Category Archives: Congress

NOM Endorses Dr. John Fleming for US Senate in Louisiana

Contact: Joseph Grabowski (202) 457-8060 x-110 | [email protected]

"John Fleming has been a champion for marriage, religious liberty, life and family values his entire career in Congress. He's a proven leader, a true champion, and an honorable man." - Brian Brown, NOM President

nom_logoWashington, D.C. – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced it has endorsed Dr. John Fleming for US Senate in Louisiana, calling him a "true champion" in support of marriage, life, religious liberty and parental rights.

In an endorsement video released today, NOM's president Brian Brown said, "John Fleming has been a champion for marriage, religious liberty, life and family values his entire career in Congress. He’s fought for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, and for the sanctity of human life; stood for religious freedom and parental rights; worked to promote fatherhood and encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children; and championed a national day of prayer. He's a proven leader, a true champion, and an honorable man."


NOM's endorsement video pointed out that the next Senator from Louisiana could cast the deciding vote on the confirmation of US Supreme Court justices and potentially decide the future direction of the Supreme Court, making it one of the most consequential votes in history.

Brown said, "We can count on Dr. John Fleming to make sure that only conservative justices like Antonin Scalia are confirmed to the Court, people who are committed to upholding the constitution. We cannot allow the policies of Barack Obama to live on for decades through an activist Supreme Court controlled by liberals."

NOM said it would distribute its endorsement video to supporters across the country and encourage them to contribute to support Fleming’s election. Dr. Fleming is seeking the seat of retiring Senator David Vitter. The top two candidates in November will advance to a run-off in December.

# # #

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, please contact:
Joseph Grabowski, [email protected], (202) 457-8060 x-110.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Separating Fact from Fiction on #FADA

From Roger Severino and William Wolfe of The Heritage Foundation comes this piece in the Daily Signal: Debunking 6 Myths About the First Amendment Defense Act:

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing Tuesday on one of the most important pieces of religious liberty legislation before Congress in years: the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho.

Several Democratic House members and their invited witnesses made some stunning claims about the bill both orally and in written remarks that merit serious fact-checking.


The Supreme Court itself said that the belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman is grounded in “decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises,” not on discrimination. FADA respects this truth and gives life to the best of our traditions of tolerance and religious freedom.

Tuesday’s hearing proved that FADA protects people and institutions from having their beliefs about marriage targeted for discrimination by their own government. It would do nothing more, nothing less.

To find the six myths that the authors expose and rebut, go to the Daily Signal to read the whole piece.

US Bishops Committee Chairs Urge Support for FADA

Via the USCCB, the statement by Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage and Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, reads in part:

The definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, universally held for centuries, has nothing to do with disrespect for others, nor does it depend on religious belief. Rather, it is based on truths about the human person that are understandable by reason. Faithful to its commitment to serve the best interests of society, the Catholic Church will continue to promote and protect the truth of marriage as foundational to the common good. The Church will also continue to stand for the ability of all to exercise their religious beliefs and moral convictions in public life without fear, and to witness to the truth.

We are pleased to support the First Amendment Defense Act, and we urge Congress to pass this important legislation.

Bravo to these faith leaders for standing up in support of this critical bill! Read their full statement here.

2016 March for Marriage Set for June 25 in Washington, DC

Contact: Joseph Grabowski (202) 457-8060 x-110 | [email protected]

March Will Protest Supreme Court Gay ‘Marriage’ Decision and Obama Transgender Decrees; Call on Congress to Enact Legal Protections


Washington, D.C. – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that the 2016 March for Marriage has been scheduled for Saturday, June 25th in Washington, DC. Marchers will walk from the US Capitol building to the US Supreme Court. Tens of thousands of people have attended previous marches in support of traditional marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling redefining marriage will go down as one of the most infamous, illegitimate rulings in the Court’s history, along the lines of their decision in Dred Scott to sanction slavery,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The narrow 5-4 majority ignored precedent and invented a constitutional ‘right’ to gay ‘marriage’ so that these activist judges could impose their own values on the nation. In the process, they stripped over 50 million voters and countless legislators in states across America of their sovereign right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Supporters of marriage are urged to attend the March from all across the country. More information including a route map and schedule is available at

