"Inexplicable Contortions of the Mind"

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Tuesday of this week, United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez handed down a ruling in a case upholding Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

This ruling is the top headline of this week's marriage news.

"Marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order"

The Carter appointee did not fail to acknowledge that his opinion runs contrary to the majority of other Federal courts that have ruled on States' marriage laws since the Windsor decision by the Supreme Court, that struck down Section III of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

But in acknowledging this, Pérez-Giménez spoke of a "misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts." Specifically, he said that all of these decisions have blatantly ignored binding Supreme Court precedent from the Baker v. Nelson decision of 1972.

Baker essentially says the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of same-sex 'marriage'—which is a far cry from what activist judges have claimed over the last several months, that same-sex 'marriage' is somehow mandated by the 14th amendment!

Pérez-Giménez points out that this absurd claim is distinctly refuted by Baker, and that only the Supreme Court can contradict or overturn Baker, which they have not done. Furthermore, he notes that the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Puerto Rico, explicitly recognized this only just two years ago! It will be interesting to watch this case as it will most surely be appealed to the First Circuit, and to see whether the Judges on that court will have the integrity to bind themselves by their own very recent logic.

Pérez-Giménez describes the "inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance" that seem to have guided other Judges to the conclusion that the Supreme Court, in Windsor, signaled a constitutional demand for marriage to be redefined.

But the real beauty in this judge's decision is how he links the ideas of marriage and the rule of law itself, and points out that his fellow judges who have acted to redefine marriage have also showed a shameful disregard for the way in which our legal system works.

Allow me to quote at length from his conclusion [emphasis added]:

There are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is 'exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution... inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship.' Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial 'wisdom' may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is 'minimal marriage,' where 'individuals have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties' the blueprint for their design? [...] It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs' logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on 'the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one's choice.'

Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.

For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law.

I encourage you to read the entire decision and to share it with your friends. The clear logic and devotion to the truth, and the dedication to the integrity of our legal system, are a breath of fresh air compared to so many other errant decisions that have been issued over the past few months.

Standing Together

Marriage Supporter, I hope the decision from Puerto Rico is an encouragement and an inspiration to you this week, because now more than ever we must continue to stand together in this fight.

You've heard by now of the egregious violations to religious freedom that are cropping up around the nation, such as the case of the minister couple in Idaho who are being threatened with legal punishment unless they consent to act against their religious convictions and officiate same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies!

This is in addition to the Houston Pastors whom the Mayor and other city officials are trying to intimidate as retribution for their opposition to a deplorable "bathroom bill" ordinance.

These unconscionable violations are, unfortunately, one of the consequences of redefining marriage and family into genderless institutions which NOM has warned about for years.

We need to continue standing with those who face these attacks.

But we also need to get out and vote this November and send pro-marriage champions to Washington, D.C. where they will help us to promote a legislative agenda aimed at protecting conscience rights and religious liberty; and where they will lend their support to an amendment to our Constitution that will reestablish the truth of marriage and undo the harm done by so many tyrannical courts over the past two years.

Please — if you can today — make a contribution to NOM so we can continue to do the important work of informing the nation about critical marriage news like the decision by Judge Pérez-Giménez. We need your help to continue being your voice for your values in the public square and in the halls of power.

Thank you continuing to stand firm for marriage.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

SPECIAL EVENT: Stand for Houston Pastors

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The right of churches to speak the truth freely is under threat in Houston.

Five pastors and churches in have had their internal church communications subpoenaed by Mayor Annise Parker. This is part of an intimidation campaign that comes amidst a lawsuit brought by citizens against the city of Houston after a petition from residents was basically thrown out by the city administration.

But none of these pastors or churches are even a party to the lawsuit! This action is simply an attempt to intimidate anyone who has dared to question the city's terrible gender-neutral "bathroom bill" — the ordinance against which the voters signed the petition.

