NOM BLOG

The Day After Tomorrow

 

National Organization for Marriage

National Organization for Marriage

National Organization for Marriage

2013 March for MarriageThe March for Marriage on TwitterThe March for Marriage on FacebookNational Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In just two short days, the day after tomorrow, I will have the honor of leading a march of thousands in our nation's capitol to the United States Supreme Court.

Please make an emergency donation right away to help us reach our $500,000 matching gift goal.

Remember, if you donate today, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar, DOUBLING its impact in the fight to defend marriage!

The upcoming March for Marriage is not an ending, it's a beginning!

NOM will be continuing to fight in the months ahead to make sure politicians, judges and the cultural elites around the country know that the American people believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman because children have a right to a mother and a father.

This is our winning message that is gaining traction as more voices proclaim its truth!

America is a one part of the global marriage movement. The movement to defend marriage is growing — not only here in the United States where NOM has brought together the broadest coalition of partner organizations ever to participate in this historic march in defense of marriage — but world-wide.

Consider — already this year:

  • in France, just over a month ago, I had the honor of participating in a march that saw over a million people pour into the Paris streets to protest their government's unilateral redefinition of marriage — and today, the French were back out in the streets with even greater numbers, still marching for marriage;

  • in Puerto Rico, shortly after, almost 200,000 people (on an island with less than 4 million people) showed up to demonstrate their support for true marriage;

  • in England, over 600,000 British citizens have signed a petition in support of one man, one woman marriage; and

  • in Australia, a judge recently threw out a legal challenge to the country's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Perhaps one of the most striking examples came from Argentina in 2010, when Pope Francis, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, helped turn out hundreds of thousands for a march for marriage and spoke powerfully in defense of marriage against the government's attempt to redefine marriage.

This is a nascent, growing, global movement to protect the sanctity of marriage — which is the only social institution that connects parents and children.

Marriage Supporter, will you stand with this ever expanding coalition of marriage supporters of all faiths, traditions, countries, cultures and backgrounds by making a gift of $35, $50, $100 or $500 or more to NOM today?

Marriage is under attack. But so many good people like you are standing up to defend it. And more are joining us every day! Please stand with NOM once again by supporting our work to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.

We are at the beginning of a new chapter in the movement to protect marriage. Thank you.

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.

28 Comments

  1. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    And the Republican dominoes keep tumbling. Karl Rove on "This Week with George Stephanopoules" says he can imagine the next Republican Presidential nominee supporting gay marriage.

  2. Robert
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    The most fun now is watching the rats leave the sinking ship, and see who will be the last man or woman, standing. If Karl Rove is leaving, how many more Republicans can be left??

  3. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    I should also note that last night at an EQME annual dinner and celebration of gay marriage in Maine (700 guests cheered the successful campaigns to win the hearts and minds of Mainers) we were graced by acknowledgements and support from every Maine politician including Senators Angus King and Susan Collins. Not one Maine national politician was absent from the occasion. Each table had a wedding cake and Champagne toasts were abundant. This is a wonderful country.

  4. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    I should add we were graced by a presentation from a Methodist Minister (formally a Catholic) who spoke on behalf of a religious coalition comprised of some 100 Churches throughout Maine. She garnered a roar when she stated, and I paraphrase : For two many years, religion and its Churches stood in your way and thought you undeserving. Well, no more; we stand behind you and, with God's support, we are on your side. Simply amazing. Simply wonderful and simply right.

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

    Methodists are divided on SSm. Yes, there are ministers that jump over Biblical doctrines and have their own interpretations. But the Methodists are not ALL pro SSm. In deep "Blue" States it could be different, but each denomination has to go through the transition in which their dogma is challenged even from within. I believe it is a cleansing, and we owe SSm for showing us what marriage really is all about. Pro SSm people of all kinds are coming out of their closet, and that's a good thing, for a new balance to be achieved knowing what they stand for. Public opinion changes "up" and "down", not only "up". If the majority is pro SSm, let it be. But it's not a majority, nationwide. It's just a few tiny States bugging the rest of the country and calling out their 'victory' - far from it. Yes, this is a wonderful country, where each State can make up its own mind on civil marriage. That's how it should be, and it works vice versa.

  6. Robert
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    I love that the Supreme Court will probably federalize the right to marry for all citizens. That's what makes America great: equality for all and the pursuit of happiness!

  7. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    It just gets better. The grand announcement was made on state news tonight that the winners of a 100,000 wedding are Caroline and Jenna, a lesbian couple. "Real Maine Wedding of the Year" opened the competition to all couples. Videos were submitted and votes were collected on-line from around the world. Congratulations Caroline and Jenna! This is a great country.

  8. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    I'm very pleased that my recent donation to NOM was doubled.

    Soft support for pseudo-marriage will continue to dwindle as more people wake up to its numerous negative consequences, not least of which are the horrific outcomes for children when they are intentionally deprived of a mother and/or father.

