NOM BLOG

Obama's Divided America, NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Monday, President Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.

An inauguration is always an historic occasion, a moment when the American people come together to celebrate the democracy we share.

It was on the day that we as a nation gather to celebrate Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that President Obama decided to divide the country and to demean the views of millions of fellow Americans, by trying to make support for gay marriage part of the national creed:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

"Our journey is not complete," Obama went on, "until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — [applause] — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

Even many of his strongest supporters on the Mall (and I do understand why so many African-Americans in particular celebrate and support this president, even as they disagree with his views on marriage), admitted they disagree with the president:

Over at HuffPo, Irene Monroe — who describes herself as "a nationally renowned African-American lesbian activist, scholar and public theologian" — admitted many Black Americans found the President's rhetoric divisive: her piece is called "Obama Linking Selma to Stonewall Divides the Black Community."

Monroe writes that she personally "felt affirmed" and "applauded the president's courageous pronouncement."

"However," she continued, "some African Americans felt ‘dissed' by the president's speech. The linkage of their civil rights struggle with that of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) Americans did nothing to quell their dislike of the comparison. For them, the fact that it was spoken by this president made it sting more."

This President has apparently concluded that gay marriage is the civil rights battle of our time and has prioritized it in spite of the views of many other members of his coalition.

Our Strongest Case Yet

This week, two brilliant lawyers filed briefs to the Supreme Court in the two marriage cases presently on the docket: Paul Clement filed for the House of Representatives on the constitutionality of DOMA, and Ted Olson's chief nemesis Chuck Cooper filed his brief in defense of the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8.

As you read the briefs and applaud, save a little applause for House majority leader John Boehner. He has his critics, but you have to give him credit for pursuing this case all the way to the Supreme Court in spite of media and RINO pressure to give up.

Even 60 Minutes legal analyst Andrew Cohen had to admit in the Atlantic, "At Supreme Court, Gay Marriage Foes Make Their Strongest Case Yet."

These brilliant legal minds make a particularly strong case against President Obama's divisive claim that support for our traditional understanding of marriage is like support for racism.

You can read both the DOMA brief and the Prop 8 brief at Prop8Case.com which we've re-launched to keep track of this most important legal fight. Check in frequently for important updates!

In Paul Clement's DOMA brief, the impressive case against President Obama's framing begins on page 49.

"Gays and Lesbians are far from politically powerless," the brief points out. (You and I, who are in the midst of these political battles, know that all too well.)

Indeed, the brief continues, "the decision of the President and Attorney General to stop defending and start attacking DOMA itself demonstrates the remarkable political clout of the same-sex marriage movement. As the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit remarked to the Department's representative at oral argument, ‘your presence here is like an argument against your argument.'"

"Characterizing such a group as politically powerless would be wholly inconsistent with this Court's admonition that a class should not be regarded as suspect when the group has some ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers," Clement argues.

Then, on page 56, Clement takes on the Selma analogy directly... and demolishes it. Yes, I would agree, people with same-sex attraction have suffered harms and exclusions. But the comparison between California today and Selma reveals either an impoverished moral imagination or an intellectual insincerity.

I particularly love how Clement uses their own witnesses against them:

Finally, each of the recognized suspect and quasi-suspect classes — racial minorities, aliens, women, and those born out of wedlock — have suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded. In contrast, as this Court noted in Lawrence, "there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter... Indeed, "the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century." Id. As Ms. Windsor's own expert, Dr. George Chauncey, has written, although "antigay discrimination is popularly thought to have ancient roots, in fact it is a unique and relatively short-lived product of the twentieth century."

But more importantly, "unlike racial minorities and women, homosexuals as a class have never been politically disenfranchised — the kind of pervasive official discrimination that most clearly supports suspect class treatment by the courts."

In sum, the traditional factors this Court has assessed in determining whether to recognize a new quasi-suspect or suspect class are absent when it comes to gays and lesbians. Perhaps most critically, gays and lesbians have substantial political power, and that power is growing. Victories at the ballot box that would have been unthinkable a decade ago have become routine. To be sure, those victories have not been uniform and have come first in "blue" states rather than "red" ones, but that is the nature of the political process. There is absolutely no reason to think that gays and lesbians are shut out of the political process to a degree that would justify judicial intervention on an issue as divisive and fast-moving as same-sex marriage. As Judge Straub observed, the definition of marriage is "an issue for the American people and their elected representatives to settle through the democratic process."

The Democratic process "require[s] participants on both sides to persuade those who disagree, rather than labeling them irrational or bigoted." By contrast, courts "can intervene in this robust debate only to cut it short" [emphasis added].