The bottom line, though, is that the government has no business monitoring sermons or prying into the private communications between a pastor and his congregation! The Constitution secures the freedom of the church to proclaim the truth. We can't sit idly by and allow intimidation like this to stand.

That's why The National Organization for Marriage is proud to be a partner in a special nationwide simulcast event, live from Houston:

The event will stream live from Grace Community Church in Houston—one of the affected churches—and will focus on what's happening in that city, as well as other threats to religious freedom around the country. Our aim will be to show how Christians nationwide can stand together in love and unity for America's First Freedom of religious liberty.

Please bring this to the attention of the your church leadership, and encourage them to have your church join with us and churches across the country as we focus on this issue that is crucial to the freedom of the church. If your church is unable to join, there's also a home viewing option, where you can watch with your small group.

Speakers will include:

  • David & Jason Benham, Co-founders, Benham Companies

  • Hernan Castano, Pastor, Iglesia Rios de Aceite — Houston

  • Dr. Ronnie Floyd, President, Southern Baptist Convention

  • Magda Hermida, Founder, Magda Hermida Ministries

  • Gov. Mike Huckabee, Host of Fox News' Huckabee, former Gov. Arkansas

  • Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

  • Pastor Steve Riggle, Founding Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church, Houston

  • Alan Robertson, Star of Duck Dynasty

  • Phil Robertson, The Duck Commander/Duck Dynasty

  • Dr. Rick Scarborough, President, Vision America

  • Todd Starnes, Fox News Radio

  • Dr. Ed Young, Pastor, Second Baptist Church Houston

Time is short, but the issue is crucial. The affected pastors and churches in Houston need believers from across the nation standing with them in solidarity for the right to freely proclaim the truth of Scripture. Visit to find out how you can be a part of this bold moment of witness to the truth and this historic stance for our most cherished liberties.


Brian S Brown
Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage
Brian Brown

Volokh on Coeur d'Alene Ordinance: "Inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause and the Idaho RFRA"

UCLA Law Professor and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh has posted an analysis of the controversy surrounding the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

If you haven't heard about the outrageous case, click here for more information.

The basic situation is this, as explained by Alliance Defending Freedom, one of whose allied attorneys will be representing the couple that runs the chapel:

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.


As ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco notes, "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly."

Volokh, in his piece, seems to agree with ADF that "he city is on seriously flawed legal ground." He writes:

The First Amendment protects the right to speak the words in a wedding ceremony — words that have deep meaning to many officiants as well as to the parties — and the right to refrain from speaking the words. A system which secures the right to spread religious and moral messages inherent in the wedding vows must also guarantee the right not to convey those messages (including the message of approval of the wedding inherent in the act of officiating at it) in contexts that the officiant thinks unholy and immoral rather than sacred and right.

187643976We hope and pray that the Knapps are successful in their lawsuit. But the fact that such a lawsuit is needed at all is a sobering reminder of why we must continue to fight to roll back the damaging and unconstitutional imposition of same-sex 'marriage' that has been forced on so many States' citizens by ideologically-driven and unconscionable judges playing to a powerful special interest group.

More than the definition of marriage is at stake: the fundamental contours of our democratic republic, such as the right to self-determination and the rights of religion, speech, and assembly imbricated in the First Amendment, are also at risk of being radically redefined.

Federal Judge: "No Right to Same-Gender Marriage Emanates from the Constitution"

Ryan Anderson reports on a new ruling by United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez upholding Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Ryan points out that Pérez-Giménez is "the first Democrat-appointee to the federal bench to uphold marriage law since the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision on the Defense of Marriage Act case."

He quotes extensively from Pérez-Giménez's powerful decision, including these bits:

American DemocracyIt takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance—this Court does not venture an answer here—to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.


Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is "exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship." Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial "wisdom" may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

Read more from the decision, and Ryan's worthy commentary, over at The Daily Signal.

Rolling Out!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter

Thank you to everyone who has already donated to our matching gift campaign! We had an amazing initial response.