Brown noted that it didn’t take long following the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage for LGBT activists and their chief ally President Obama to push the next element of their agenda – transgender bathroom rules. “The LGBT extremists and the Obama administration are attempting to defy human nature itself and declare that gender can be self-directed and chosen based on ‘identity,’” Brown said. “Obama is fighting to ensure that when someone chooses to declare an identity different from reality, such as a man claiming to be a woman, all of society will be expected to bow in compliance and succumb to every demand, including allowing men into private facilities like restrooms and showers reserved for girls and women. It’s outrageous and it must be stopped.”

NOM is also a strong supporter of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to provide legal protections for supporters of marriage, protecting them against governmental discrimination. The proposal (HR 2802/S.1598) has 170 sponsors and co-sponsors in the House and 38 in the Senate, but has not been scheduled for a hearing. Encouraging support for this measure is another goal of the March for Marriage this year.

“It’s time that Congress pass the First Amendment Defense Act so that people of faith do not have to worry about choosing between protecting their livelihood and upholding their beliefs about marriage,” Brown concluded.

# # #

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, please contact:
Joseph Grabowski, [email protected], (202) 457-8060 x-110.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

The Left's View Of "Balance" is Badly Imbalanced

The Los Angeles Times, a bastion of liberal ideology and a longtime supporter of redefining marriage, ended 2015 with an editorial that shows how badly skewed the mainstream media has become on marriage and the homosexual agenda.

The Times writes about a disturbing court case out of Massachusetts where a judge ruled that a Catholic high school (Fontbonne Academy) acted illegally when it withdrew an employment offer to a man who was in a homosexual 'marriage' because he could not properly represent Catholic identity and teaching. Prior to offering the man a position as a food director, the high school explained to the applicant that it expected all employees to be "ministers of the mission" and the man assured the school officials he agreed. After receiving the job offer, later that day he completed an employment form disclosing for the first time that he had entered a homosexual 'marriage.' Upon learning of this, the school promptly withdrew the offer because his 'marriage' was incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The man sued and shortly before Christmas, Judge Douglas Wilkins ruled that the school must comply with "sexual orientation discrimination" laws notwithstanding its religious mission.

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts rightly condemned this court decision as a "full frontal assault on religious liberty," one that would "compel Catholic institutions to hire those who reject and despise Catholic teaching, fatally impairing the constitutionally protected right of those institutions to carry on their mission."

How did the LA Times react to the ruling? They said it was "balanced" and a "model for the nation." In the Times' skewed vision of the new world order, church-run schools should be able to hire clergy and religion teachers that uphold their religious beliefs - but that's it. Other staff, presumably including administrators and teachers, should not be required to model the church's religious beliefs. They went on to call on Congress to enact employment protections for homosexuals that embodied this "balanced approach."

The extreme position taken by Judge Wilkins and praised by the LA Times is representative of the endemic efforts of the media and elite to force an embrace of same-sex 'marriage' on every individual and group in the nation regardless of their deeply-held, often religious, views. In this new orthodoxy, it's not enough that same-sex couples can get 'married.' Every single person and group is expected to salute and endorse the act. Every baker, florist, photographer and similar professional must participate if asked. And every religion must accept it except in very narrow circumstances.

Of course, this new orthodoxy does not comport with the constitution, nor is it representative of the views of the American people.

This case serves as an important reminder why it is essential that states and Congress pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect individuals, organizations and churches from discrimination for living out their views of marriage in the public square.

LifeSiteNews has the story. Here's the press release from the Catholic Action League, and the LA Times' editorial is here.

SCOTUS Marriage Ruling Has Left In Full Retreat on Religious Liberty

Robert Knight, a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union, offers his informed opinion on what lies ahead for those who disagree with SCOTUS’s ruling regarding same-sex marriage: an end to their religious freedom.

