NOM BLOG

The Most Critical Court Case Of Our Generation!

 

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In a tremendous victory for NOM and our allies in the movement to preserve marriage, last December the United States Supreme Court granted the request of the proponents of California's Proposition 8 and agreed to review the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down California's marriage amendment. NOM was the biggest contributor to getting Proposition 8 on the ballot, and has directly contributed over $400,000 to its legal defense. The Court's justices will hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.

Today, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade — the Supreme Court decision that changed our nation so profoundly — reminds us of how truly important it is to stay engaged in and informed about this current, critical case, which has the potential to impact the future of our nation just as profoundly as that fateful 1973 decision — for better, or for worse!

Therefore, to help you follow this case with the most up-to-date news and commentary, NOM is re-launching a completely revamped and improved www.Prop8Case.com!

This site chronicles the history of the Prop 8 case; features blog posts and twitter feeds with the most up-to-date news about the legal proceedings; and gives you the opportunity to subscribe for updates and stay informed.

Supporter, this case represents an incredible opportunity to win an enormous, historic victory for marriage. From the start of litigation over 4 years ago, NOM has been working tirelessly with the incredible legal team representing ProtectMarriage.com to defend Prop 8 and to assure that marriage and the rights of voters in California and throughout our nation receive the best defense possible.

All of our efforts come down to March 26th, when the justices hear oral arguments, and then the period until the end of June when the justices are writing their decision.

We won't let up until we win.

Please take a moment to check out the new website and stay informed about what may be the Roe v. Wade of marriage. And please stand with us throughout this case with your prayers and support, so that the legacy of the 2013 Supreme Court does not follow the same path as its predecessor from 1973.

Lastly, please help us spread the word. The more eyes on the court, the better!

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, are tax deductible. No goods or services were received in exchange for this contribution.

25 Comments

  1. Zack
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    I propose that instead of trying to argue against same-sex marriage, we argue for Traditional Marriage. Now I know that this is what many of NOM's supporters have been doing, however saying we are against same-sex marriage plays right into the left's trap. We are in effect allowing them to frame the debate as us being against something and being mean spirited rather than for something and being noble.

    Maybe I'm saying something that has already been said, but I believe making the case for Traditional Marriage instead of against gay marriage(there are a lot of pieces on that very subject), I think we can get more people to come around.

  2. Will Fisher
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    So then, why oppose SSM? Why not just promote marriage. I like marriage. The ten years my wife and I have married have been to most secure and content years of my life. It's been no less so since SSM was legalized in my state.

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    "So then, why oppose SSM? Why not just promote marriage?"

    We do. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not for the sake of adults, but for the sake of our children.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Roe v, Wade opened the door for marriage corruption and is the exact blueprint these scoundrels are following in their quest to expand upon their full frontal assault on the laws of nature; the source of the immutable and innate sense of guilt they feel for their crimes against humanity.

  5. M. jones
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Traditional marriage for the sake of humanity and life itself.

  6. Bobby
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    Zack. You say make the case for "traditional marriage" or that which I would call heterosexual or opposite sex marriage. But there is no threat to "traditional marriage". I am not aware of any move to outlaw it. When the court rules in favor of marriage equality, traditional marriage will be alive and well. Just ask Will whose traditional marriage thrives in a state that embraces equality.

  7. Son of Adam
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.

    Once the government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract between consenting adults of any gender regardless of procreative realities, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for children.

    When that view prevails, many more couples will forgo natural marriage and have more children out of wedlock. Why go through the trouble of getting married to have children if marriage isn’t about children? Why tie yourself to one person if you don’t need to? This further erosion of marriage harms children because illegitimate parents often never form a family, and those who cohabitate break up at a rate of two to three times that of married parents. When illegitimacy rises, not only do children suffer, but the rest of us are forced to pay high social costs because of the resulting increases in crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending. (Children from broken homes, particularly fatherless homes, are responsible for a majority of violent crimes and youth problems.)

    The legalization of SS"M" is a symptom of our degrading family values, which, in turn, reinforces such attitudes.

  8. Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    Zack wrote: I propose that instead of trying to argue against same-sex marriage, we argue for Traditional Marriage.

    That's a very good point - and also to repeatedly stress that attack on the right of a child to have a mother and a father by people who normalize homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

    It would be good to organize a Show Your Appreciation for Traditional Marriage Day - and it could include good food too! ;-) A society that is based on valuing as precious heterosexuality and its formalization of a long-term relationship in marriage is being threatened and is under attack.

    We are defending wonderful values and something very precious: traditional marriage.

