NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Congress

Our Chairman's Explosive IRS Testimony Before Congress

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The audience at a congressional hearing isn't supposed to give applause, but they did when they heard what our Chairman John Eastman had to say.

Let me explain why his testimony has gained the admiration of tea party and conservative activists and the renewed attention of politicians and the media across the country.

Yesterday Eastman was invited by Congress to testify about the illegal disclosure of NOM's confidential tax documents, along with five other heads of conservative organizations that were targeted by the IRS.

What made Eastman's testimony different — and explosive — was the fact that NOM's case is far more egregious, because our private donors were exposed to intimidation and harassment when President Obama's political allies were given our confidential information.

Can you pause right now and donate to support NOM's mission, helping us expose the illegal and outrageous attacks made against us and against private citizens like you?

See how Eastman responded to the "scurrilous" attacks made against NOM, conservatives and marriage supporters by some of the members on the committee — completely shutting them down and leaving them speechless:

Here's the line of Eastman's that everyone is quoting, when he responds to an attack by Rep. Earl Blumenaur claiming marriage supporters shouldn't be allowed to participate in the public square:

"Representative Blumenauer, it's your kind of statements that have empowered IRS agents to make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which do not. The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn't qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous."

Wow!

Of course it's always disappointing to see some representatives like Bluemenauer attempt to make marriage partisan when it is not. We proudly collaborate with many democrats who support marriage. In fact, during the same hearing Rep. Rangel (D-NY) proposed working together with Eastman to help make sure the mess at the IRS is cleaned up.

But back to Eastman's testimony: I'm sure now you can understand why applause erupted inside the hearing room as Eastman delivered his bold reprimand, and why his comments have received so much attention and support in the aftermath.

Neil Cavuto of Fox Business called Eastman "the man in the center of the storm who put up quite a storm" and told Eastman he was "on fire" during his testimony. NOM's story (and Eastman's explosive testimony) is now going viral across the internet.

Facebook and Twitter lit up yesterday with praise for Eastman and thanksgiving for his passionate articulation of why what the IRS did is unacceptable and how liberal politicians have emboldened bureaucrats to harass and abuse those they perceive to be their political opponents.

Please chip in right away with your generous donation of $35, $50 or $100 to join our effort to see that justice is done and that an even playing field is reestablished for marriage supporters and all Americans.

Eastman's testimony is our best chance yet to get to the bottom of what happened inside the IRS — and to find out who may have known about it outside the IRS and was an accomplice to the crime.

One of the facts that Eastman shared during his testimony is how much NOM has been forced to spend to defend and shield its donors in the aftermath of the IRS's illegal disclosure of our tax documents — hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Please contribute to NOM right away to help us recoup these losses and help us pursue a just remedy — including seeking financial damages — for what has happened. Your gift of $35, $100 or $500 will help us expose the truth and stand up for the constitutional rights of all Americans to participate in democracy without fear of harassment or retribution.

Thank you for being generous.

Together, we will find answers and see that justice is done.

Video: Sen. Cruz Mentions the IRS Targeting NOM

Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) used NOM's example as a particularly egregious example of the IRS targeting conservative groups:

SSM Advocates Brazenly Jeopardize Immigration Reform

POLITICO reports on a proposed amendment to the bi-partisan immigration reform bill so long in the making which could end up killing the bill altogether:

The most serious threat to bipartisan immigration reform doesn't involve border security or guest workers or even the path to citizenship.

It’s about gay rights.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), an outspoken defender of traditional marriage, warned that " if that issue is injected into this bill, the bill will fail and the coalition that helped put it together will fall apart."

Faith groups that have been involved in crafting the legislation are also worried about the negative impacts of this cavalier move which, if viewed unvarnished, is nothing but another attempt to surreptitiously undermine the Defense of Marriage Act:

"We strongly would oppose the provision and it could could force us to reconsider our support for the bill," said Kevin Appleby, director of the Catholic Bishops’ Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs. "It immediately makes the bill a partisan bill and the bipartisan effort could begin to unravel."

And Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, issued a statement against the proposed amendment saying, in part: "We hope that President Obama and Democrats in Congress are not willing to sacrifice the legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants for the sake of appeasing the gay lobby."

GOP Flip-Floppers Silent On Religious Freedom, Other Implicating Questions

Breitbart News sent the questions below on non-discrimination ordinances to the four Republicans in Congress who have flip-flopped on marriage.

They have yet to receive a response from their offices.