ThinkstockPhotos-479616714Even before the U.S. Supreme Court announced the previously unknown constitutional “right” to impose same-sex “marriage” on all 50 states, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was readying its next volley.

For two decades, the ACLU has cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a defense of religious liberty in various worthy and some not-so-worthy cases. No more.

The ACLU has decided that the unalienable right to religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment must give way to newly coined claims by newly empowered groups.

In a Washington Post column, ACLU Deputy Director Louise Melling called on Congress to make RFRA essentially toothless. Of course, that’s not the way she put. Here’s her signature sentence: “It’s time for Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for discrimination. Religious freedom will be undermined only if we continue to tolerate and enable abuses in its name.”

. . .

Not missing a beat, atheist activist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has uncorked yet another call for the Pentagon to weed out conservative Christians. In a Daily Kos posting, he wrote that chaplains who teach biblical marriage “don’t belong in the military. At this stage, the only honorable thing that these losers can do is to fold up their uniforms, turn in their papers, and get the hell out of the American military chaplaincy. If they are unwilling or too cowardly to do so, then the Department of Defense must expeditiously cleanse itself of the intolerant filth that insists on lingering in the ranks of our armed forces.”

Given that this is what passes for tolerance, it’s not surprising that the ACLU and others on the left want to render meaningless the free exercise of religion guarantee of the First Amendment and any federal and state laws that fortify religious freedom.

Deploying the language of inevitability, such as “being on the wrong side of history,” they seek to persuade the vast majority of Americans that resistance is futile.

Are they right? The answer will depend on a vigorous, renewed fight for liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

For the full article, please visit The Washington Times.

National Organization for Marriage Expresses Concern Over New Executive Order, Calls on Congress to Protect People of Faith Against 'Reverse Discrimination'

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"The fact is that non-discrimination rules like the order issued by President Obama can become a weapon used to punish and harass individuals and groups who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman." — Brian Brown, NOM president —


Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) expressed concern over President Obama's signing today of a new executive order ostensibly aimed at preventing workplace discrimination against LGBT persons but that in reality could target Christians and other people of faith for reverse discrimination and harassing lawsuits. The executive order applies to all groups, including religious employers, who contract with the federal government.

"The fact is that non-discrimination rules like the order issued by President Obama can become a weapon used to punish and harass individuals and groups who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president. "As with the flawed ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) legislation that was rejected by Congress, President Obama's order has the great potential of putting employers in the position of standing up for their faith values or violating the new order. This will unnecessarily subject people of faith to harassing complaints and lawsuits."

Brown surmised that this executive order could lead to Christians and others with belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman facing reprisal and even punishment simply for expressing their views in the workplace.

"All manner of frivolous lawsuits could result from an action like this, and that's a dangerous thing when the courts have already shown such a lack of restraint when it comes to the question of the definition of marriage," Brown maintained. "This is nothing more than an agenda to create a cultural narrative wherein the belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman becomes the legal and social equivalent of bigotry or hate speech. It is the next step on a path we've already seen this administration proudly pursuing, a path toward a new thought-policing state where those who hold traditional values about marriage and family are to be marginalized."

Brown called on Congress to pass legislation overturning the new executive order and to revisit the issues of conscience protection and religious freedom for believers in traditional marriage. He urged citizens to contact their Senators and Representatives about these concerns.


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Alabama Legislators Call for U.S. Constitution to Be Amended to Define and Protect Marriage

The Montgomery Advertiser reported recently that a resolution sponsored by Alabama State Representative Richard Laird passed the Alabama House, calling for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution of the United States:

Alabama FlagThe resolution, sponsored by Rep. Richard Laird, I-Roanoke, quotes a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex unions, and calls marriage “a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman.” The resolution also cites several court cases, including five from the 19th century. It goes on to say that the U.S. Supreme Court “officially severed its respect for marriage” last year, when it struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the recognition of same-sex spouses under federal laws.