    (The only form of real marriage, but people who normalize homosexuality cannot understand that).

  9. Will Fisher
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 5:07 am | Permalink

    SoA, do have any evidence to suggest that straight people like us, forego "natural marriage" when SSM becomes legal?
    Another question: does the law make any distinction for who's sake a couple gets married?

  10. Eric S
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    But the marriage definition ha already been changed. 48 million people live in states which allow gay people to get married. As well, 11 countries not counting have legalized the practice, not counting Brazil and Mexico which allow it in some states. There may even be more countries and states by the end of the year.

    My point is, that marriage is no longer able to be defined as solely between a man and a woman- it has already been changed. Some states and countries may still reserve marriage for heterosexual couples but taking the entire country (or even globally) into account the "traditional" definition of marriage is not applicable, as it ignores thousands of legal marriages.

  11. Jeanette Exner
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    For people who are heterosexual, nothing is happening to "traditional" marriage. Nothing is being "redefined." Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change whether (or not) Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

  12. Jeanette Exner
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    I admit, I had to smile when poor Brian Brown described the Supreme Court's agreement to address Proposition 8 as a "tremendous victory" for his side? Victory over WHAT, pray tell? Marriage equality supporters knew that both Proposition 8 AND the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) were unconstitutional, since they set up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. No one is happier than I am that the Supreme Court is finally going to address these issues.

  13. Teri Simpkins
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam writes "Once the government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract between consenting adults of any gender regardless of procreative realities, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for children."

    What makes you think that hasn't already happened? There are millions of children born each year to single women. Sometimes they're born because the woman got pregnant, refused an abortion, and the father didn't want to marry her (or couldn't). Sometimes it's because the woman hasn't found a man she wants to marry and still wants a child, so she chooses to go the single parent route. And sometimes a woman gets pregnant and the man dies before they get married. Whatever the reason, single parents exist and always have. There is NO requirement for marriage in order to have children. Now, if you want there to be one, feel free to try and make it so. But the consequences to such a requirement will truly mean taking children away from their biological parent and giving them to either a foster parent or up for adoption, both of which, it has already been argued, are not families. Your choice.

  14. Posted January 23, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Hi, Zack: Logically, arguing for 'traditional marriage' (if you can define it unambiguously) is the same as arguing that SSm is irrelevant. Arguing against SSm, as irrelevant, is protecting traditional marriage if by that you mean civil marriage (through a marriage license).

    What doesn't sound advantageous, perhaps, is to defend anything 'traditional'. Because US Americans (though America is a continent) don't like to say they like 'tradition' (just to be different, unlike the British), but they are very, very traditional in their own way. Burn and rebuild is the way, here, comparatively. Tradition is on the surface taboo for those who think themselves very 'modern', but then develop their own traditions :) it is very human.

    SSm is also not 'gay' marriage. There's no such determinable person as a 'gay' (person), unless the person happens to be happy at the moment. There is also no legislation for 'gay marriage' anywhere in the US that is being officially considered (to my knowledge). It is always about SSm, if anything, or such Civil Unions. Even those are not relevant to marriage, because civil marriage is not about equal rights of individuals, and Congresses have the authority to pass such laws. It is perfectly legal, but some people will always throw a temper tantrum to see if enough gullible people feel sorry for them, in any legislation process, specially if supported by powerful special interests. Self-professed 'gays' don't engender the next generation, so they have extra cash which they invest at high return. They want what is rationally reserved for mom/dad partnerships. They want to buy such respect.

    They will point to an increase in the number of States that have added SSm to marriage. Mathematically that argument is curious, since it had to start at zero States, and has to grow from that (what else?). It can't go 'negative', mathematically only.

    Mathematically, the number might also later decrease over time. And what would that prove? Nothing. Proper math would function on ratios for comparison: There would be a ratio of States that have amended their constitution in one certain way, and another ratio for other amendment types or laws, always comparing 'apples with apples'. Some ratios would turn out to be infinite! (division by zero). Obviously, SSm acceptance is minimal comparing all States. Some will say "It's growing!", but it is also being counteracted (they leave that out, in their senseless bias - for they are literally gay).

    So, i disagree in defending anything qualified as 'traditional', because it won't work in the US. Try anything with the word 'radical' and it's totally different. Many will go for it, even though destructive.

    So, it's our society which is sick. SSm is just a symptom.

    Americans are used to doing what they want, with lots of resources and infrastructure, taking from other gullible or politically unstable nations. Those days are almost over, and we have been feeling the decline for decades.