That's because these Republicans are in the process of learning that a) their new position is hugely unpopular with their base and b) betraying marriage isn't the end of the pressure they will receive from far-left activists -- it's only the beginning:

  • Should business within the wedding/marriage industry be protected from lawsuits resulting from a refusal to service same-sex couples at wedding halls, photography services, catering, etc..?
  • Should Catholic adoption agencies be forced to include same sex couples when a baby is up for adoption?
  • Should Christian marriage therapists lose their jobs or licenses b/c they refuse to see same sex couples ?
  • Should children in public schools be mandated to learn about homosexuality, when the parents do not think it is appropriate to be taught?'
  • Where does the member stand on the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA)?

Rep. Matt Salmon: Gay Son Hasn’t Changed My Views on Gay Marriage

The Washington Post's Post Politics blog:

In an interview aired over the weekend, Rep. Matt J. Salmon (R-Ariz.) told a local news station that his son’s homosexuality has not led him to change his position on gay marriage.

“I don’t support the gay marriage,” the congressman said. But Salmon emphasized that he loved and respected his son and did not consider homosexuality a choice.

“My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say,” an emotional Salmon told 3TV. “It doesn’t mean that I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathize with some of the issues. It just means I haven’t evolved to that stage.”

... “We respect each others’ opinions and we just know that on certain issues we have to agree to disagree,” the congressman’s son, Matt R. Salmon, told The Post. “I love my father and realize that he can have the opinions that he has, and they might differ from mine, but that doesn’t change the way I feel about him.”

... Salmon also expressed disappointment in those who have reacted to the interview by leaving “hate speech” on his father’s Facebook page. “If he’s going to change his mind it’s going to come from a place of love,” Salmon said. “All they’re doing is fighting intolerance with intolerance.”

Video: Speaker Boehner Says Supreme Court Decides What's Constitutional, Not the Obama Administration

When asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, Speaker of the House John Boehner said:

"Let's not confused DOMA and the Administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. It's not their role to decide what's constitutional. DOMA was a law passed by the House, the Senate, and signed into law by President Clinton, and in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional, the Supreme Court does."

Video:

Speaker John Boehner: Marriage is "what I grew up with. It's what I believe."

Over the weekend, Speaker John Boehner was interviewed about his views on marriage -- he gives a good answer:

House Speaker John Boehner says he's unswayed by a prominent fellow Republican's flip-flop on gay marriage, and that he still opposes the same-sex unions.

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a Boehner ally from his home state, revealed Friday that his son is gay and that he now supports gay marriage. Asked about the shift Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Boehner didn't knock his friend, but reiterated his own position.

... "Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," he said. "It's what I grew up with. It's what I believe. It's what my church teaches me. And I can't imagine that position would ever change."

And with debate over the future of the Republican Party breaking into the open at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Boehner cast his lot with Republicans who believe better messaging -- not policy changes -- are what's needed for the party.

"The issue with our party is pretty simple," Boehner said. "There's nothing wrong with the principles of our party. But Republicans have not done as an effective job as we should in terms of talking about our principles in terms that average people can appreciate." (New York Daily News)

UPI: Senators Ask Supreme Court to Uphold DOMA

UPI:

Ten U.S. senators have filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The 10, all Republicans, want the high court to overturn the rulings of multiple lower courts that cleared the way for same-sex marriage, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

In their friend-of-the-court brief, the senators said it is inconsistent for the Justice Department to have assured Congress the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, was constitutional in the mid-1990s and now raise questions about it.

"The time to speak was in 1996, when Congress gave careful consideration to the need for DOMA," the senators said.

Congress Considering Military Religious Freedom Act of 2012

CitizenLink:

Congress is discussing an act that would protect the religious freedom of members of the military, including chaplains who decide not to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Introduced in the Senate on Sept. 11, 2012, the Military Religious Freedom Act (MRFA) would also prohibit same-sex marriage ceremonies, or anything similar, at military installations.

The House has already passed its version. Military experts are urging people to call their state’s two senators to ask them to co-sponsor the Senate version.

Here is the action item we posted recently related to this bill:

The NDAA is headed to a House/Senate conference committee to iron out the differences between the bills passed by the two bodies. Because the House version already contains the provision protecting marriage, we need to urge the members of the conference committee to protect the religious liberty language, ensuring that it is retained in the final version.