Laird’s resolution calls for an Article V convention, which would require 34 states to ask Congress to call a convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to the resolution, the convention would specifically propose an amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and bar legal recognition of any other form of marriage.

Read more here.

Let Them Eat Cake, NOM Marriage News

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Since the age of the French Revolution, the phrase "Let them eat cake" has been used as a symbol of out-of-touch, tyrannical elites or aristocracies. The phrase comes from a popular anecdote that a monarch (often identified as Marie Antoinette), when told that the peasants had no bread to eat and were starving, proposed this as the solution: "Let them eat cake."

Well, ironically in our own day the phrase is once again a fitting a symbol of an out-of-touch, tyrannical government: this time in the form of a Colorado Judge who ruled that a baker in Denver must provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples... or else pay the price.

The decision from Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer in Denver, CO is like a chilling flashback for anyone concerned about the first amendment protections of freedom of religion and expression — a flashback to a similar decision earlier this year in the case of Elane Photography in New Mexico.

Before talking about this new case dealing with a business called Masterpiece Cakeshop, I want to look back on that earlier one, especially since the Colorado decision makes use of and cites the decision issued by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Flash-back: "The Price of Citizenship"

When Christian photographers Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin declined to photograph a same-sex couple's "commitment ceremony" in 2006, the 'to-be-wed' couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and a legal battle ensued after the Commission ruled against the photographers. The battle made it all the way up the New Mexico Supreme Court which finally brought down its ruling on August 22 of this year.

In his concurring opinion in the ruling against Elane Photography, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard Bosson wrote these chilling words [emphasis added]:

[T]here is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life. In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

I would ask the Court this: what price of citizenship does the same-sex couple pay, who surely could have picked any number of capable photographers with no conscientious objection to recording their ceremony? Apparently, in the eyes of the Court, this is a one-way street. The message to people of faith, and really to all Americans, was crystal clear: your deeply held religious beliefs and convictions have no place in the public square anymore.

If you choose to run a business, sure you can still do it according to your values — but only until those values come into conflict with the values of the intelligentsia and opinion makers who happen to be running the show. At that point, the price of your citizenship is that you must be punished.

And that's a message that should trouble all Americans, both liberal and conservative alike.

Fast-forward: "Preparing a Cake is Simply Not 'Speech'"

Now here's another message that should trouble all of us, regardless of background or ideology: the message that the courts have purview to dictate to an artist how he should practice his art.

That is effectively the upshot of the first part of the decision by Colorado Judge Robert Spencer against Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakes.

The Judge dismissed Mr. Phillips' claim that being forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his freedom of speech on the grounds that "the act of preparing a cake is simply not 'speech' warranting First Amendment protection."

Had these words arisen in any other context, penned by any other judge in any other case, you can bet your bottom dollar that liberals across the nation would be having a fit! Who is this judge to tell a baker that his trade doesn't constitute artistic expression?

I challenge any same-sex marriage activist to take to their blog or to pen an op-ed doubling down on the opinion that what cake decorators and bakers do isn't a form of artistry and doesn't deserve protections as a form of expression!

And I'd be willing to bet if this case had involved a portrait painter, or a photographer, or a musician, or a florist, the judge would have ruled exactly the same way.

How's that for citizenship 'rights' in America? So that same-sex couples can redefine marriage to suit their own desires, the first amendment rights of all artists — poets and painters, florists and bakers, musicians and photographers — will be delineated by what the courts decide constitutes 'expression.'

Effectively, this judge has said to Mr. Phillips — to every baker in America — and by extension to every kind of artist in America... "It's just a stupid cake. Bake it." "It's just a stupid song. Sing it." "It's just a stupid picture. Take it." "It's just stupid art. Fake it."

We could wait and see whether the champions of freedom on the left raise their voices to cry against this attack on the first amendment. But alas, I fear we'd have to wait a long time...

Don't Wait. ACT NOW.