Equality... For Our Children

San Francisco Archbishop Cordileone, the "godfather of Prop 8" and head of the USCCB's Defense of Marriage subcommittee, issued this pointed and poignant statement in response to Pres. Obama's remarks:

"I honor the president's concern for the equal dignity of every human being, including those who experience same-sex attraction, who, like everyone else, must be protected against any and all violence and hatred," wrote Archbishop Cordileone in an email to the National Catholic Register.

(Yes, it's good to be reminded our fellow citizens who are gay still sometimes experience awful and unjust attacks that we must all unite to oppose).

But, as the Archbishop continued:

[T]he marriage debate is not about equality under the law, but, rather, the very meaning of marriage. Marriage is the only institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers... Protecting this understanding of marriage is not discrimination, nor is it some kind of pronouncement on how adults live out their intimate relationships; it is standing for the common good.

Then he went on to say something I don't hear very often: our love of equality should demand that we support marriage, which represents "the equal right of all children to grow up knowing and being loved by their mother and father."

Same-Sex Marriage Is Not A Civil Right

In an interview I gave to NBC News recently, I told them point blank: "Same-sex marriage is not a civil right. To try and compare in any way the attempt to redefine marriage with the Civil Rights movement is simply false. I think that the president's forgetting about the most important group affected by this and their civil rights, and that's children having the civil right to have both a mom and a dad."

The fight continues. Let us continue to stand together in defense of timeless truths, truths we know from both Nature and Nature's God. Justice for children is the great cause for which we strive.

As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday we celebrate said, "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

Thank you for all that you have done for me, in particular and for this great cause. I'm so proud to stand together with you in this fight.

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.

16 Comments

  1. Good News
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    "JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN."
    Childrens rights.
    Protection of children.
    Children's wishes and desires and needs.
    Bravo! Now we're talking!

    And its not a tactical ploy; its the nuts and bolts of this issue.
    But you're going to get the marriage corruption crowd very upset if you stop talking about homosexuals. All their divergent arguments have been built around them.

    Children's best interests; even homosexual's will get on board to help fight for the best interest of children - its only human.

  2. flanoggin
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    This appeal reeks of desperation. I do hope god forgives you for your role in this ugliness (and misnamed) National Organization for Marriage. I will pray for your soul. Thank you

  3. Randy E King
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    @flanoggin,

    Nobody here is asking you to change. You are the one demanding the world change; that all of human history be changed just so you can live with yourself for a choice you cannot even bring yourself to take responsibility for.

    If you truly believed what you are championing were acceptable you would not be demanding it be declared to be that which it is incapable of ever becoming.

    The Emperor has no clothes.

  4. M. jones
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Someday children will be thought of as real human beings entitled to both a mom and a dad. Not a casual after thought by SS"m" extremists looking for something akin to a pet or a new pair of shoes.

  5. Michael Ejercito
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    In order the understand the nature of a civil right, one must look into the nation's history and tradition for a careful description of that right. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 703 (1997).

    What was the careful description of that right?

    The relationship of “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue
    and multiply his species, the other in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”

    1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410.

    “the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children”

    id. at *35.

    Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.”

    John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690)

    For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves.

    id. at § 79

    Marriage “was instituted … for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children”

    Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language
    (1st ed. ) (1828)

    "Marriage between two persons of one sex could have no validity, as none of the ends of matrimony could be accomplished thereby. It has always, therefore, been deemed requisite to the entire validity of every marriage . . . that the parties should be of different sex.”

    Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage
    & Divorce § 225 (1st ed. 1852), quoted in Defendant Sally Howe Smith’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
    and Brief in Support With Consolidated Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
    for Summary Judgment, Bishop v. United States, 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW (N.D. Okla.), at 18

    Marriage is a “ contract, made in due form of law, by which a man and woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by law on the relation of husband and wife.”

    John Bouvier, A Law
    Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United
    States
    105 (1868)

    “For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. ”

    Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in
    Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) ,
    United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908), and Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 at 205 (2nd Cir. Sep. 27, 2012) (Straub, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    Good stuff, Michael.

    The president pays a lot of lip service to caring about the children, even going so far as to use them as props and have them read letters they didn't write on national television. But when it comes to giving children the ideal environment of one mother and one father, he proves that he doesn't give one whit.

    It's helpful to remember that the president doesn't mean anything he says. It's all political calculation, designed to move us one step at a time toward his socialist dystopia. You know he's lying because his lips are moving.

  7. Publius
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    The contrast between the name calling and lack of argument in comment nr. 1 and the legal scholarship displayed in comment nr. 3 is telling.

  8. Chairm
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    It comes as a surprise that the Stonewall rioters were guided by equal dignity. They were rioting over a police raid on a bath house run by crooks.

