Undaunted! NOM Marriage News


NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

They're here. They support God's design for marriage. They are not going away or giving up. And the New York Times has finally noticed!

"Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead," the headline shouts — and for once the New York Times tells the truth.

A cadre of next generation heroes for marriage are arising and were interviewed by the New York Times on the verge of the first annual March for Marriage (which the Times called "The highest-profile effort" currently underway to defend marriage!). One among these young marriage heroes featured was our own undaunted Thomas Peters! Here's a glimpse of what some of the others had to say:

  • "'It's really a broader defense of marriage and a stronger marriage culture,' said Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society."

  • "'Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film,' said Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration…. 'I think it's really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we're going to win a lot of those folks back.'"

  • "Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage, Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.

  • "'When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,' said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network…."

  • "'If you take the longer view of history — I'm not talking just 15 years, I'm talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can't help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,' said Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation."

These young people are evidence that support for marriage and the belief that kids do best with a mom and a dad is growing rather than waning. And there's plenty more evidence in other recent news:

At last week's CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Senator Marco Rubio bravely and forcefully reaffirmed his support for marriage and the rights of states, saying in part: "Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot."

I want to thank Senator Rubio for his courage to speak up at this crucial time, exemplifying the kind of conservative leadership our nation needs right now. And I want you to thank him too. Please click here to send a thank you message to Senator Rubio commending him for his courage to speak up for marriage as the unique union of one man and one woman, an institution vital to the well-being of men, women, children, and society as a whole.

Rallying the Troops to March for Marriage

History is going to be made on the steps of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and as the momentum for the March for Marriage builds, the heroes are gathering.

Former Sen. Jim DeMint is a hero to a lot of people, especially in the Tea Party movement. He's also the new president of the Heritage Foundation.

At CPAC, Sen. De Mint gave a lucid, brilliant argument for why social conservatism and economic conservatism are linked—by the institution of marriage.

Here is the crux of what the new president of Heritage said at CPAC that you and I know in our hearts:

We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America's cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people's democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.

In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.

We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.

Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand.

But Senator DeMint has gone even further. He has endorsed the March for Marriage — and here you can see him say why it's so important to turn out on March 26:

Archbishop Cordileone, another hero for marriage, will be speaking at the March. The Archbishop's initiative at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's just released "Five Reasons to Participate in the March for Marriage." I won't spoil it for you, but here is the first reason:

When Pope Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires, he encouraged the Catholic faithful to march for marriage. The year was 2010 and the Argentinean legislature was debating whether or not to redefine marriage. According to Zenit news, then-Cardinal Bergoglio "appealed to parish priests, rectors and chaplains of churches to facilitate the participation of the faithful" in a planned march and demonstration against redefining marriage. The marchers united under the motto "We want a mommy and daddy for our children"….

So many other heroes will be there: the bravest Democrat in America, Rev. Senator Ruben Diaz; Peggy Nance; Gary Bauer; Pastor Jim Garlow; Bob Van der Plaatz; Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse; Professor Robert P. George; Professor Robert Oscar Lopez; and more!

Come, join us, and make your own voice heard!

Illinois's Black Pastors Band Together to Defend Marriage

In Chicago, a new coalition of black Church leaders, Democrats almost all, have formed an African American Clergy Coalition to make their voices heard! The press is taking notice. The Southern Illinoisan reported it this way: "Some Chicago-area clergy are getting vocal about same-sex marriage — including through radio ads opposing pending legislation to legalize the practice in Illinois."

The Illinoisan says that the 60-second radio spots began airing on Tuesday, and that a "street campaign" and robo-calls are also a planned part of the Coalition's overall efforts.

The robo-calls feature former state Sen. James Meeks, who is also senior pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church. God bless these pastors for their brave and exemplary leadership!

Four Days Until the March!

In the Bible, the rainbow is the symbol of hope, a promise that God's words will be kept. On Tuesday, a truly rainbow coalition — people of all races, creeds, and colors — will gather in our nation's capital to March for Marriage. I truly hope you will join us!

Let me close with a few words from Focus on the Family's President, Jim Daly:

Jim proudly notes that Focus on the Family (along with CitzenLink) is a "proud cosponsor" of the March for Marriage. "The fact that so many have gathered in response to these critical court cases should give everyone hope as we find our way forward," he says.

You and I know we are standing on firm ground. God's design for marriage has always been about bringing together the two distinct, but complementary expressions created in His image: male and female. Two people coming together in oneness capable of bringing forth new life. Marriage is an example of God's common grace… given for the benefit of all humanity.