Instead of waiting for the first amendment to be protected by its supposed champions, therefore, We the People who are its true champions need to stand up and be heard.

You and I have the opportunity to do just that today.


Write to Congress today to urge support for the "Marriage and Religious Freedom Acts" which have been introduced in both the House and the Senate. These bills will help protect churches and people of faith from the kind of judicial tyranny which is becoming such a disturbing trend in the wake of the push to redefine marriage!

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act authored by Senator Mike Lee already enjoys several Republican co-sponsors, and according to The Washington Examiner, Senator Lee says that some Democrats have expressed willingness to sign on to it as well.

In remarks to the Examiner, Lee said:

Nearly every member of Congress on both ends of the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle, will at least purport to be a strong supporter of religious liberty, and this should be an uncontroversial position to take. [...] I don't think anyone believes that the federal government ought to be making religious doctrinal decisions on behalf of churches and other religious institutions.

Lee's bill is similar in spirit to a House version introduced in September of this year by Representative Raul Labrador (R-Id.), which has a bipartisan coalition of 91 cosponsors.

NOM is very grateful to be working with advocates in both the House of Representatives and the Senate who are standing up and emphasizing the need to protect religious freedom from government overreach and targeting. By having bills in both chambers it provides a greater opportunity for debate and raises the profile of this crucially important issue.

So please click here now to thank both Senator Lee and Representative Labrador for the courageous leadership in defense of marriage and religious liberty, and to urge your members of Congress to support their legislation. These bills are especially important in the wake of the weakening of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the Supreme Court in the fateful Winsdor decision this past June. Don't delay! Contact Congress right away!

Once again, I express my own personal gratitude, as well as the gratitude of NOM and all its allies, to Senator Mike Lee, Representative Raul Labrador, and so many other heroic members of Congress who are working to ensure that the freedoms we all hold so dear are not trampled underfoot in a bullying mob's rush to redefine marriage.

Proof that Standing in the Truth Can Still Win Hearts

I'll close today by remarking on some charming and edifying news from yesterday: Pope Francis being named TIME's "Person of the Year."

An article in TIME by Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs captures well the enigma that Pope Francis has presented to many over his brief reign thus far:

These days it is bracing to hear a leader say anything that annoys anyone. Now liberals and conservatives alike face a choice as they listen to a new voice of conscience: Which matters more, that this charismatic leader is saying things they think need to be said or that he is also saying things they'd rather not hear?

This challenge of Pope Francis is elaborated upon in the profile piece TIME published along with the cover story:

Francis signals great change while giving the same answers to the uncomfortable questions. On the question of female priests:"We need to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman." Which means: no. No to abortion, because an individual life begins at conception. No to gay marriage, because the male-female bond is established by God. "The teaching of the church ... is clear," he has said, "and I am a son of the church, but [...] it is not necessary to talk about those issues all the time."

In other words, as the authors quote Pope Francis saying elsewhere: "[W]hen we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context."

This is a good reminder for all of us who work in defending true marriage. While we might seem to"talk about those issues all the time," it's only because our opponents' attacks on marriage never relent. We must never allow it to be in the way Francis criticizes: we cannot speak only about them, out of context, only criticizing the bad and never praising the good.

In fact, we've striven at NOM for years to explain that it's not a matter of being "against" or "anti" anyone or anything. Rather, we are for marriage: for the essential service it provides for the good of humanity, for the role it plays in bringing men and women together and uniting them in love to one another and to their children.

Let us take heart, then, and learn the real lesson that Pope Francis's popularity teaches all of us: the overarching importance of always presenting the truth in love. There will always be those who disagree, but disagreement must never turn to hate or malice. We love every one of God's children and all His good gifts, like the wonderful gift of marriage between husband and wife. May that spirit of love be our banner always.