  9. Ash
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Seeing Brian's description of the international marriage movement reminded be of an excellent brief I read yesterday from some international jurists and scholars. Although they emphasized the fact that decisions of other nations don't bear on constitutional challenges in the US, they note that--contradicting the 9th Circuit's mischaracterization of Prop 8 as irrational and unprecedented--many liberal Western countries have taken the approach of granting legal protections to same-sex couples while reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples.

    Even places with ssm have refused to grant all of the legal incidents of marriage to same-sex couples. In fact, the state of California has gone beyond several European nations in how it recognizes same-sex couples. It is the 9th Circuit's ruling, actually, that is rather abnormal when compared to the rulings of international courts, the brief notes.

    Marriage supporters should definitely take a look at that brief. I can't wait to read the next one on my list. :)

  10. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Ash, too late. Separate is not equal in The United States of America. The horse is out of the barn but it is interesting, with two days to go, to witness the growing number of marriage opponents spinning new angles in anticipation of the SCOTUS hearings.

  11. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Barb, you live in a time-warp. Are you truly that deprived of the vast access to news outlets ( conservative and liberal) that you can't imagine that your suggestion of dwindling support for gay marriage is ludicrous?

  12. Ash
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    This brief was submitted weeks ago, Richard. It's not a "new angle."

    But since you're a fan of Karl Rove, you should note that he believes SCOTUS will leave this matter to the states by a 6 to 3, or maybe even an 8 to 1, decision.

  13. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    Ash, we shall see. The new angles on republican change-in-thinking are happening almost daily.

  14. Bobby
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Barb - What are these negative consequences you keep talking about? Several gay friends of mine have married at the state level. I don't see children deprived of a parent as a result of these marriages. There was an interesting article in Saturday's WSJ about single parenthood no longer being a teen issue but a 20 something non college-educated issue.

  15. Bobby
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Based on the findings in this article you may want to regulate who can and cannot have children. Perhaps you want the ultimately nanny state. Like most Americans I believe the marriage environment is best for children.

  16. Bobby
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    I will try to get the link to the WSJ article. I gave my hard copy where I saw the article to a friend today Nowhere did the article try to pin blame for the problem of single parenthood on the existence of gay people and the desire of gay people to marry.

  17. OldKingBlog
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    Earth to Bobby-poo, lil Richie, and wobbie: you, our local "trinity" of cultural deteriorators, are the ones here living in a time warp. The jig is up on your left-over-from-the-Sixties vision of an "anything goes, all-is-permitted" society and you all know it, deep inside.

  18. Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Richard's default, after all the workout and sophistry leading to nothing: "We shall see".

    Dumb.

  19. bman
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    Bobby->Like most Americans I believe the marriage environment is best for children.

    Indeed, but SSm is not marriage.

    Your attempt to use the same word for two different things does not make them the same thing.

  20. bman
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:58 am | Permalink

    Richard->Separate is not equal in The United States of America.

    Monogamous bride-groom marriage is the ideal form of marriage.

    No other form is equal to it.

    Furthermore, the 14th Amendment does not require unequal things be made equal.

  21. Mikhail
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:22 am | Permalink

    homosexuals want to obtain children as if they are pets. They serve as "owners" of the child rather than parents

  22. CRSmith
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    I know the Supreme Court will do the right thing and strike down the idea of gay marriage everywhere in these UNITED STATES. It seems to me that pretty soon DECENT people will start to be heard on the subject. Thank you for continuing to keep us informed.

  23. bman
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Ash->....an excellent brief I read yesterday from some international jurists and scholars

    I quoted three of those in another thread and Richard replied with pseudo-reasoning.

    The briefs were clear and compelling.

    There was not much else Richard could do except agree with their point or respond with pseudo-reasoning.

  24. Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    "Separate is not equal in The United States of America."

    That's the point - SSm and natural marriage are not 'equal', they are 'different'. So, don't try to confuse us with your confusion. Thanks.

  25. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    bman, surely you jest. You only listed the briefs, you did not quote from them. I suspect you don't actually read the briefs. I did read the briefs you mentioned. I could not find one finding of fact with which I believe SCOTUS will agree. And all you are left with is international jurists and scholars? SCOTUS is sure to latch onto them...or so you hope.

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

    Little Man, there is no such thing as "natural marriage". This is a desperate attempt to connect the civil and legal union of two loving, committed adults to some god-like entity that means many things to any different people. So, in a sense you are correct. Civil marriage is a recognized legal entity. "Natural marriage" is an invented idea that is, first, an oxymoron and second, a useless legal term.

  27. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    "Natural marriage" is equal to nothing because it doesn't exist, except in the minds of low information religionists. Civil marriage is the only marriage The United States recognizes. The only one. There is no equal to it. And, guess what, in nine states and counting, gays and straights have access to it. SCOTUS will now weigh the merits of denying marriage to any couple that meets marriage law. It's only a matter of time.

  28. bman
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Richard, I quoted from the briefs in posts 92, 96, 98.