As a result, we’re preparing to roll out major television ad buys in two states in addition to preparing several other voter contact programs.

But there is still so much more to do!

Won’t you please consider making a generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or more right away to help us take advantage of this incredible matching gift program?

We want to get our ads on the air in many other states. Several swing seats in the US Senate are up for grabs and marriage could be the defining issue!

And there are also races featuring Republicans — backed by the establishment — actively campaigning on their pro-abortion and pro-same-sex 'marriage' views. Not only that, they’re talking about "remaking" the Republican Party into one that ignores social issues entirely!

Marriage Supporter, we cannot let that happen!

But I need your help right away to secure the funds we need to get involved in these races and turn marriage into a turning point issue!

Won’t you please consider making a generous donation right away, knowing that your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar by another generous donor?


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

"Putting to Rest a Bad Argument"

Sherif Girgis, one of the co-authors of What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, opines at Public Discourse about a "bad argument" that needs to be put to rest - namely, the argument that "laws defining marriage as a male-female union should be treated as forms of sex discrimination".

Girgis writes:

126982681The Supreme Court closely scrutinizes policies involving racial, sexual, and other "suspect" classifications. But unlike almost every other classification imaginable, marriage laws use a criterion necessarily linked to an inherently good social purpose that we didn't just invent. This criterion isn't truly suspect and shouldn't get heightened scrutiny.


The primary question regarding the definition of marriage is not whether any particular class of individuals (gay, straight, male, female) has a special link to the common good, but whether certain couples do. And it shifts the burden of proof onto those who would find no such link.

Read Girgis's whole outstanding essay today.

"This Isn't How the Constitution Works"

In The Daily Signal, Ryan Anderson looks at the latest "evolution" on the issue of same-sex 'marriage' undergone by President Obama, and explains why with recent waves of political 'evolutions' and activist judicial rulings, "we’re not only redefining marriage, we’re redefining our Constitution." He writes:

Constitution“Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states,” Obama told the New Yorker.

This is a case study in how liberals “evolve” on policy. First they embrace a policy change. If they can’t convince a majority of Americans to vote for their preferred policy, they discover that the Constitution requires their preferred policy. So, according to the Obama of today, the Obama of early 2012 held an unconstitutional view of marriage. Or, perhaps, it wasn’t unconstitutional back then but it is now.

But this isn't how the Constitution works.

[...]  Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution [emphasis added].

Read the rest here.

October Surprise

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I dropped many of you a letter with this news, but I couldn't wait for it to arrive to tell you that I just spoke with one of our most generous and heroic donors—and he has agreed to extend the matching gift challenge through November 4th!

As long as we hear back from you in time, your contribution will be instantly matched for DOUBLE the impact.

So, please don't delay in making a generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 to support NOM's efforts to elect marriage champions to office this November!

With marriage under attack in federal courts all across the country, this November's elections have become all the more important.

Just ask Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Now that a federal court has struck down the state's marriage amendment, city officials have told them that, as ordained ministers running the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, they are required to perform same-sex weddings or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines!

This is absolutely unconscionable! Now more than ever, men and women who believe in marriage MUST stand up and defend it... or the consequences for ordinary people of faith who believe in marriage will be dire.

We MUST elect marriage champions to office. We MUST hold the GOP accountable and send a message that candidates who don't represent our most basic and fundamental values are NOT acceptable. We MUST advance critical legislation defending marriage and religious liberty through Congress.

And NOM has a plan to do just that! These efforts have just taken on such importance that I have revised our budget—increasing our expenditures on media, voter-education, viral internet advertising, phone and mailing campaigns, get-out-the-vote efforts and much more between now and Election Day!

But I need your help to raise the funds needed to execute these urgent and critically important plans.

Won't you please make a generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 or more today, knowing that your donation will be matched dollar-for-dollar?

These matching grants are extraordinary opportunities to maximize your gift in defense of marriage.

