Dear Marriage Supporter,
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is under assault like never before. And Congress may well be its last line of defense.
Please take a moment to thank House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor for standing firm in defense of DOMA and marriage today!
Yesterday morning, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, becoming the first federal appellate court to strike down DOMA. The ruling, coupled with the Ninth Circuit ruling on California’s Proposition 8, sets the stage for a Supreme Court showdown to determine the future of marriage in America next year.
Speaker Boehner and Rep. Cantor deserve a special note of thanks for their courageous defense of DOMA. When President Obama ordered his Justice Department to abdicate their duty to defend DOMA in court (because in his opinion, the law is unconstitutional!), Congress intervened and took over the legal defense of the case. And they hired a superstar, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, to defend our nation’s only federal law protecting marriage.
Please click here to send a message to Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, and also your own congressman, thanking them for the House’s defense of DOMA.
These leaders are under intense pressure to drop their defense of DOMA—they need to hear from you today! Please click here to thank them for defending marriage and urge them to keep up the fight right now!
NOM is actively engaged in defending DOMA and state marriage laws in nearly a dozen cases nationwide. Please help us defend DOMA and marriage wherever it is under attack by making a generous donation to NOM today!
Thank you!
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.
30 Comments
Why should my tax dollars subsidize your bigotry?
Why should my tax dollars subsidize your friendships?
Why should my tax dollars subsidize your depravity?
Depravity: a morally corrupt or wicked act
@ Barb - I'm not asking you to subsidize my friendships, just my marriage, as I do yours. Fair is fair.
Randy:
Depravity: a morally corrupt or wicked act
Marriage: the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
Notice that the two words are not synonymous.
14th,
Your 2010 revised addition to the definition of marriage is not valid because it did not go through the standard 12 year vetting process; i.e. it was politically motivated.
Marriage:
a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
We will revearse the damage you have perpatrated on our society.
14th,
I fully support your marriage to a member of the opposite gender. Anything else is, indeed, a friendship.
Wrong, Barb. Same-sex marriages are indeed marriages (duh) just as legally valid as yours, regardless of your opinion or bias. The opinion of the 1st Circuit carries just a bit more weight than yours.
Randy - The definition was simply updated to reflect reality.
14th,
The original definition traced its lineage over 1,500 years and united the generations; whereas the revised definitions unites us to an ideology that has yet to take hold in this nation; an ideology dedicated to severing the future from the past.
Your desperation has become obvious to everyone. My lone regret rests in the knowledge that when push comes to shove you will claim - like the Germans - that you never sided with the heathen – that; and the fact that I was once naive enough to vote for civil union expansion for perverts.
Civil unions represent the greatest triumph and, potentially, the proximate cause of the defeat the SS"M" movement.
The strategy was brilliant.
Appeal to the majority's desire to "compromise in good faith".
The "compromise", of course, was never anything other than means by which to provide a basis for a legal challenge against the very compromise originally offered as a "solution".
Very nice.
It is being tried again, exactly, in the First Circuit DOMA finding.
It has two flaws.
First, the "civil unions" scam ought to have been allowed to run about five more years, so as to fully boil the frogs.
Starting in California and proceeding in every election since, the frogs continue to show themselves unboiled, much to the consternation of the SS"M movement.
Therefore they cannot win at the polls.
They moved to early for that.
It comes down to the SCOTUS now, and this is where the second flaw reveals itself; that is, the inability on the part of the lawyers to count to five.
Great: Why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize people who contribute nothing to society. The marriage benefits are incentives to procreate which is why these benefits are not available to single people like me. Therefore homosexuals deserve to be treated the same as singles. Both do not procreate so both do not get the financial benefits.
14th, don't even bother. You're attempting to converse with some of the most condescending and truly ignorant people around. You'll never convince them of anything and will only get more and more frustrated with what they believe and say.
Stefan:
Surely even you do not labor under the delusion that committed defenders of marriage are going to be swayed by the utterly laughable "arguments" advanced in favor of its deconstruction by a movement at war with the biological fact of our species' constitution in two complementary species?
Good heavens, man, we certainly harbor no illusions about logic being capable of reaching the fundamentally disoriented mind which conceives of same sex "marriage" as a "right".
The conversation here is directed toward those who have still not fully concluded which side of the question they wish to stand.
Notice how Stefan just ignored the singles question as if it did not exist. Just another day at the office from the other side.
SS"M being absurdly illogical from inception forward, it should not surprise us that its defenders do not waste their time attempting logical arguments.
See Alinsky, Saul; "Rules For Radicals", for the SS"M" game plan.
It has nothing at all to do with truthfulness or logical consistency.
It has to do with boiled frogs.
Stefan - I don't expect to sway the ignorant bigots that support (and run) NOM. But I do think there's some value in challenging the nonsense that they post day in and day out here and elsewhere online. Those who are reading and actually have an interest in facts need to know that NOM is lying to them.
"The marriage benefits are incentives to procreate which is why these benefits are not available to single people like me"
John, Single gay people aren't asking for marriage benefits, married gay people are. You do get the prize for most illogical comment in this thread though.
Messages sent.
God bless the House Republican leadership for their defense of DOMA.
They are not "married" in the eyes of the Federal government, Amends.
That is one of several serious logical problems with your above post.
Got to hand it to the gay movement. They've been executing strategies (i.e. Kirk) for a few decades now calculated to get to this point. Proof that if you are shrewd, aggressive, and have Hollywood/Madison Avenue on your side, there's almost nothing you can't sell to the American people. (Just look at the changes in polls in the last ten years.) But movements can be challenged, stopped, and ultimately dismantled as well. Thanks to NOM for standing up for what's right. My prayer is not just for defending DOMA but an actual reversal in the mindsets of the country over a period of time. Yes, it can be done. The more vigorously the SS movement pushes, the more the American people will eventually turn against them on this issue.
If the GOP can capitalize on the momentum garnered by the newest battles in the culture war as well as hammer Obama on the economy, we may very well be able to take back this country.
STAND STRONG FOR DOMA.
please please defend the DOMA. It is the most important thing to me!
Randy says: Marriage:
a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
So, no mention of religion in your posted 1500 year old definition? Interesting.
ZJuice:
Yup. That's right. Religion is not relevant to the definition, since the definition can be independently arrived at by means of basic logic in the face of biology.
Really, ZJuice, it's not one of the things that humanity has had a lot of difficulty with.......
until the marriage corruption media brainwashing campaign kicked in
But not to worry.
No amount of brainwashing is enough for you guys to win.
Promise.
At least the 1st circuit determined homosexual depravity is not a suspect class.
"They are not "married" in the eyes of the Federal government, Amends. That is one of several serious logical problems with your above post."
You're simply stating the problem in an attempt to justify the problem, Rick - that's just Maggie-esque circular logic. They are married in their state which, until 1996's unconstitutional action by Congress, automatically made a couple married in the eyes of the Federal gov't.
Ummm, Amends.
Again.
Simple logic.
Under our Constitution, no homosexual couple is entitled to Federal marriage benefits.
This is the law of our land.
It is incumbent upon you to try to change this excellent thing, and it is incumbent upon us to prevent you from succeeding.
Simple.
14th,
The Federal Government has only recognized the union of one man and one woman as a marriage in these United States since inception; SCOTUS has acknowledged the rational basis of this truth ever since 1875:
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
DOMA is a duly constituted law that was ratified a full eight years before any state changed its marriage laws to include a reference to same gendered partners.
You do know that the states do not have the right to dictate federal laws don’t you?