Brian S. Brown

Members of Congress Commend National Organization for Marriage For Suing Internal Revenue Service over Illegal Release of Its Tax Return

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 25, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"We are grateful to these leaders of the House for stepping forward to express their support of our efforts to hold lawbreakers within the IRS accountable for their crimes."  —Brian Brown, NOM president —


Washington, D.C. — Three dozen members of the United States House of Representatives have signed a letter to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) praising it for filing a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for illegally leaking its confidential tax return including a list of its top donors. The confidential tax data ended up in the possession of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) whose president was a national co-chair of President Obama's reelection committee.

"We applaud you in your effort to find the truth about what happened to your donor lists as we in Congress continue fighting to hold the Obama Administration accountable for these abuses of American citizens' constitutional rights," the letter said. The letter was signed by 36 members of the US House of Representatives including Republican Study Committee Chairman, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), and Values Action Team Co-Chair, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA).

"We are grateful to these leaders of the House for stepping forward to express their support of our efforts to hold lawbreakers within the IRS accountable for their crimes," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "No group should have to worry that its confidential tax return information including donor information will be leaked by the IRS and end up in the hands of its arch political opponents."

The leaking of NOM's tax return and confidential donor information has been investigated by the federal government, but the Obama Administration refuses to provide the public with any accounting of what they have found, claiming that the law protects the identity of the individuals involved in the criminal act of leaking the information in the first instance. Releasing taxpayer tax returns is a felony under federal law. Several committees of the US House have examined the matter, including the Committee on Ways & Means and the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.

"The Obama Administration has adopted a Nixonian approach of delay, denial and obstruction to keep under wraps the truth about who was involved in this crime," said John Eastman, NOM's Chairman. "Our lawsuit is intended to get all the facts to the American people so they can hold people accountable. The public is entitled to know how this crime unfolded and whether anyone at the White House, Obama Reelection Committee or the HRC had any role in this disturbing event."

Eastman testified about the issue before the Ways & Means Committee and was the recipient of the Congressional letter.


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Three Dozen Lawmakers Applaud NOM's Efforts to Find the Truth about the IRS; Vow to Continue Fighting to Hold Obama Adminstration Accountable

Three dozen members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the National Organization for Marriage's chairman, Dr. John Eastman, cheering NOM's litigation against the IRS's unlawful disclosure of confidential tax forms filed by the organization.

Congressional Letter to NOM on IRS Case

The letter, dated November 21st, expresses support for NOM's efforts to find the truth. The Congressional members also pledged to continue their work to hold the IRS accountable:

While it is up to the court to determine the outcome of your case, unfortunately your allegation are not unique or even unexpected given the Obama Administration's well-documented practice of using federal agencies to target conservative groups.


We applaud you in your effort to find the truth about what happened to your donor lists as we in Congress continue fighting to hold the Obama Administration for these abuses of American citizens' constitutional rights.

NOM is very grateful to these Representatives and encouraged by their interest and support! Click here to read the letter in full and to find out if your Representative signed!

Did Your Senators Represent Your Values?

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last Thursday, the "Employee Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA)" passed in the Senate with a vote count of 64 to 32. The vote followed a weak debate over religious exemptions in the chamber, after the Senate had defeated a proposed amendment offered by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey that would have expanded conscience protections. Senator Toomey went on after the amendment's defeat to vote for passage of ENDA anyway, along with nine other Senate Republicans!

Make no mistake: ENDA is nothing other than a Trojan horse designed to drive people of faith and traditional values further from the public square in our country.

But don't just take my word for it! Consider this: even the weak religious exemptions which are included in ENDA — which NOM, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, Heritage Action, and many others all consider to be entirely insufficient — are themselves being attacked by some gay activists as too large a concession!

Here's what one editorialist for the Huffington Post's 'Gay Voices' section had to say about these religious exemptions [emphasis added]:

ENDA's religious exemption is clearly from the Stone Age and isn't something we should settle for anymore. [...] The fact that ENDA is unlikely to get a vote in the House gives us a chance to make sure the religious exemption comes out of this bill. That may make it harder to get it passed, and it may take a lot longer, but so be it. [...] We still need full protections in employment, housing and public accommodations, and none should include any religious exemptions.