Yes, this view of marriage is becoming "countercultural" in some circles, Daly acknowledges; but all that means is that we must lovingly, and with grace and courage, "lift up and celebrate God's magnificent design for this unique and irreplaceable relationship between a man and a woman!"

I couldn't help but be moved by his final call:

"Every generation has its moment: this is ours."

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. John
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    15 When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh no, my lord! What shall we do?” the servant asked.

    16 “Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

    17 And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

    You see the army of pro ssmeers on TV, on Yahoo, on Google, in the media..everywhere. The other side seems smaller. But fear not NOM..there is an army of angels that goes with you, that is more powerful, more in number that fight alongside you. You fight for God, and God will fight for you.

  2. Robert
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    No one cares what religionist automatons have to say about marriage or anything else!

  3. Posted March 22, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    As one who will, God permitting, be among the marchers in DC next Tuesday, may I say:

    Thank you, John :-)

  4. John B.
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    When these kids grow up a bit, they'll realize that they're not being "pro-marriage" by opposing somebody else's.

  5. zack
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Good for them. Proud to stand among these future leaders.

  6. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    And the conservatives continue to cave...check out Jonah Goldberg (untra conservative) of The National Review On-Line. " Abortion, same-sex marriage have become separate issues." Goldberg states, "I myself have grown both more pro-life and more sympathetic to gay marriage".

  7. Randy E King
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 10:47 am | Permalink


    The article you reference is a failed attempt by Mr. Goldberg to blur the similarities between the imposition of abortion via judicial fiat and the proposed imposition of marriage corruption via judicial fiat.

    The majority of posts in response to Goldberg's opinion appear to be focusing on Goldberg's desire to keep getting paychecks from the elites funding said imposition.

  8. Robert
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    I love watching the conservatives fall, one by one, after insisting that they'll never support same-sex marriage. What's fascinating is to see who's left standing, alone, frustrated, and feeling abandoned by the other haters.

  9. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    And they keep on falling. George Will: "DOMA is unconstitutional".

  10. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    And falling...Steve Schmidt, McCain-Palin senior campaign strategist. Yup, you guessed it. Supports gay marriage.

  11. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Please, someone here...start identifying persons of renown who have switched from support of gay marriage to oppose gay marriage.

  12. Posted March 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    "No one cares what religionist automatons have to say about marriage"

    I do, therefore, you are easily proven incorrect.

    Religionist automatons have a right to vote. Otherwise, no reply please. Blank space is much better, prettier, white.

  13. Posted March 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Richard the Lost? . . . You can't even define '"Gay". There is no legislation for 'gay marriage', and now we see clearly why not. And don't start with your well-rebutted talking points all over again. They are old-hat. Chew on it, instead. Do I have animus? Just as much as you do. At least my animus is justified, after SSm, not preceding it.

  14. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, got your dander up? Good. "There is no legislation for gay marriage"? Nonsense, take a look around you. Start with VT, then go on to NH and continue. And rebut this: gay marriage in ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, MD, IA and WA. Angry about this are we? Three days and counting.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 5:34 pm | Permalink


    I looked and not one of those State's has legislation for "Gay" marriage.

    I'm worried about you Richard. Your insistence of referring to your depravity as something other than it is demonstrate how repulsed you are by it.

    Did blacks demand they be declared whites, women demand they be declared men; then why are you demanding perverts be declared to be something other then they are?

  16. Posted March 23, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Lies get my dander up. But you got to lie a lot more subtly to get to that level. Who's angry. Your sense of persecution explains it much better. :) I told you to wait until SCOTUS decides, not until SCOTUS hears oral arguments. You can't keep any Math straight. I suppose you would call it 'gay Math'.

    I notice you like to impress us with an unusual word. But that doesn't make your argument valid. You have to masquerade your lack of rationality by telling us how much you read. We agree on some things: NOM-blog is fun; and you can't count; and you can read. That's about it.

  17. Chairm
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    There is no gay requirement for those who'd SSM, not anyplace where it has been imposed, as Richard knows.

    No legal requirement means what? Well ask Richard what he thinks no legal requirement means when he argues against the bride-and-groom legal requirement.

    There is the type of relationship that is definitively a sexual relationship of husband and wife (and which entails integration of the sexes combined with provision for responsible procreation) and then there is a wide range of other types of relationship that populate the non-marriage category. Most of that range is two-sexed. So the marital relationship is not defined by a group identity -- something that Richard has, at times, referred to as "straight" identity.

