It's 1973 For Marriage


Email Header Image

It's 1973 For Marriage


Dear Marriage Supporter,

It was an otherwise crisp winter day in 1973 when the United States Supreme Court issued their horrific decision in Roe v Wade. I was a junior in high school in California at the time, but I remember the decision coming down. That fateful, awful ruling has haunted society every day since then — for forty years and counting. Not only have over 50 million innocent babies been killed in their own mother's womb, but the decision did incalculable damage to the conscience of our culture.

By devaluing life among the pre-born, the Supreme Court gave tremendous momentum to those who (in the name of "choice" and "dignity" mind you) would "assist" in taking the inconvenient life of the disabled and the infirm, would sanction the killing of a baby because she had the misfortune to be the "wrong" gender, and would advocate medical "progress" through the destruction of human embryos.

Knowing what you know today, what if you could roll back the clock to before that infamous decision in Roe? What would you do if you could go back in time?

That's where we are right now — it's 1973 for marriage. Only now, we know what the consequences will be if we redefine marriage. We've already seen glimpses of the liberty that will be lost, the attacks against churches, the convicting of pastors, the lawsuits against small businesses and the sanctions against individuals of faith. We know that once marriage is redefined, there is no room in the public square for anyone with a biblical, scriptural view of marriage as God defined it to act on that belief. And we know that once marriage is decreed to be genderless, school children will be taught that male/male and female/female "marriages" are perfectly appropriate, no matter what the children are taught at home or in church. In fact, they'll be informed that to think otherwise is bigotry and discrimination.

Please help us stop this from happening by making a financial contribution of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 or more right now so that we can help ensure a huge show of support for marriage when this issue goes before the U. S. Supreme Court later this month.

The case that could be the Roe v Wade of marriage is the Proposition 8 case, Perry v Hollingsworth. The same-sex plaintiffs in the Perry case are arguing that Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. Moreover, they say that same-sex couples have an absolute right under the federal constitution to marry — in California and, by extension, throughout the US.

This case is being argued in the Supreme Court on March 26. NOM's staff is working night and day to organize and manage all the logistics of the March for Marriage which will happen right in front of the Court just as they are hearing argument in the case. It's an unbelievable amount of work. Thousands of people have said they want to come, and their presence could make a real difference.

But here's the problem: We still have a pressing need to rent more buses and we need to give people who can't attend a way to show their support by marching virtually, online.

The good news is that we're making real progress. Last week we were able to procure funding for a great number of buses... but we have so many more requests.

Will you make a financial contribution of $35, $50, $100 or more so that we can make sure every Church that needs help paying for a bus can attend?

Remember, every donation that you make now will be matched by a generous donor, so there's never been a better opportunity to give, or a more important time to show your generosity.

Think again about the dreadful consequences of the Roe v Wade case. The similarities are eerie when you compare the situation with Roe to what's happening with marriage and the Perry case today. Back when I was in high school and Roe was pending before the court, a few states had legalized abortion, but many remained solidly pro-life. There was a rousing national debate going on in the democratic process about when life began, whether the baby (fetus) had any legal rights, and whether voters and lawmakers in states should be trusted to make their own decisions on this life and death issue.

The U. S. Supreme Court effectively ended the democratic process and substituted their horribly flawed judgment for the views of the American people. They thought they'd settle the question of abortion once and for all. Instead, they set the country onto a course of political turmoil and division that rages as fiercely today as it did back in 1973.

That's exactly what will happen if the Supreme Court were to impose gay "marriage" on the nation and find that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage" even when lawmakers and voters have decided otherwise.

Right now a handful of states allow gay "marriage" while the vast majority do not. Just like abortion in the 1970s, the issue of marriage is being hotly discussed and debated throughout the nation, and is very much being engaged in the democratic process. It's critical that the U. S. Supreme Court not repeat their terrible error of judgment with abortion and decide to take the issue of marriage out of the hands of the people and remove it from the democratic process.

If our opponents get their way, that's exactly what will happen.

If you could go back to 1973, would you participate in a march to save society from the scourge of abortion? Would you go to Washington to show the Supreme Court that you are one of a multitude of people who are demanding that they not use our constitution to create a great moral and civic wrong?

We have thousands of people who want to march for marriage and to take concrete steps to show that marriage matters to them, and it matters to the nation. But we need your financial assistance to get these people on buses, in front of the Supreme Court and be provided the tools to show their support to friends, colleagues, neighbors and family.

If we lose the Perry case, or the companion Windsor v United States case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the damage to the country will be severe. Soon, people of faith who believe in marriage as God designed it will be targeted for punishment. Then the government will use all its power to indoctrinate children into accepting this new view of marriage as a genderless institution that exists for the pleasure and satisfaction of adults. Over time, marriage will lose its meaning, and society will lose the one institution we have that is designed to connect parents to children.

Children are the ultimate casualty of the same-sex "marriage" regime. Moms and dads will be devalued, and their unique contributions to child rearing will be denied and tossed aside by a society bent on satisfying the demands of a powerful political constituency. No matter how much a woman loves her children, she cannot be their father, nor can a man be their mother. Children need the love of both a mom and a dad, yet same-sex marriage intentionally denies a child the love of either her mother or her father.