Please click here to contact your senators and representative today! A copy of your letter will also be sent to House Speaker John Boehner, and Senator John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sen. Inhofe Sponsors Bill to Enforce DOMA on Military Bases

NewsOK:

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and fellow Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban same-sex weddings on military bases and allow military chaplains to refuse to officiate such unions.

Current policy is to follow state law on the matter of same-sex marriage.

Inhofe and Wicker said the bill, called the Military Religious Freedom Act, is an attempt to apply the Defense of Marriage Act to the Department of Defense in the wake of a policy change allowing openly gay men and lesbians in the military.

NYTimes on Senator Chuck Schumer: The Capital Cupid

The New York Times proves "nudging" works!

Even by the standards of Capitol Hill, where ambitious and awkward young people are thrust together in cramped workplaces and crowded bars, the nuptial output of Senator Charles E. Schumer’s office stands out.

Schumer staff members, put simply, like to marry each other. There have been 10 weddings so far, and two more scheduled this fall — an average of nearly one “Schumer Marriage” (his term) for each year he has spent in the Senate.

Cupid’s arrow lands where it will, but many of the couples say that Mr. Schumer, a New York Democrat, has an unusual knack for guiding its journey. He keeps close track of office romances, quotes marriage-friendly Scripture (“God to man: be fruitful and multiply”), and is known to cajole, nag, and outright pester his staff (at least those he perceives as receptive to such pestering) toward connubial bliss.

...The encouragement rarely stops at the altar. Mr. Schumer is described by aides as a fabulous wedding guest, quick to request a Jefferson Starship song from the D.J. and eager to dance with the bride. And his focus, like many a politician’s, never strays far from his legacy: first comes Schumer Marriage, then come Schumer Babies.

“Have kids; have a lot of kids,” Mr. Schumer, who has two daughters, is known to intone. “Start early and keep having them.”

Paul Ryan's Solid Pro-Marriage Voting Record

Today Mitt Romney introduced Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidential running mate.

Here is a sampling Rep. Ryan's pro-marriage votes during his years in public service:

"Voted for a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union between one man and one woman." (source)

Voted against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 2011. (source)

Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)

Votes YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years (Mar 2001)

Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)

Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000) (sources)

Supported the marriage amendment in Wisconsin in 2006. (source)

17 Representatives Send Letter Supporting Chick-fil-A

Congressman Alan Nunnelee:

Today, Congressman Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss) sent a letter to Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy congratulating him on the dignity with which his company has conducted itself in the face of a vicious smear campaign.  The letter is cosigned by 16 of his colleagues in the House of Representatives.

“The criticism they have received has been appalling.  Elected officials that are now threatening to block new Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities are acting in a manner that is un-American.  Demanding ideological conformity in order to be allowed to run your business is a dangerous precedent. It is like something that would happen in Soviet Russia.  Clearly, a lot of people who like to fashion themselves as open minded and tolerant are actually the most intolerant folks around if you don’t agree with them,” Nunnelee said.

235 Republicans & 17 Democrats Vote to Prevent Violations of DOMA

The Hill:

The House has approved an amendment to the 2013 defense spending bill that would prohibit the Department of Defense from using any money in the bill to violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). 

The amendment, from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), was approved 247-166, one of dozens of amendments the House was considering before approving the entire bill late Thursday night. The amendment was supported by 17 Democrats, and just five Republicans opposed it.

King said the language, similar versions of which have passed the House before, is needed because of President Obama's growing support for same-sex marriage. King said that support is permeating the federal government.

... DOD issued memos last year saying certain military facilities might be used for same-sex marriage, and that military chaplains may officiate in same-sex marriages. King said those policy changes violate DOMA, under which the federal government recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"Pretty simple statute being contravened by the directives of the president of the United States as exercised through the secretary of Defense," King said.

Reason.com Editor: Why SCOTUS Might Defer to Congress and Uphold DOMA

Damon Root of Reason sees a connection between the way the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare and how it could rule on DOMA:

"...So let’s assume DOMA will be the first gay rights case to reach the Roberts Court. Is Socarides’ right that the chief justice will again show "a willingness to break with his more conservative colleagues"?

I wouldn’t bet on it—at least not if we take Roberts at his word. Remember that Roberts framed his vote upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an exercise of judicial restraint, writing in his opinion, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” I don't see why Roberts wouldn't rely on that same principle and vote to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. Both Obamacare and DOMA are duly-enacted federal laws, after all.

If you cheered the chief's ruling on health care, don't be shocked when he grants the same deferential treatment to a federal law you don't like."

Legal scholar Jonathan Adler over at the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog agrees.