NEW: The Best Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage


Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Our opponents will use the election results to push the idea that the radical redefinition of marriage is “inevitable.” Now more than ever, we have to fight back hard with prayers—and with strong arguments.

That's why I think it's Providential that we're just weeks away from the release of the strongest pro-marriage argument ever written, praised by the likes of Rick Warren and Cardinal Dolan!

What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, written by NOM co-founder and Princeton professor Robert P. George along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, is the best short, accessible argument for marriage as a union of man and woman. Their 2010 article on marriage was an instant international success, cited worldwide as the toughest, most eloquent pro-marriage argument out there. They've expanded and enhanced it for this book, further developing key arguments and responding to critics.

The book offers a devastating critique of all the pro-gay marriage arguments, which no one has been able to answer. Use it to challenge friends and coworkers who think "history is on their side."

Finally, it demolishes the usual objections to our cause—points about infertility, interracial marriage, equality, freedom, same-sex couples' practical needs, separation of Church and state, and much more.

And it's very affordable—just $9.92 on Amazon! Buy it now, "like" its Facebook page, and invite your friends and family to do the same.

See below the high praise it's already gotten!

What people are saying about Marriage and the Public Good

"This book brilliantly explains why the definition of marriage is so critical and why the strengthening of marriages is absolutely essential to our freedom and our future."
Dr. Rick Warren, Author of The Purpose Driven Life and Pastor of Saddleback Church

"What Is Marriage? There is the question. Thanks to these three eloquent authors for so cogently reminding us of that, and for showing us how reflective reason answers it."
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York

"What Is Marriage? is the most insightful, eloquent, and influential defense of marriage as it has been historically and rightly understood. People of all traditions—and everyone who cares about the future of this central and sacred social institution—owe Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George an extraordinary debt."
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Yeshiva University

"With many countries on the verge of redefining a basic social institution, What Is Marriage? issues an urgent call for full deliberation of what is at stake. The authors make a compelling secular case for marriage as a partnership between a man and a woman, whose special status is based on society's interest in the nurture and education of children."
Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School

"What a joy to see this book by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, which presents the most philosophically astute and historically accurate defense of traditional marriage to date. It exposes the incoherence of attempts to radically redefine marriage by showing the inherent wisdom in what is our oldest social institution."
Rabbi David Novak, University of Toronto

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.


  1. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Ash, you are wrong about as so many other things. And I would love to see one "SSMer" that you think is thoughtful and eloquent because, those who are, are belittled and then blocked.

  2. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink


    Your new to this board and so dont appreciate that Ash is one of the most fair minded, charitable, and relentlessly fair and nuanced supporters of marriage on the blog.

  3. Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    The premise of same sex marriage is that diversity of sexual orientation is more important to society than gender, so we need to redefine marriage and eliminate the dual-gender requirement.
    Reality and biology tell us otherwise. Gender diversity is far more important. Where would we be without the integration of genders?

    I look forward to reading the book "What is Marriage?" so I can help spread the powerful message that marriage is unique and beautiful.

  4. Ash
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Fitz.

  5. Chairm
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:27 am | Permalink

    Markoh, your coment @#42 is incoherent and it is unresponsive to the content of my previous remarks anyway.

    There is no law against a gay individual" (your expression) forming a union of husband and wife, adv. There is no law that assesses the wisdom of such an individual doing so. There is no law that makes an individual ineligible to marry due to group identity. You mentioned a group and have yet to clarify directly your intended meaning. But you mistakenly implied that members of the gay identity group are ineligible under the bride-groom requiremet. That is factually wrong, for the individual and for the group notion as well.

    So you must be referring, however fleetingly, to a type of relationship that is, according to your view, definitely gay. And so the notion of a group, as you introduced it here, is one based on purity of identity such that the ability -- legal and otherwise -- to form a union of husband wife is denied by gay identity politics.

    It turns out that you deny the "gay individual" his or her freedom to do what the marriage lw's bride-groom requirement obviously permits.

    Your notion thus returns you to the startin line which is the query I noted at the top of this thread. The type of samesex relationship you have in mind is defined by what essential feature(s)-- before the law enters the picture?

  6. Chairm
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    The challenge to SSMers still stands unmet with sound argumentation.

  7. bman
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    bman-> "any gay marriage law will pose a threat to established religious freedoms if no protection clauses are added. "

    MarkOH-> Actually, it doesn't just as any church can refuse to marry any couple. Catholic churches for years, and still might, refuse to marry a divorce

    First, the mere fact a right existed "for years" does not prove it would still exist after a same sex marriage law.

    Second, in 2009, the state of Maine added a clause to protect churches from having to perform same sex marriages. Why would they do that unless they perceived a legal threat to religious rights that you say would not exist?

    Third, anti-discrimination laws would be redefined by a same sex marriage law unless religious protections were added. Thus, a church would "logically" violate anti-discrimination law if no religious protection clause was added.

    Fourth, your comment fails because religious freedoms are not limited to churches performing weddings. What about the other religious freedoms that would be harmed? Even if you were correct about the one you mentioned, you still have all these others you did not mention.

    We have already seen the indoctrination of children in public schools with gay-sex ideology against the religious ideology of parents; fines for a religious photographer who refused to film a gay wedding ceremony; fines for Christian owners of a Bed and Breakfast because they refused to accommodate gay marriage.

    In conclusion, my claim is that any same sex marriage law without a religious protection clause poses a threat to religious freedoms.

    Your reply did not refute that. The claim stands.

  8. bman
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    As noted above, religious freedoms are not limited to churches performing weddings.

    An article by Real Clear Politics regarding Maine's proposed law explains this:

    Under current [Maine] law, clergy and churches aren't required to perform marriages for whatever reason, he said. The proposed law won't protect [the religious rights of ] town officials, florists, photographers, caterers and others who refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage, he said.

    "Someone may say this protects religious rights [because churches don't have to perform gay weddings] and not realize how restrictive it is,"...

    That last sentence probably explains why the people of Maine voted for it.

    They did not realize they were voting against the religious rights of others.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.