It's the exact right time to give, because marriage can make a difference in several key races:

  • In Arkansas, solidly pro-marriage Republican challenger Tom Cotton seeks to unseat Democrat incumbent Senator Mark Pryor. Recently, investigative journalists caught a prominent gay marriage activist on video saying that Pryor has made assurances to the activist that he's really "on their side." What's more, the activist was caught on video saying, "and if you tell anyone I will have to kill you." Senator Pryor's supposed support for marriage is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. We must inform the people of Arkansas about the truth and expose Senator Pryor's lies about marriage!

  • In North Carolina, a federal judge recently struck down their marriage amendment, which was passed just two short years ago with 61% of the vote. Already, the news is reporting that a magistrate has had to resign rather than face the prospect of being forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples against his deeply held convictions. We must inform the people of North Carolina that their vote this November is a vote to protect marriage and the express will of the people!

  • In Louisiana, their marriage amendment is under review in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal judge upheld its constitutionality. We must inform the people of Louisiana that their marriage law will NOT be safe if we don't elect marriage champions to defend them!

I know you've already been generous to our cause, and I can't say "thank you" enough.

But I also have to reiterate once more, that I will devote all of NOM's resources and energy to stand for the truth about marriage, and to advocate the importance of preserving it.

Won't you stand with me by making a generous donation today?


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

Downright Chilling

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Having been in the trenches of the marriage debate for most of the past decade, I've been vocal about the growing threats on the horizon — especially with respect to the dangers the same-sex 'marriage' agenda presents for people of faith and religious liberty.

All too often, I've been called an "alarmist" or a "fear-monger" by the radicals (parroted by the media) who want to redefine marriage.

I wish it were that easy.

The latest news from Houston is downright chilling. Not even our churches themselves are immune from attacks by a government determined to silence the voices standing up for the truth of marriage.


Under the guise of its new non-discrimination ordinance passed in June of this year, the city of Houston and its first openly lesbian mayor, Annise Parker, has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or the mayor. More alarming, those ministers who fail to comply could reportedly be held in contempt of court.

First of all, let me express both my gratitude and my admiration for the courageous religious leaders who were not only brave enough to preach hard moral truths in a society that is not welcoming of the discomfort they may bring, but also willing to stand up as champions in the face of Caesar's persecution.

Mayor Parker’s inquisition intentionally tramples the First Amendment, violating the most fundamental essence of the separation of church and state that the left claims to champion.

But even more alarming is the fact that this action is simply the latest in a series of actions by which the government (controlled by leftist ideologues) is lashing out at those who dare to disagree with their radical agenda. We saw this most egregiously with the IRS scandal, at which NOM was at the center.

Please take a moment to take action and send the mayor of Houston an email telling her to cease and desist on this unconstitutional assault on our precious religious freedoms.

And, if you have a moment, please call her office (713-837-0311) and let her know that Americans like you and I will not stand for this kind of abuse against our religious leaders.

Believe me, if they get away with this in Houston, they'll believe they can get away with it anywhere...

NOM's On The Bus

And that's why NOM has joined with several groups on another bus tour! Along with the Faith, Family, Freedom Fund (an affiliate of FRC Action) and The Family Leader, NOM is on board a whistle stop tour to encourage values voters (as the election rapidly approaches) to make their voices heard!

Today we wrap up in Iowa and move on to Nebraska and Kansas.

We have been joined by many wonderful activists and leaders on the ground in this critical state, but I wanted to especially thank my good friend Rick Santorum for joining us and speaking out so forcefully about the importance of taking action and voting your values.

Elections Matter

And finally, one more piece of interesting news out of Arkansas, where incumbent Democrat Senator Mark Pryor is in a battle for his seat against Republican challenger Tom Cotton. Investigative journalist James O'Keefe recorded a series of explosive videos exposing Senator Pryor's supposed support for marriage to be a bald-faced lie.

Marriage Supporter, this is why elections matter! This is why we must elect candidates who are truly principled and who will represent our values. Arkansas is just one of many states in which NOM hopes to work in the coming weeks as the election rapidly approaches.