We have just a few short weeks left to do our best to prevent this outcome. NOM and its dedicated staff are working feverishly, doing everything in their power to make the March for Marriage a success. But we need your help, today, to rent more buses and deploy more tools to show the Supreme Court that the vast majority of Americans want to preserve marriage and to leave it to voters and lawmakers, not judges, to decide this critical issue.

It's 1973 for marriage. Will you stand up and be counted by helping us prevail? We'll never get this time back. Please act today.

In faith and love,

Frank Schubert
National Political Director
National Organization for Marriage

The National Organization for Marriage Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization, gifts to which are deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.


  1. Flanoggin
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    That you would equate killing babies in the womb to allowing loving couples to wed is disingenuous at best, disgusting at worst. Shame on NOM!

  2. Son of Adam
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Like abortion, SS"M" attacks the values that support the natural family. Both treats children like an irrelevant byproduct of sexual relationships and both exalts hedonistic sexual pleasure above the needs and upbringing of children.

    Any legislation that treats family values like a civil and human rights abomination is bound to be ceaselessly controversial - whether it be abortion or SS"M".

  3. Richard
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Cut off?

  4. Randy E King
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Love cannot be defined, nor quantified. A nation that bases its cornerstone foundation on the whims of popular culture and fleeting emotions is a nation that is destined to fail.

  5. Will Fisher
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Does Mr Schubert know that SCOTUS will not be swayed by demonstrations?

  6. SC Guy
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Just saw an article that says that gay marriage is 12 votes short in the Illinois House of Reps:

  7. Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Mr. or Mrs. Flannogin: You are disingenuous at worst, disgusting at best. Shame on NOM, for letting you comment! Shaking with rage, are you? We are not allowed to express our opinion, do we? You do express yours.

  8. Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Cut off?

  9. Richard
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Schubert is, himself, living in 1973 and his argument that SCOTUS should not take the issue of marriage out of the hands of the people is, like his attitude, too late to the party. The "issue" is in the hands of, now, millions of people and the people don't want to change the direction of marriage. Not one of the 9 states and D.C. is going to rescind marriage law and Schubert knows this. SCOTUS will reject his command because it has to.

  10. Richard
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    The March term at SCOTUS is not, at all, about denying the 9 states and D.C. the gay marriage laws as they exist. It is quite simply about guaranteeing that all married citizens have access to federal marriage benefits. Prop 8 is a different matter but not unrelated to the idea that the rights of citizens must be constitutionally protected. Remember, at this point in time. Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

  11. Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    " Remember, at this point in time. Prop 8 is unconstitutional."

    To the contrary.

    At this point in time, Prop 8 is the law.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Well said Rick!

    Prop Gr8 is alive and well; soon to receive the official Supreme Court of the United States Seal of Approval.

    What is it about these heathen and there aversion to reality? My take is that they could not live with themselves if they were to see things as they truly are; which explains why they are predisposed towards suicide.

  13. Son of Adam
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Is federal law subordinate to state law, Richard? If an individual state can recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman, why can't the federal government? If one state legalizes polygamy, does that mean that the federal government MUST recognize polygamous marriages too?

    Regardless of what 9 states have done, the federal government no more recognizes same sex couples as marriages anymore than than they recognize a cat as being a dog, or an apple as being an orange, or a woman as being a man, etc.

    Redefining marriage for alternate lifestyles is NOT a civil right!

  14. Richard
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Rick, Prop 8 is unconstitutional per the judgement of federal court. The judgement exists and is on hold pending SCOTUS finding. But it has been found to e unconstitutional.
    SoA, you simply don't understand what exists. Nine states, D.C. and counting recognize marriage between ( and you know the relationships ). SCOTUS will ave to find that it is unconstitutional to deny the hundreds of thousands of married gay couples the federal benefits of marriage. The Federal Government as no interest in denying one married couple the benefits that others are granted. This is the crux of your problem. Religion, children, animus, fictional history have no place in constitutional law as regards marriage. Equal justice and due process are important as well as the interstate clause.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Prop Gr8 is the law of the land pending appeal.

    It will take more than admitted closeted and activists Jurists from the most overturned District to convince a majority of Jurists sitting in SCOTUS to overturn the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    SCOTUS will have to declare it constitutional to deny tens-of-millions the right to vote their conscience just so a few thousand wealthy elites can impose their ideology on a free people via judicial fiat.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    Recognizing marriage as a union between one man and one woman is not unconstitutional (Baker vs. Nelson.) That is legal precedent! Not animus or fictional history. This much is backed up by not only state court precedent, but federal court precedent as well. The crux of your problem, Richard, is that you actually believe that you hold the authority to invent your own civil rights that are not mentioned in the US Constitution. To proclaim that religion has no place in constitutional law is a complete refutation of the first amendment and is further proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

  18. Chairm
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Comment in the que.

    In short, Richard, you can not be qualified to teach school kids on law and governance in America. Your comments belie a marked incompetence.