    Meanwhile the gay subset of non-marriage is similarly situated with the rest of the types of relationships in that category. Of that category there is a same-sex subset but it is not defined by gay identity nor by same-sex sexual attraction nor by same-sex sexual behavior. The gay subset is a veyr tiny subset of the one-sexed category within the broad non-marriage category.

    And guess what? There is no gay requirement for the non-marriage category either.

    So is there "gay marriage" where SSM has been imposed if there is no legal requirement for gay for those who'd form such a one-sexed arrangement?

    Nope, not according to Richard's own rhetoric and terms of argumentation. He can point at the imposition of SSM in this or that place all he wants but he cannot point at a legal requirement that makes it what he claims it to be. His gay emphasis is unjustified and that is why it never makes it into the law that entrenches SSM.

    So why the gay emphasis, Richard?

  18. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    Chairm, you simply refuse to admit that the legal requirements for marriage are specific and complementary to gay and straight couples in nine states and counting. I have already enlightened you to those very specific requirements. You have chosen to ignore them. You continue to obfuscate with nonsense. You do not accept that civil marriage is available to gay and straight couples in ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, MD, IA and WA. Meanwhile both "subsets" of couples are getting married while you tilt at windmills.

  19. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    Two men show up for a license to marry. They are ineligible even though they both declare themselves to be "straight".

    A man and a woman show up and are eligible even though they scream at the top of their voices that each of them is "gay".

  20. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    On the other hand, a man and woman show up but they are ineligible. They are closely related. Born that way. But they cannot consent to the sexual basis upon which society bestows marital status for a man and a woman.

    The next day they come back and scream that they are both "straight" but that does not trump ineligibility. The day after that they return an insist that they are both "gay" but that is not a trump card, either.

    Apparently "straight" and "gay" are irrelevant to marriage law.

  21. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    A week later the same man and woman couple show up again and insist that they are sexually attracted to each other -- they cite Genetic Sexual Attraction -- and declare their love for each other. But that sexual attraction is not a trump card for ineligibility. Nor is love.

  22. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:13 am | Permalink

    A month later they show up with children they are raising. But that does not transform their ineligibility into eligibility.


    This goes to the root of the issue: what is marriage before the law even enters the picture?

  23. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    The SSM imposition discards the marriage idea as irrelevant to marriage law.

    The advocates go on about "same-sex" this and that but they mean to emphasize only a tiny subset defined by gay identity politics.

    Their SSM idea lacks justification for drawing lines of ineligibility. There is no gay requirement so the "same-sex" thing is not so defined by that identity. SSm is not justify by "gay".

  24. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    Further, there is no definitive sexual aspect to SSM, according to the SSMers who argue that the lack of a legal requirement making something mandatory must stand as decisively against that "something" be an essential of the type of relationship for which SSM is imposed.

    No same-sex sexual behavior requirement; likewise, no same-sex sexual attraction requirement.

    So the "same-sex" category is not defined that way and lacks even a gay metaphor of a sexual reason to bar people based on being born related -- born that more obviously than the claim of being born gay.

  25. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    There are not "very specific requirements" offered by Richard. Instead he cited Photo ID as if the type of relationship he has in mind carries around a Photo ID.

    Obviously he dodged the question asked of him and instead listed stuff that are non-essential such as, as he put it, "no blood test required". Of course there are other things not tested, also, but that does not make them "essentials".

    Another example was the nominal fee for covering the paperwork for a license. Heh. If that is the essential he thinks decides what marriage is for -- or in his thinking what SSM is for -- then his misuse of the word, complementary, dresses Richard up in a clown costume.

  26. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Prior to comment #19 I submitted a comment that has not yet appeared. The "show up" examples I've described occur under the bride-and-groom requirement of marriage law.

    This is an actual legal requirement. As is the requirement for consent to all that marital status entails. This is status is not conditional. When the bride and groom say, I do, they consent to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. This is a vigorously enforced legal requirement of marriage law.

    So actual legal requirements that go to the essentials of the marital type of relationship do exist but SSMers would discard these as somehow not essential and THEN declare them as not requirements in law.

    The bride and groom requirement stands for integration of the sexes, which goes very deeply both on the intimate and private level but also on the familial and community level. The marital presumption of paternity stands for the provision for responsible procreation, which is far more than merely a procreative outcome -- it is a coherent set of principles and practices that arise from a type of relationship that is orientated toward procreation and, as such, is procreative in kind (and, yes, procreative in outcome very very often). Hence sexual basis for the marital presumption is also the sexual basis for consummation (sealing and renewing the marital agreement), annulment (the lack of essentials for this type of relationship), adultery/divorce and injury and so forth. These legal requirements hang together coherently.

