NOM BLOG

Marriage Ruling "Ill-Natured, Illogical, and Totally Illicit" — NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter


FOLLOW NOM AT CPAC!

NOM is co-sponsoring this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. The event, which began yesterday and runs through Saturday, brings together conservative organizations, activists and elected officials from across the nation.

NOM Marriage Pledge signers Governor Rick Perry and Congresswomen Michele Bachmann spoke Thursday, with Perry denouncing the Obama administration's "war on faith." Presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, all signers of NOM's Marriage Pledge, will be speaking Friday. Also on Friday, NOM's President Brian Brown, Chairman John Eastman, and Co-Founder Maggie Gallagher will be present to discuss the ongoing battles to defend marriage and religious liberty across the nation. And on Saturday, Gallagher will be moderating a panel discussion in which Eastman is participating, the topic being "The Phony Divide Between Fiscal & Social Conservatives: Protecting Marriage as a Case Study."

Follow NOM on Twitter, Facebook and at NOMblog.com throughout the weekend for updates from CPAC 2012.

My Dear Friends,

The fight is on!

In California, two judges on a divided Ninth Circuit panel just decided to take away the right of 7 million California voters to determine their own state's constitution, correct an out-of-control state supreme court, and restore the public meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

What is the evidence these judges offer that Prop 8 violates our beloved federal Constitution?

In a decision that NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher rightly called "ill-natured and illogical," the Ninth Circuit actually said that the evidence that the 7 million Californians who voted for marriage are irrational bigots who hate gay people is: Prop 8 didn't take away any practical benefits from same-sex couples.

That's right, because Californians decided to focus on protecting the idea and the ideal of marriage, without restricting gay people from doing things like seeing one another in the hospital—that is the proof that they were motivated by unreasoning hatred towards homosexuals.

Ill-natured, illogical, and, I, would add: totally illicit. These were two judges with no empathy for those who disagree with their own liberal values, with a predetermined agenda they wanted to enact, with no respect for the original text or meaning of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, put in place to correct the serious evil of slavery, is not a license to import into the federal Constitution any vision of "equality" invented by Harvard faculty and do an end run about basic principles of democracy.

As for the idea that marriage is and always has been a union of male and female for a reason—that these unions are different than any other kind because they make new life and connect children to their mother and father—what did the Ninth Circuit say about that?

These two biased judges rudely dismissed these core concerns by claiming no rational person could imagine that publicly redefining marriage could affect the public meaning of marriage, or the way the next generation thinks about marriage:

"Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties."

Really?

Courts threaten to take away the roadmap to marriage. Rewrite the institution's public meaning. Brand traditional ideas about marriage as uniting male and female in love so children can have mothers and fathers as irrational bigotry. The public schools will teach the government's newly redefined marriage ideas to your children and grandchildren.

Gee, how could any reasonable person committed to our marriage tradition believe such a radical redefinition of marriage could matter?

The Ninth Circuit's opinion striking down Prop 8 is government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges, and I promise you it will not stand.

Here I am debating one of the leading architects of the campaign to impose gay marriage by judicial tyranny, Evan Wolfson, on ABC 7 News:

 

Thanks to the hundreds of you who responded to our "money bomb" request to raise $100,000 for the defense of Prop 8. We helped get Prop 8 on the ballot. We helped form and fund the winning coalition that passed Prop 8. And we are going to see this fight through to the sweet victory at the end!

If you haven't yet had the chance, click here to help defend marriage, democracy and the rule of law!

Between now and the Supreme Court decision that will (or will not) impose gay marriage on all 50 states, there is an important election for president of the United States.

Three GOP candidates have not only responded to NOM's Marriage Pledge, they quickly spoke out against federal courts redefining marriage, and taking away the sovereignty of We the People:

Newt Gingrich said on Twitter, "Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy."

Mitt Romney: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

And Rick Santorum on Facebook: "Today, activist judges in the 9th Circuit stripped away the rights of 7 million California voters by striking down Proposition 8. These judges inserted a right into our Constitution that isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The radical actions of the 9th Circuit underscore the need for a constitutional amendment which would define 'marriage' as between one man-one woman. Study after study shows that traditional marriage, as it has always been defined—one man and one woman—creates the best possible environment for our children. And strong families are a key part of a strong America.

"This issue is far too important to allow for 50 different definitions of marriage at the state level. And this issue should certainly not be decided by a few activist judges..."

(In our press release we also noted that Rick Santorum has been an early and staunch supporter of the National Organization for Marriage, signing fundraising letters for us, among other good deeds.)

We are very proud that the three leading candidates for the GOP nomination are all willing to speak up for marriage.

NOM is a cosponsor at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) this year, serving as a proud voice for marriage within the conservative movement as well as outside. Maggie is moderating a panel on the importance of uniting social and economic conservatives and NOM's new Chairman of the Board Prof. John Eastman will be speaking there too.

The battles continue: Washington state just passed a gay marriage law, weeks before they found the time to close a humongous budget gap. It will take a tough fight to get a referendum to the people. In New Jersey and Maryland, liberal legislators promise to impose gay marriage without a vote of the people.

In two states this year, the people will have a chance to pass state marriage amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman.

In New Hampshire, a vote to repeal same-sex marriage takes place soon.

The fight continues. The rewards for fighting the good fight are not supposed to be felt in this world.

But the chance to be your voice for your values is the benefit I most cherish in earthly terms—the chance to put my shoulder to the wheel, to work and to fight and to link arms with loving, decent, law-abiding Americans of every creed and color on behalf of something so important, and so good, as marriage. That's what no one can ever take away.

Thank you.

There's a profile of NOM's co-founder Maggie Gallagher in Salon by a New York Times columnist who favors same-sex marriage. He tries, but he can't make head or tail of Maggie's principled defense of marriage—or yours either!

At the end he reports being befuddled by Maggie Gallagher's strong and idealistic belief that gay marriage is not the future:

"I have no doubts who will win in the end," Gallagher says. "One hundred years from now the globe will not be full of societies that endorse same-sex unions as marriages. What happens between now and then is going to be less certain and full of struggle. In the long struggle, I'll bet on human nature to overwhelm ideology. The thing about same-sex marriage is it's based on a fundamental untruth: same-sex unions are not the same as opposite sex unions. They are not marriages."

Thank you for making this fight possible, with your prayers, with your words, with your financial sacrifices, with your friendship.

God bless you,

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

 

P.S. Remember that we are fighting for the future of marriage! We will win, but we need your help to do it. Can you pledge $100 or $150 today for marriage? Or can you make a monthly donation of just $15? Every dollar makes a difference as we work to secure marriage for you, for your children, and for your children's children.

Donate Now

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.