CitizenLink: Marriage March to be Held Next Month in DC



Two national organizations dedicated to preserving God’s design for marriage will unite next month to lead a Washington, D.C., march. The event will take place March 26, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases challenging a national and state definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), the March for Marriage provides an opportunity for supporters to take a stand for the institution and religious freedom.

“Our march will reflect the unity and diversity of the pro-marriage movement,” said NOM President Brian Brown. “Men and women of every walk of life, every color and creed have professed from time immemorial that to make a marriage, you need a man and a woman.”

Be sure to check out the official March for Marriage event page!


  1. Quinn
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    No matter what happens on March 28th, whether the Supreme Court rules in favor of traditional marriage or the radical gay agenda - our motto (for those of us who support traditional marriage) will be "Never give up, never surrender".

  2. CRSmith
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    I think my husband and I will be able to attend and join. This is a fine idea to show that everyone hasn't lost a sense of honor and respect. I think it's about time that regular people finally stand up for what is right and stop catering to the gays. There used to be a time when DECENT people would not even speak of such things like gay marriange.

  3. FemEagle
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    **There used to be a time when DECENT people would not even speak of such things like gay marriage. **

    Decent people still don't. Only deviants, fools, panderers, the malleable and stupid, and political cowards support it.

  4. Posted February 27, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Advocates of SSm believe the issue is one of civil law versus religious dogma. Even religious people wouldn't want religious dogma to trump civil law (1st Amendment), so the implication draws attention, and people nod.

    This is their critical stand, and must be examined, and shown for what it is - an incomplete truth.

    Same-sex marriage, is a legal facade for homosexual & lesbian marriage, HLm, which cannot be distinguished from close friendships. No legislation has even passed for HLm alone, nor has it ever been voted for.

    But this issue clarifies and educates all citizens that religious people can take part in the democratic process in the USA.

    We must keep in mind Homosexuals and lesbians cannot be distinguished genetically from the rest of the population. One cannot add to marriage a social class that is indistinguishable, no matter what they would say, so they are therefore pressed to add all types of friendships, diluting their argument into absurdity. (Why shouldn't single people also gain those benefits?) Extending financial benefits to even more people is at stake at a time when the US government is losing its AAA credit rating.

    So, is opposition to SSm a matter of religious dogma (or animus)? Or is instead advocacy for SSm a matter of ideological dogma (or animus) against those who would oppose it (the ones they call bigots).

    So, any moment a person responds with a dogmatic religious answer, they/we re-emphasize and announce that indeed it is a matter of religious dogma. It's true. It can be that for some people. So?

    In a court of law, one vows (under penalty of perjury) to tell
    a) the truth
    b) the entire truth, and
    c) nothing but the truth

    But the entire truth is there are many rational non-religious arguments against SSm. And the MOTIVE for voting one way or another on this issue cannot be proven. Since when do we have to justify our motive in order to vote?

    Overall, religious or ideological conviction could be only the trigger to scrutinize the arguments for SSm from a socio-economic, psychological, genetic, and most important: the psychiatric disciplines.

    As adults, SSm advocates can already marry the opposite sex, just like everyone else, so where is the illegal discrimination? Close-relatives cannot marry too. Therefore the motive cannot be solely against HLm.

    And SSm advocates also have their DOGMA: that SSm is (and they pick their words subtly) a "matter of civil rights". Why speak in the plural sense? Indeed it is a matter of a civil right, for we are discussing civil marriage, not religious marriage. What else could it be but this kind of subject matter?

    The bait is: it is true it is a civil matter.

    The trick is: it is a self-given civil right - circular reasoning.

    Their dogma is based on ideology, of course - their idea of equality under the law.

    Well, equality is satisfied when any man meeting the conditions of marriage asks for a marriage license to marry a woman. For all kinds of friendships to be allowed by law to marry, States must abandon the original rationale for instituting civil marriage.

    Who anyone marries is not necessarily who they would like to marry (some marry for the benefits, e.g., US citizenship, the same exact reason SSm is advocated, others are rejected by whom they would like to marry, etc.). Some adults might decide who to marry, by obedience to their parents, or because the partner is a millionaire. Civil marriage allows that.

    And, if mutual love between a couple is the crucial condition for civil marriage, it so happens to be the crucial condition for DIVORCE (the love towards someone else, in many cases.)

    But, if the matter is about a civil right (singular), then why do advocates of SSm (or such civil unions) try to get legislatures to vote on it? Or why do they try to have citizens vote on it?

    It is a contradiction.

    If we are to mold the conditions for a marriage license entirely according to our will, then we could marry our horse (by mutual consent, just give the horse an apple). In fact, one homosexual, libertarian, Roman Caesar forced the senate to allow that amendment to the definition of marriage in Rome. I bet you that was a glorious, elegant, wedding. . . The senate also assassinated that Caesar - what animus. . .