  19. Bobby
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    SofA - There is nothing unconstitutional about saying marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is unconstitutional however to not allow same sex couples to share in federal marriage benefits.

  20. Son of Adam
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    And where in the constitution does it say that, Bobby? For this nations laws are based on individual rights - not couple's rights.

  21. Bobby
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    SofA. The 14th amendment does not permit the government to provide unequal protection. Therefore if federal recognition of marriage results in favorable tax treatment, this benefit of favorable tax treatment must be applied equally. Such favorable tax treatment was not applied to Edie Windsor.

  22. Son of Adam
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    The 14th amendment states that: "No State shall...deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That's PERSON, Bobby. Not couples. Not groups. Not alternate lifestyles. That's individuals. And marriage as defined by the federal government is applied equally to each individual in that each person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

  23. Posted March 14, 2013 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Bobby: Please hush. . . "don't spill the beans"
    "... this benefit of favorable tax treatment must be applied equally. Such favorable tax treatment was not applied to Edie Windsor."

    All you will achieve with that idea is to cancel exemptions! You are talking the Feds. They're not nice people. Plus the 14th Amendment is for the States, not for Government in general. It's there in B&W.

  24. Richard
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Is Chairm being protected from comments?

  25. Richard
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Guess not. Professor Chairm, Ph.d in history, you teach us. Address historic federal and state marriage law but do not exclude current events. Enlighten us to the possible legal determinations of SCOTUS in light of state sanctioned marriage for gays and existing federal determinations that Prop 8 and DOMA are illegal.

  26. Richard
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    SoA, do I not have the individual right to form a couple and call it a marriage? My state says yes. My federal government must say yes to meet the requirement of due process and equally protection. It is so simple a concept that it beguiles you.

  27. Son of Adam
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Yes Richard, so long as it is between a man and a woman. Just because your state calls a cat a dog or an apple an orange doesn't mean that anyone else has too. The federal government can still acknowledge natural and biological realities even if others do not.

    By your reasoning, all it would take is for one state to legalize polygamy for the federal government to throw out all federal court precedents in order to accommodate such an eccentricity.

  28. Richard
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Reality SOA, 9 states, D.C. and counting say you are wrong. SCOTUS has to reconcile equal protection and due process plus the interstate commerce clause. Everyone will have to recognize those marriages or risk civil disobedience and punishment.The federal government has determined that to do otherwise is probably unconstitutional and will not defend it in court. You seem anxious for polygamy, fight it in court.

  29. Posted March 15, 2013 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    Reality, SOA, is Richard's destructive stance on marriage and sexuality. There is no dialog with such people. If you give people with a homosexuality problem or agenda a job, they will use it to destroy your rights and our collective right to a wholesome society regarding families, marriage, and children.

    In a society that normalizes homosexuality, porn, and promiscuity, like what people like Richard push for, there can be no freedom of conscience, religion, or speech.

    They will not stop until they have destroyed your rights and have made society a sexuality jungle.

  30. Chairm
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Richard, no place has imposed SSM except arbitrarily. Pick the state that you think is your best example of enacting SSM in law. The best example. Then we can discuss the arbitrariness of that imposition.

  31. peter
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    The actual circumstanced surrounding why ssm is legal in certain stated is irrelevant. Let's say that ssm exists in a given state because one morning someone fatted. Well, regardless, it now exists. Those states no linger qualify marriage as traditional, same sex, caused by fart, etc; it is simply marriage. It has already been redefined. There, marriage is marriage. Scotia is going to determine whether the federal government can constitutionally treat state sanctioned legal marriages - regardless of the genesis of marriage in the state - differently.

  32. peter
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Lousy spellcheck .....mea culpa.

  33. Son of Adam
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    peter, the federal government is not constitutionally required to recognized same sex couples as "married" any more than they have to recognize cats as being dogs or women as being men, no matter how many states have redefined those terms or how many people have farted.

  34. Chairm
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Peter, your comment concedes the arbitrariness of the state-level imposition of SSM.

    That undermines the supposed argument that DOMA is arbitrary.

    Thank you for the concession.

    However, the challenge remains open to Richard to select his best example of revision to state law to enable SSM-as-marriage. If he cannot answer and meet this basic challenge, then, he has no sound basis to challenge the legitimacey of DOMA. Zilch.

  35. Ash
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    SSM is always arbitrary, no matter how it comes into being. To single out same sex couples in romantic partnerships--above all other relationships that involve mutual care, childrearing, joint property, and love--and accord them with the status of marriage is arbitrary.

    Needless to say, arbitrary laws can't last forever. Questions not properly answered will never go away. SSMers will always have to attempt to justify why the government recognizes and supports a sexual relationship between two people. And they will have to make this justification this without alluding to the old rationales for marriage that were deemed, by them, to be anachronistic.

  36. Chairm
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Ash, and the SSMers refuse to be held accountable for the arbitrariness they urge on all of society.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.