Until next time, I am most faithfully yours,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PHOTOS: 'Standing for the American Family' Whistle Stop Tour of Iowa

NOM is proud to be on-site with FRC Action's Faith Family Freedom Fund, The Family Leader, and everyday marriage champions in Iowa today! The "Standing for the American Family" whistle stop bus tour (Oct. 13-16) encourages value voters of Iowa to get out and make their voices heard.

IMAG0658 IMAG0696




Iowans: join us to hear from local and national conservative leaders about the importance of marriage and the impact our votes will have in November. Check out the full schedule here.

UPDATE 10/17/14 1:37pm: The tour continues into Nebraska today!


UPDATE 10/18/14 10:32am: Crowds gather at Summit Church in Wichita, Kansas:


NOM in the News: Brian Brown Discusses Implications of Supreme Court Decision on C-SPAN

via C-SPAN:

Brian Brown and Evan Wolfson talked about legal and political developments in the debate over same-sex marriage, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny appeals from five states seeking to retain their bans on same-sex marriage, and a ruling overturning some bans in Western states. They also spoke about the politics and public opinions surrounding the issue. Evan Wolfson participated by video link from New York City.

"Gender Neutral" Restrooms at Harvard Divinity School

Harvard Divinity School tweeted a photo this week of its new “gender-neutral” restroom signs, which promote a new third symbol alongside the traditional male and female gender icons.

Harvard Divinity School elaborates:

Harvard Divinity College is only the latest in a growing number of universities to embrace gender-neutral bathrooms over the past several years. According to a recent article by the Huffington Post, more than 150 schools across the United States have installed all-gender restrooms in at least some of their facilities. And it’s not just colleges getting in on the trend. Offices, city-owned buildings, and other workplaces are all working to make their bathrooms more gender neutral.

Labeled an "all gender restroom", the sign displays the standard male and female figures, a handicapped symbol, and a male/female hybrid figure. Underneath is written: “Anyone can use this restroom, regardless of gender identity or expression.”

It is unclear as to why the standard unisex indicators were not used, nor if it is a private one-stall bathroom or a community bathroom.

When Marriage is Redefined, What Prevents People from "Marrying" Themselves?

After being single for six years, a London woman took matters into her own hands by "marrying" herself.

Grace Gelder, a photographer, says she was inspired by the Björk song Isobel, and was “on a journey of personal development using meditation, dance and performance” to increase her “self-awareness,” focusing on a program about “sexuality and how this was bound up with making agreements with yourself and other people.”

BrideAfter buying a dress and ring, which were apparently important to Gelder as “traditional elements,” she was married by a friend in Devon, England.

Gelder had this to say, via The Guardian:

The day was obviously centered on me, the final event being a mirror for me to kiss, but it also felt like I was sharing something very special with my friends, giving everyone an opportunity to reflect on their own ideas of love and commitment.

...I really don’t see it as any kind of feminist statement, but creating a wedding of this kind on my own terms felt incredibly empowering. My self-married status — meaningless though it may remain in the eyes of the law — has also given me this great sense of clarity. I seem to sense much more clearly than before if something is worth pursuing or best left alone. And just because I married myself, it doesn’t mean that I’m not open to the idea of sharing a wedding with someone else one day.

When marriage is devalued and its nature loosely defined, what prevents marriage norms—such as sexual complementarity, monogamy, exclusivity, permanence, or even the idea that marriage requires two people—from being broken down as well?

Nebraska School Insists: Stop Referring to Students by "Gendered Expressions" Such as "Boys and Girls"

A school in Lincoln, Nebraska is demanding that teachers no longer refer to students as “boys and girls”, but ... purple penguins?

Fox News reports on aLincoln Public Schools handout that included the following advice and explanation:

Purple Penguin“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” reads a handout from the Lincoln Public Schools that was given to teachers.