    It is a little like the bizarre remarks of politicians in a European city -- I think it is was Holland -- who had passed a local law permitting same-sex sexual behavior in a central public park. Apparently this was also about equal dignity.

    Obama could have cited some other big event or pivotal moment for the "gay rights movement" but, no, he cited rioters. Guided by the example of the Founders who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence which said something about natural law and self-evident rights, rather than self-indulgent wrongs.

  9. Chairm
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    It comes as a surprise that the Stonewall rioters were guided by equal dignity. They were rioting over a police raid on a bath house run by crooks.

    It is a little like the bizarre remarks of politicians in a European city -- I think it is was Holland -- who had passed a local law permitting same-sex sexual behavior in a central public park. Apparently this was also about equal dignity.

    Obama could have cited some other big event or pivotal moment for the "gay rights movement" but, no, he cited rioters.

    Rioters uided, he fantasized, by the example of the Founders who stood with the Declaration of Independence which said something about moral truth, liberty, natural law and self-evident rights, rather than moral falsehoods, libertinism, relativism, and self-indulgent wrongs.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    House majority leader John Boehner has certainly played the hero this go; signing Paul Clement to do the heavy lifting demonstrated his willingness and intent to win at all costs.

    Three cheers for Chuck Cooper and Andy Pugno; their steadfast defense of Prop 8 these past four years, in the face of a hostile and corrupt Federal Judiciary, has been nothing short of amazing.

    Thanks for giving us hope in our darkest hour Gentlemen - you too Brian.

  11. M. jones
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Yes indeed, excellent legal scholarship, marriage terrorists will have their case handed back them shortly. Common sense justice will be sweet and just in time to stop liberal states from putting a stamp of approval on ripping children from the opportunity to have a mom and a dad.

  12. Posted January 25, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    America is paying for its slavery years, and subsequent discrimination. Then they enslaved the Hispanics, without calling it so. Both of these social classes voted for Obama in large proportion.

    The consequences of sin are automatic, and not even repentance can avoid the consequences. Abuse affects later generations.

    The slavery remorse is being used to drive USA to the ideology of socialism. The genetically selected 'sons' of slaves are still being used and abused by Liberals. And they can't see it. It's payback time, folks. Obama is not really black, in spirit nor descended from slavery. We've been duped, because humanity in masses always searches for something to believe in. Something, anything. . .

  13. Ash
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    "'As the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit remarked to the Department's representative at oral argument, ‘your presence here is like an argument against your argument.'"

    Brilliant! This is going to be good.

    SSMers cheered when the President dropped his defense of DOMA. I'm sure they were really riding high when he began to use taxpayer dollars to undermine the law in court. But they did not consider that such a move would totally demolish the already suspect claim that gays and lesbians lack political power.

    SSMers are attempting to rack up legislative victories in the next few weeks, hoping that such victories will sway SCOTUS. I don't think even 15 states with ssm would move SCOTUS to overturn the laws of the remaining majority; but any legislative victories in the meantime would only serve to reaffirm that gays and lesbians are far from political powerlessness, and have more than enough ability to attract the attention of lawmakers.

  14. ZenMaster
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Brian and NOM for all the exceptional work you do.
    Make this viral.
    The paragons of tolerance showing just how
    intolerant and hateful they are.
    http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/news-and-updates/video-release-attacked-by-tolerance.html

  15. Tom
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Both of Clement's DOMA brief and Cooper's Prop 8 brief are brilliant. In the Prop 8 case, it's worth noting that the Ninth Circuit has already taken a big retreat from the outlandish opinion of Judge Walker in the District Court case. The absurdity of denying any rational basis to laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman, striking them down under Due Process, was well exposed by many. Among other things, I explained in this article in the Human Life Review how logic such as Walker's would lead inevitably to a "Brave New World" where our very humanity is undercut.

    http://www.humanlifereview.com/index.php/archives/59-2011-winter-spring/127-the-problems-of-perry-exposing-the-flaws-of-its-assault-on-traditional-marriage

    The Ninth Circuit's retreat, attempting to limit the case to a more narrow Equal Protection challenge based on California's supposed "change" of the law, is a clever ploy to try to win over Justice Kennedy, but is flawed in other ways, as Cooper well points out. Interested readers might also see my follow-up piece in the Human Life Reviiew.

    http://www.humanlifereview.com/index.php/component/content/article/66-summer-2012/186-the-problems-of-perry-an-update

  16. Posted January 28, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Tom, for sharing your articles. It is a joy to read readable analysis about the Perry case. Congratulations on developing such a critical topic, way ahead of time.