    And where does that leave the citizens who only argue against SSm from a dogmatic, traditionalist point of view, and no more?

    It leaves them in the same position as SSm advocates - arguing from a dogmatic ideological perspective. But each has equal rights under the law, and therefore each can vote. The fact we can vote on it, already means it is not a "matter of civil rights", or better said "of a civil right". If it was a civil right, we wouldn't be allowed to vote on the issue.

    But, as you can see, advocates of SSm want it both ways, at once (and I mean: immediately). That is telling, and many people haven't really thought about this SSm contradiction. So let's publicize it abundantly.

    And in addition, there are many rational arguments as to why, since any adult has a right to marry someone from the opposite sex (true, it is a civil right, singular sense), government has a bona fide interest in marriage.

    It is a type of partnership, the government must regulate or accept the economic negative consequences of not regulating it. That is not the case for SSm, close friendships.

    Emotion or greed can justify reversing any law (including crime). But the only LOGICAL conclusion is that marriage is an opposite-sex institution, and could only be extended to polygamy, but that has already been rejected for practical purposes.

    It is ridiculous to think that opposition to SSm is a matter of theistic religious dogma, or animus (ideology) given all the secular socio-economic arguments against SSm even many atheists accept. In fact, atheists like to be logical.


    SSm = Sissy, Silly Marriage

  5. zack
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    I wish i could attend. God bless you NOM.

  6. Bobby
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    There is nothing dishonorable or disrespectful about two people of the same sex, both born homosexual, wanting to commit to one another in the same way two people of the opposite sex, both born heterosexual, want to commit to one another. Gay people exist. Get over it.

  7. Robert
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    I can't believe NOM is ignoring the Republican brief submitted in support of overturning DOMA and Prop 8! It must really be a big deal if NOM is sweeping it under the rug!

  8. Randy E King
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 8:25 pm | Permalink


    Why is it that when a non-story is justly ignored you spout off like NOM just missed the next coming of Jesus?

    According to all reports the Repubs that signed those briefs were nothing but also-rans looking to make names for themselves.

  9. John Noe
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    To Bobby: no one is born a homosexual. All our born with one man and one woman mating as designed by our creator. That some chose to defile their bodies and reject their own biology is really sickening and why this march is worth it. If I was not out of work I would go.
    Two homos mating is not and never will really be a marriage. Yes you are right sexual depravity exists but rather than get over it we chose to witness against it.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink


    You paint yourself as the bigot with that bald-faced lie. If you believed there where nothing wrong with the proclivity you pimp you would not be working this hard to deny responsibility for it.

  11. Ash
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    "I can't believe NOM is ignoring the Republican brief submitted in support of overturning DOMA and Prop 8! It must really be a big deal if NOM is sweeping it under the rug!"

    Just more evidence that gays and lesbians are not "politically powerless." And who better to prove that to than SCOTUS justices hearing two ssm cases! 😀

    But, all jokes aside, I agree with Randy. I doubt that the signers are the movers and shakers of the Republican Party.

  12. Zack
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 1:55 am | Permalink

    Read a very good column this evening. I think you all will enjoy it.

  13. leehawks
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Zack, really good article, just nails it!
    Here is part 2:

  14. Chairm
    Posted March 7, 2013 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Bobby said:

    "There is nothing dishonorable or disrespectful about two people of the same sex, both born homosexual, wanting to commit to one another in the same way two people of the opposite sex, both born heterosexual, want to commit to one another."

    They cannot commit to one another in the same way. Marital status entails the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. That is a two-sexed sexual basis; it is foreign to the one-sex-short scenario -- sexualized or otherwise, gay or otherwise, committed or otherwise.

    Also, marital status entails the integration of the sexes. Each instance of SSM is either man-only or female-only and so, obviously, cannot integrate by sex. It is a different type of commitment.

    Consider that a man and woman show-up to marry but they are ineligible. They both might be self-identified as heterosexual but that would not be a trump card over their ineligibility. They might be sexually attracted to each other, in particular, but that would not be a trump card.

    Or one or both of them might self-identify as homosexual but that would not transform ineligibility into eligibility.

    So, if your claim cannot work under the marriage law regarding two-sexed scenarios, why would you imagine it must apply to one-sexed scenarios?

    The example of ineligible two-sexed scenarios? Well, consider siblings or other closely related people. Or consider already-married people. Or consider groups of three or more. They exist. Would you get over it so as to revise the law to include these scenarios as eligible?

    Siblings are born related. Or they are related through affiliation via someone else's choices. But they are ineligible anyway. You cannot claim they do not exist.

    And even if they were sexually attracted to each other -- even if they self-identified as heterosexual -- neither sexual attraction nor sexual orientation would make them eligible.

    Likewise for the polygamous or the polyamorous or others closely related and so forth.

    Society may discriminate in favor of the union of husband and wife. That is the point of the preferential status of marriage in our society. We regard what marriage is and then legislate accordingly.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.