NOM Sharply Condemns US Supreme Court Over Illegitimate Rulings Legislating From The Bench on Marriage and Rewarding Corrupt Politicians and Federal Judges on Prop 8 and DOMA


[For ongoing coverage of today's news please scroll down. -Ed.]

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

"There's a stench coming from these cases that has now stained the Supreme Court. It's imperative that Congress continue to protect the right of states to not recognize faux marriages in their state." — Brian Brown

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today expressed dismay and outrage at the US Supreme Court's actions to dismiss Proposition 8 on procedural grounds, and for invalidating a key element of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The group called the decision "illegitimate" and that it will be rejected by tens of millions of Americans, and demanded that Congress continue to protect the right of states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"In a miscarriage of justice the US Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The Supreme Court's holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws. It's imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries."

Proposition 8 was passed with over 52% of the vote, capturing the support of over 7 million California voters. Because they opposed the measure and receive political support from homosexual groups and activists, both then-Attorney General (now Governor) Jerry Brown and his successor, Attorney General Kamala Harris, refused to defend Proposition 8. The case was heard by a homosexual judge in San Francisco who himself was engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship. To nobody's surprise, the judge invalidated Proposition 8. This decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion written by liberal judge Stephen Reinhardt, despite the fact that Reinhardt's wife advised the plaintiff lawyers in this very case. Reinhardt refused to recuse himself from the case.

"There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court. They've allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal. It's an illegitimate decision. We and millions of other Americans will refuse to accept this rogue decision rewarding corruption. " Brown said.

The Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage under federal law as the union of one man and one woman. Section 2 of DOMA, which codified the long-standing right of states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, remains in effect and was not challenged. "We also urge Congress to reject the inevitable attempts to dismantle remaining elements of DOMA, including the right of states to refuse to recognize so-called gay marriages performed elsewhere. The vast majority of American voters have expressed with their votes their desire to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That decision should be respected and left undisturbed."

Despite the ruling on Proposition 8, the decision leaves intact the marriage amendments adopted by thirty other states as the Court refused to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as celebrity lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen had been urging throughout the case. More importantly, the DOMA ruling, which turns on the primacy of the states in setting marriage policy, calls into serious question the correctness of Judge Vaughn Walker's initial decision invalidating Proposition 8.

"The only other saving grace of the Supreme Court's decisions today is that they refused to go along with the urgings of Ted Olsen and David Boies to find a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage,'" Brown said. "The plaintiffs failed in their primary objective, which is a major victory for those defending Proposition 8, especially Chuck Cooper and his firm, along with the attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Andy Pugno of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund."

NOM was the biggest contributor to putting Proposition 8 on the ballot. The case was Hollingsworth v. Perry. The DOMA case was Windsor v. United States.


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130),, or Jen Campbell (x145),, at 703-683-5004.


  1. Randy E King
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    SCOTUS obviously could not find a basis in law to overturn Prop Gr8, so they punted.

  2. Gideon Mwololo
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    The battle is the Lord's and His Kingdom come and His will be done in this nation as it is done in heaven ( Matt 6: 9-10).We win !

  3. CongresstoAmendDOMA
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court decision today shows how extensive the curruption in our Justice System and Government really is....

  4. Bill McKee
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    I said years ago that the Right would never win this fight, because Americans love the "right" to do just about anything. What you should be doing is de-sexing the whole civil marriage thing. After all, civil marriage is just a recognition that two unmaried consenting adults have the right to form a certain legal relationship. Why not find two people who are unmarried and have no sexual interest in each other to demand to be married because of all of the state and federal benefits? Once marriage is just a civil institution with certain rights and duties, gay desire to marry will evaporate. They are looking for moral equality, not legal equality.

  5. Jackson
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Not allowing comments, I see. Where's the fun in that?

  6. Fitz
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    The biggest part of today's decision is the overruling of DOMA. The Court is doing what it has for 40 years - A one way ratchet.... It has now declared that the Federal government of the United States cannot do what the states can do...define marriage for the purpose of federal law...

    The obvious next step and the tactical reason for denying standing was to delay the state question a little longer so as to incrementally force the American people into this new regime of marriage.

  7. Fitz
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    "Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."

    SCALIA, J., dissenting p.26

  8. Chairm
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    The majority of individuals on the panel of judges managed to demonstrate that, again, the SSM campaign relies on the abuse of judicial review.

    Not on judicial review. On the abuse of judicial review.

    The marriage idea merits the special status that is accorded the union of husband and wife.

    The SSM idea lacks justification for such a special status. This continues to be the fundamental problem in the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.

  9. BT
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    The institution of marriage, and society in general, is being destroyed by these actions.

  10. Posted June 27, 2013 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Too bad "CongresstoAmendDOMA" doesn't know how to spell!

  11. Posted June 30, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    The definition of marriage is changing because pathos and ethos are dominating social policy with little if any logos.

    The essay 'What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage' ( argues that marriage has a social utility. Advocates of same-sex marriage should make their case with regard to the benefits society will get and why it should then be economically subsidized.

  12. Guy
    Posted July 4, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    The court did a supreme job and got it right. God has answered my prayers.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.