    That is why NOM defends the concept of 'marriage' in the secular and also the religious sense combined, which in the US happens to be one and the same if officiated by your recognized church priest/pastor/rabbi, etc. NOM is correct in their terminology and emphasis; for the legal aspect is dirty politics.

    NOM also opposes SSm, instead of 'gay marriage', because SSm includes family relatives who need State recognition/benefits/regulation, or any two roommates in college who need to save on taxes. Coining SSm instead of 'gay marriage' is a strategic fault, in my opinion. It weakens their main arguments. Good.

    One last thing: Pointing to a particular happy civil marriage as proof of no-damage or a nice-ending to a story is irrelevant, and you will see SSm trolls use this argument, here. Marriage is a partnership civil contract, and it must be based on pertinent, unbiased, statistics to be able to regulate society (not on individual cases). Notice civil marriage regulates everyone indirectly, by not accepting certain partnerships into marriage in all States. That is not the case with a purely religious marriage (vows made to God, not to each other - true marriage) - it is perfectly legal.

    A partnership or friendship remains just that, if it doesn't qualify for civil marriage. It is regulated by exclusion.

    By and large, voters have not OPPOSED SSm in their States - they have found it IRRELEVANT to the Institution of Marriage. (Generally, US Americans don't like to speak 'in the negative' - a well-followed tradition :) ) That is possible because other civil institutions handle/regulate same-sex partnerships well enough if they sign up, but are in themselves not equal to civil marriage, and therefore the equality argument does not apply.

    Thanks for raising a good question. Interesting semantics.

  15. Mc
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Marriage isn't a contract between 2 people - it is a contract with all of society including children - we shouldn't take this for granted. If benefits is all the gay activists want then that could be done a different way through civil unions - they want gay couples to be seen by everyone as a moral, healthy family - to be included - there is no in between. SSM opponents then have to contend that SSM is no substitute for heterosexual marriage - that it is still different - well, bio-LOGICALLY it IS different for sure - gender does matter and we need to teach children that male and female are distinct because they are - each has something great to offer.

    Teens WILL take SSM as yet another excuse to run around experimenting more and more at younger and younger ages with sex and identity - it will be more socially important to self-identify between the 2 "options" at an early age. So sex is seen more and more as something one does to please themselves. This is basically sinking sand - we are simply destroying ourselves with the continuation of the "sexual revolution." I think it might make custody battles even worse for children. We might as well not have any legal marriage - it is no longer recognized as a special entity producing good for the nation - it is a personal thing so it should just be personal - if it is for personal fulfillment then there is no reason to exclude polygamy or incest - so the more secular society gets - the more morals will vanish - everything for personal fulfillment - so bring on the chaos.

  16. Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Hi, Mc:
    We need not be pessimistic.
    The best (very poor) government can do to institutionalize marriage is to frame it as a contract between 2 persons (optimally as a male and a female human adult).

    Two people get married, and two people sign the civil contract, and that's the best government can do. In a religious marriage, the couple most often makes its vows to their joint families, the person officiating the marriage, friends of the family - all in the context of God.

    Civil marriage is only a very limited copy of the religious marriage, and it cannot achieve as much, and is less meaningful to the guests and family. SSm doesn't have the significance of virginity, potential for grandchildren, lots and lots of sex in private (more than unmarried people). Seems to me SSm is for those who couldn't find a partner of opposite sex. Not easy, because man/woman relationships are much more complex than SS.

    For purposes of vital statistics, and for trailing/enforcing child support from State to State, the government took over marriage statistics.

    For that purpose, it had to extend marriage licenses. but government, as usual, does a TERRIBLE job of regulating marriage. Instead of government abandoning the regulation of marriage, we must improve governments role and quality of service (blood tests, genetic markers, background check, venereal disease and AIDS control). This is good for society.

    That is one reason why SSm advocacy is detrimental to marriage - because government should be improving their role, encouraging marriage, and therefore maintaining the dignity of marriage by NOT trying to imagine it is equal to SSm. If two adult guys can get married, marriage means friendship, and that's all. Who is going to spend $10,000 to celebrate a friendship? (No one.)

    Don't get me wrong. Friendship is great. King David wrote it can be higher love than marriage. but friendships regulate themselves, unless children are engendered. At that point, government already regulates friendship.

    In fact, friendships have more liberty BECAUSE government does not regulate them until a child citizen shows up, if fortunate. Ups! (Not so rosy, anymore). That's why government grants incentives to get married (man & woman), just in case.

  17. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 5:06 am | Permalink

    Bobby asserted a falsehood.