    Not so for the SSM idea. There is no sexual basis that makes sense of these marital norms. These norms are expressed in marriage law under the bride and groom requirement and the under the consent requirement. But as per SSM argumentation there is no sexual requirement for those who'd SSM. So there is not even a gay metaphor for the sexual basis of marriage.

  27. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:43 am | Permalink

    Why your gay emphasis, Richard?

    What is the justification for imposing SSM anyplace?

  28. Posted March 24, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink


  29. Ash
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    What I hear from SSMers in response to Chairm:

    *cricket *cricket *cricket

    Chairm's posts are great. Marriage, to Richard, is a relationship where the participants carry photo ID.

    Loves it! XD

  30. Posted March 24, 2013 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Fake rationality: "the legal requirements for marriage are specific and complementary to gay and straight couples in nine states and counting."

    Specific and complementary. . . (fancy words with flourish, but mean nothing). Where's all the other non-"gay" SSm couples? An adult aunt and her adult niece, who need to live together, will have to get married to receive benefits? - Absurd complication to serve a very few men 'in love'.

  31. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Little Man, "legal requirements" mean something and, in fact, are obligatory in every marriage instance. The fact they exists and you and Chairm are not aware of them speaks volumes to the limited and myopic understanding you both lack of the awareness of reality. Now, if you do ever discover the legal requirements in nine states and counting you will then understand the terms "specific" and "complementary".

  32. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Continued...this, then, is and has been all along the crack in yours and Chairm's reasoning and understanding. I have stated all along that the two of you and others live in the past and reject the reality of the present. The existence of reality is exactly what SCOTUS will have to address and, indeed, must address in its considerations of Prop 8 and DoMA. I have also said the two of you will have a rude awakening particularly if you do not get up to speed on the reality of gay marriage, let alone SCOTUS's constitutional responsibility.

  33. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Correction: Limited and myopic understanding you both have

  34. Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    But, I agree with you, Richard:

    a) "legal requirements" mean something and, in fact, are obligatory in every marriage instance.

    b) The existence of reality is exactly what SCOTUS will have to address. Not really, whatever that means.

    c) I like rude awakenings. What's the problem? It could be you getting the rude awakening. You are not SCOTUS, nor a prophet.

    But, I don't live in the past, and I do not reject the reality of the present. I feel like I am alive right now (I exist, therefore. . .)

    So, . . Myopic is the fancy word for today? I've known people like you. So much allegory, symbolic language. No relevant content. Not impressed.

    You can't even explain your own sentence. I now believe you are hopeless. How much you get paid for barraging this blog with mysterious comments?

    My word of the day is: Mycology:
    "an aversion response of sexually incompatible fungus cultures that are growing in proximity, revealed by a persistent growth gap between them."

  35. Chairm
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    Let us pause and reflect on the lack of legal requirements that would define the type of relationship that SSMers have in mind.

    Quiet now. No barking. Hush.


    Okay, now, in a calm and orderly fashion we can gently remind readers that there is a crazy person who claims that Photo ID is the essential that defines the type of relationship he has in mind for those who'd SSM. Also, a blood test is not required and so that somehow is another essential. Right. A non-requirement is an essential of the type of relationship that this SSMer has been advocating for with many pixels.

    As for marital norms that flow from the marriage idea, well, that same SSMers has utterly rejected the marriage idea in favor of the vague SSM idea. The SSM idea lacks legal requirements that define the essentials of the type of one-sexed relationship that merits special status (marital status is special status) among all the other possible types of one-sexed relationships in the human reality.

    This wide range of relationships exists in the real world. And there is zilch that SSMers offer that would distinguish SSM from the rest of non-marriage. Well, even the gay emphasis is a non-requirement for those who'd show-up for a license to SSM and for that special status that the SSMer demands for the sake of gay identity politics.

    That SSMers takes the gay out of SSM but keeps the gay emphasis just in case of a need to talk about reality and such. Meanwhile the law of marriage is justified but the SSM idea? Not so much.

    But quite, folks, we do not wish to upset the crazey persons who rants with arms flailing, his unbutton red coat flapping like a cape, and his empty salad bowl cocked on his crown like a matador's cap. He imagines the crowd; and he imagines admirers waving white kerchiefs for another bull's ear. But he stands at a busy intersection dodging buses, cars, trucks, and bicycle couriers -- all of which are real arguments against which he flashes an angry glare.