“The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed,” Brenda Leggiardo the district's coordinator of social workers and counselors told the newspaper. “We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.”

So instead of asking boys and girls to line up as boys or girls, teachers have been encouraged to segregate the children by whether they prefer skateboards or bikes, or whether they like milk or juice.

“Always ask yourself, ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the handout stated.

The handout, provided by Gender Spectrum, a website which "provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages" does not explain what to do if all of the children like juice or skateboards. But it does suggest teachers “create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.”

Equitably serve all kids? The school district seems to believe that in order to ensure “equality” for children who might have a real problem of gender confusion, it is a better idea to confuse ALL children.

As NOM President Brian Brown notes in our national newsletter this week:

178062396Now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves 'boys and girls' and name them instead after an imaginary creature, 'purple penguins.' (I suppose 'purple penguins,' unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)

This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.

Girls and boys shouldn’t be called “purple penguins” in order to appease a political agenda: they should be encouraged to be the people they have been since birth. Childhood is precious, and it should not be compromised because a small portion of adults want to modify the way boys and girls are addressed.

No law can change simple truth, no matter what terms are used. So let's fight back in our own school districts across America. Enough of the indoctrination: let girls enjoy being girls, and let boys enjoy being boys.

Christian Bakers Face Increasing Fines for Standing by Beliefs on Marriage

You may remember the story of Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Christian bakery owners in Oregon who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple last year.  Not only have they been forced to close their successful family business, but they are now facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. The Kleins ascertain that the $150,000 fine would be enough to completely bankrupt the couple and their 5 children.

The penalty hit the couple after they were found “guilty” of violating the same-sex couple’s civil rights, but what about their own civil rights? During an interview with the The Daily Signal, Aaron Klein said that he believed that he was “well within” his legal rights to decide not to take the couple’s business, citing his belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

In an excerpt from ChristianNews, Klein recounts the interaction that led to this heavy fine being levied on him:

Melissa Klein“My first question was what’s the wedding date,” Klein told television station KTW in Portland. “My next question was [the] bride and groom’s name. … The girl giggled a little bit and said, ‘It’s two brides.’”

He stated that he then informed the women that the bakery does not make cakes for homosexual events.

“I apologized for wasting their time and said that unfortunately, we do not do same-sex marriages,” Klein explained.
The women then left Sweet Cakes upset about the incident, and later, one of them filed a complaint with the state.

But Klein states that he regularly serves homosexuals. He believes that there is a difference between serving homosexuals in general, and having to personally facilitate same-sex ceremonies, which is an act of participation.”

“I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” he said. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

“We were being asked to participate in something that we could not participate in,” Klein’s wife, Melissa, noted.

In January, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) announced that it had concluded that the Klein’s broke the law when they declined to make the cake.”

The same-sex couple in question subsequently filed a civil rights complaint against the couple, ignoring the fact that the Kleins had filled other orders for the woman who had requested the “wedding” cake. Other homosexual activists also reacted with bitterness, threatening emails, harassment of their vendors, as well as ransacking the Klein’s bakery truck.

But when the Kleins appeared at the Value Voters Summit earlier this month, they were anything but bitter. Melissa Klein even broke down in tears when she described how special the process of making wedding cake is to her:

“For me personally, when I would sit down with [a customer], I just would want to know everything about her wedding,” she tearfully stated ... about the intimate involvement she would have in the matter if she accepted the order. “I’d want to know about the flowers, her dress, the centerpieces, her colors, the way her hair is going to be. I would even want to talk about ‘where are you going on your honeymoon?'”

The couple posted the following message on Facebook:

“Our culture has accepted 2 huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

Sweet Cakes Facebook Message

It is tragic to see our government employing discrimination in the name of “anti-discrimination.”

Aaron and Melissa are true champions of the freedom of religion, and are an inspiring example of how in our morally unstable country, we're often faced with the choice to do either what is right or what is easy. Bravo to the Kleins for courageously defending marriage as the union between one man and woman.