways you can participate and support the march — either in person or online through the Virtual March for Marriage.

Watch for updates on www.marriagemarch.org coming soon.

In the mean time, please consider making a generous donation to support our efforts to organize and promote this critical event. We have a great deal of work to do and nobody to turn to for help except for loyal supporters like you.

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Your gift will be fully tax-deductible and matched, dollar-for-dollar by another generous donor who realizes that now is the time to stand up and defend marriage — BEFORE the Supreme Court weighs in. We need your support and the support of thousands of believers like you if we are going to make this event an incredible success.

Since The Media Won't Report It...

Rasmussen conducted a poll on February 26, 2015 concerning the marriage issue. The release of their findings was entitled "Jury's Still Out on Gay Marriage," and the first line of the report read: "Support for gay marriage has fallen to its lowest level in over a year, with voters now almost evenly divided on the issue."

Support for same-sex marriage has dropped over the past year by six percentage points, while opposition has increased. In fact, more voters are opposed to same-sex 'marriage' (44%) than are in favor of it (42%).

This dramatic change in public opinion comes as activist judges throughout the country have been working overtime to redefine marriage in direct opposition to the decision of over fifty million voters.

While the media seems utterly baffled by these findings — unable to process them and therefore report on them — we are not surprised in the least.

The findings are in keeping with a February 20, 2015 WPA poll conducted by the Family Research Council that found 53% of Americans agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Americans (81%) agree that government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.

And Rasmussen is not the only polling organization to find support for same-sex marriage collapsing. Pew Research Center found a similar thing in their last poll on the subject.

And yet, Justice Ginsburg feels compelled to publicly declare that — should the Supreme Court discover a "right" to same-sex 'marriage' hidden within the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — it "would not take a large adjustment" for the American people to accept their findings.

I vehemently disagree, and it's reassuring to see so many polls that back me up. The American people believe in the truth and beauty of marriage... which is why we are hopeful that you and thousands of your fellow marriage supporters will join us on April 25th for the March.

Don't Wait

But we — and our friends in the new pro-marriage Congress — aren't simply sitting back and waiting for the Supreme Court to rule.

Cognizant of the inherent threats to religious freedom that redefining marriage presents, Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) have introduced the 2015 Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act in the US House and Senate.

If you haven't done so already, please click here to send your Congressman and Senators a message urging them to support this vital legislation.

This common sense legislation protects faith-based agencies from discrimination and punitive measures by governments who are ideologically opposed to the tenets of their faith — as has been seen repeatedly in locations that have redefined marriage.

It seems ridiculous that we must pass legislation to protect our first amendment rights to operate our businesses and charities in keeping with the tenets of our faith — but that is where we find ourselves today.

Looking at what has happened to organizations like Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and Washington, DC — which were forced to shut down because they elected not to violate the core teachings of their Church and place children with same-sex couples — we can see that there is a real threat to people of faith... that we MUST stand up and fight in defense of marriage!

Which is why we must draw a line in the sand and let the Supreme Court, elected officials and other elites in control of the levers of power in our society know that the people of this great nation will not stand for having a radical ideology imposed upon us!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Memo to Supreme Court: State Marriage Laws Are Constitutional

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.”

News stories report about one or more states’ same-sex marriage ban being declared “unconstitutional,” and the requirement for all states to redefine marriage as being simply a union between any two people, regardless of gender. There is one fact, however, that has been overlooked, ignored, and suppressed by same-sex marriage advocates: nothing in the US Constitution requires states to redefine marriage.

No one should be more aware of this fact than our Supreme Court justices. Tragically, some have already indicated that they will put their own personal preferences about same-sex marriage above their duty to uphold The Constitution.

57565279Like many of our American forefathers, there are those who refuse to remain silent while our rights - those that are actually in the Constitution - are trampled. Gene Schaerr and Ryan Anderson have written a memo to the Supreme Court, outlining cold hard facts, historical basis, and logical conclusions for why the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is in fact constitutional, and must be protected.

The overarching question before the Supreme Court in the four cases that were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit and for purposes of review by the Supreme Court—Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear—is not whether an exclusively male–female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the U.S. Constitution.[4] In other words, the question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Schaerr and Anderson also explain why the existence of “the constitutional right to same-sex marriage” will be impossible to prove:

177319106The only way someone could succeed in such an argument is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution based only on the emotional needs of adults and then declare that the U.S. Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way. Equal protection alone is not enough. To strike down marriage laws, the Court would need to say that the vision of marriage that our law has long applied equally is just wrong: that the Constitution requires a different vision entirely.

The memo goes on to explain where in the constitution marriage between one man and woman is protected, as well as rational basis for why it should be protected:

From a policy perspective, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union may produce. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of biology. The policy question is whether a father will be close by and, if so, for how long. Marriage, rightly understood, increases the odds that a man will be committed to both the children that he helps to create and to the woman with whom he does so.[44] The man–woman definition of marriage reinforces the idea—the social norm—that a man should be so committed.

The man–woman definition, moreover, is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

In short, fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children. But you do not have to think this marriage policy is ideal to think it constitutionally permissible. Unless gays and lesbians are a suspect class, for an equal protection challenge to succeed, this simple analysis of the social function of marriage would have to be proved not just misguided, but positively irrational. Universal human experience, however, confirms the rationality of that policy.

87686941Marriage equality already exists in America: everyone has the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex, or choose not to be married. As for same-sex couples, they too can choose to either marry or not marry someone of the opposite sex. Regardless of what a person might “prefer,” marriage cannot take place unless it is between a man and a woman. “Marriage” between same-sex individuals is biologically impossible, anthropologically unsustainable, and constitutionally unenforceable.

Schaerr and Anderson’s full memo can be read here. Time spent reading this memo is time invested in understanding the true argument around the constitutionality of marriage, as well as understanding just how blatantly states’ and the individual constitutional rights are being trampled. Our founding fathers were not tolerant when their innate human rights were denied, and we, the American people, will not tolerate our constitutional rights being denied.