    He said: " I am not aware of any move to outlaw it. "

    The marriage idea is abolished to make room for the SSM idea. The marriage idea is disparaged as barely tolerable by those who'd impose SSM on all of society.

    When the law treats all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husband or wives (treats these two-sexed unions as one-sexed unions), then, marriage is abolished.

    The distinction between SSM and non-marriage is arbitrary and not sustainable. So the irony -- for SSMers - is that their argumentation knocks the legs out from under the special status they have demand for SSM (marital status is a special status).

    The SSM project is not about marriage except for those who want to demote marriage from its special status to a barely tolerative status.

    The SSM project is sold with a gay emphasis but that emphasis does not justify treating the gay subset of nonmarriage as superior to the rest of the types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category.

    But once marriage is gutted, what gets poured into the hollowed special status is not some new and improved idea. The SSM idea is shoddy, intellectually, and shoddy, politically. What gets poured in to replace the core meaning of marriage? Gay identity politics which is granted supremacy over our foundational social institution and, thus, over much else.

    The SSM imposition serves to obscure the real meaning and purpose of the marital relationship in our society; but it also comes with this brazen assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics. Both do harm to society.

    But in strict legal terms, marriage law is for marriage and not for other stuff -- especially not for the non-marital relationships such as those that lack either husband or wife.

  18. leehawks
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Moderator: I have a comment in the filter. Please post it. Thank you

  19. Chairm
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Leehawks, I hope your comment is released soon. If not, perhaps try again.

  20. leehawks
    Posted January 28, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Is there a prohibition here against posting a link from Massresistance.org? I wanted to post "What same sex marriage has done to Massachusetts" but I guess the filter won't let me in two different posts. I recommend it if you have time to read it. It blows away all the arguments that say SSM doesn't hurt anyone.

  21. Chairm
    Posted January 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    leehawks,

    Here is a discussion of the objections of an SSMer to that very document:
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2012/02/sorry-fannie-i-stand-by-my-remarks.html

    The SSMer is a guest blogger at Family Scholars blog. She vociferously called some statements "lies" but in the same breath admitted they were factual i.e. true. My pointing that out was deemed sufficient cause for her to declare me a bigot. Why -- see gay identity politics as the new trump card in public discourse.

    I discussed the MR document during the Prop 8 Campaign.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2008/10/it-is-worse-than-most-realize.html

    "When SSMers applaude these events, in discussion of this list, they will inevitably remind us all, through their axiomatic assertions and leaps of faith, that this is an agenda of identity politics. It is about using marriage for nonmarriage purposes. It is "SSM by hook and by crook." It is a peculiar sectarianism."

  22. Chairm
    Posted January 28, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    leehawks,

    Here is a discussion of the objections of an SSMer to that very document: http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2012/02/sorry-fannie-i-stand-by-my-remarks.html

    The SSMer is a guest blogger at Family Scholars blog. She vociferously called some statements "lies" but in the same breath admitted they were factual i.e. true. My pointing that out was deemed sufficient cause for her to declare me a bigot. Why -- see gay identity politics as the new trump card in public discourse.

    I discussed the MR document during the Prop 8 Campaign. http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2008/10/it-is-worse-than-most-realize.html

    "When SSMers applaude these events, in discussion of this list, they will inevitably remind us all, through their axiomatic assertions and leaps of faith, that this is an agenda of identity politics. It is about using marriage for nonmarriage purposes. It is "SSM by hook and by crook." It is a peculiar sectarianism."

  23. Chairm
    Posted January 28, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    leehawks,

    Here is a discussion of the objections of an SSMer to that very document: http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2012/02/sorry-fannie-i-stand-by-my-remarks.html

    The SSMer is a guest blogger at Family Scholars blog. She vociferously called some statements "lies" but in the same breath admitted they were factual i.e. true. My pointing that out was deemed sufficient cause for her to declare me a bigot. Why -- see gay identity politics as the new trump card in public discourse.

    I discussed the MR document during the Prop 8 Campaign. http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2008/10/it-is-worse-than-most-realize.html

  24. Chairm
    Posted January 28, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    leehawks,

    Here is a discussion of the objections of an SSMer to that very document: http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2012/02/sorry-fannie-i-stand-by-my-remarks.html

    The SSMer is a guest blogger at Family Scholars blog. She vociferously called some statements "lies" but in the same breath admitted they were factual i.e. true.

    I discussed the MR document during the Prop 8 Campaign. http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2008/10/it-is-worse-than-most-realize.html

  25. Chairm
    Posted January 28, 2013 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    My apologies for the duplicate comments here.