Of course, "full protections in employment, housing and public accommodations" are legitimate concerns, but ENDA isn't about protecting all Americans, it's about special provisions for a small portion of citizens.

Indeed, the very same writer acknowledges that this Congress's particular version of ENDA (a pot-boiler bill that has been making rounds in Washington for years) is unique: it is "the first Senate vote on employment protections around both sexual orientation and gender identity." And there's the problem.

"Sexual orientation" is a difficult enough term to pin down and define. Depending on which 'experts' one talks to, it's either fluid and flexible along a continuum of behaviors, or it's fixed and immutable. Of course, no scientist has ever identified a "sexual orientation" gene and studies among identical twins find no evidence of sexual orientation being an immutable characteristic. But if sexual orientation is a difficult concept to define, so much more so is the totally amorphous idea of "gender identity." Basically it means that if a man feels like being a woman, he is; but if he later decides he's a man again, he's that. These are dangerously fluid and shifting notions, and hardly the sort of thing one would want to build a law upon — especially a law that can result in real for damage and punishment to others.

It is not difficult to conceive of how individuals or groups could find themselves targeted by frivolous and injurious lawsuits on the basis of such slippery definitions. A person who says in passing at the water cooler at work that she's a believer in traditional marriage could suddenly be accused of engaging in hate speech and even workplace harassment!

It is a travesty that the Senate voted to pass this dangerous legislation, especially with the votes of those who profess to be conservatives. We are grateful that Speaker John Boehner has pledged that the bill won't come to the floor in the House of Representatives, but right now we need to demand answers from our Senators!

Click here to find out how your Senators voted on ENDA and let them know that you either appreciate their opposition to this terrible bill, or are outraged by their extremely misguided support of it!

We can't stand quietly aside when our elected officials cast such poorly-conceived and dangerous votes, passing bills like ENDA that subject individuals, small businesses and religious groups to lawsuits, fines and other punishment over amorphous concepts and feelings that legal and sociological experts can't even agree on. If enacted, this law will quickly become a powerful cudgel for harassing people of faith and for beating back the First Amendment protections we cherish so dearly.

If ENDA passes, you can count on the fact that an enterprising liberal lawyer will soon be using it to argue that state marriage laws are discriminatory and unconstitutional because they violate ENDA's "nondiscrimination" proivsions.

We need to let our Senators know of our disappointment and that we will hold them accountable for failing to represent the conservative values we sent them to Washington to represent!

Click here right away and let your Senators hear from you on ENDA. Let them know where you stand on dangerous bills like this, and make sure they know that you're either pleased with their standing for your rights — or dismayed that they've trampled over them in a stampede for political cover.

If we want our leaders in Washington working for us, and not for the bullies and billionaires with their special interests and pork-barrel promises, then they need to hear from us! Don't miss this opportunity to make your voice heard. Stand up and speak out for marriage today!


Brian S. Brown

P.S.: Help us hold politicians accountable with a generous donation to NOM today. Whatever you can give — $50, $100, or even $200 — will enable us to continue to make sure your values are represented in the halls of power and in the court of public opinion. And every dollar you give to NOM between now and the end of the year will be instantly doubled by a generous donor's matching gift. Don't miss this great opportunity — give generously today!

ICYMI: US Catholic Bishops Lend Their Voice to Chorus of ENDA Opposition

In all of the activity last week surrounding the Senate's consideration of ENDA ("The Employee Non-Discrimination Act of 2013"), we forgot to share with you this statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Emphasizing the dignity of all people, the bishops quoted Pope Francis’ statement that “Work is fundamental to that dignity.” They added that “the Catholic Church has consistently stood with workers in this country and continues to oppose unjust discrimination in the workplace. No one should be an object of scorn, hatred, or violence for any reason, including his or her sexual inclinations.”

Catholic BishopThe bishops noted, however, that ENDA goes beyond prohibiting unjust discrimination and poses several problems. The bishops explained that the bill: (1) lacks an exception for a “bona fide occupational qualification,” which exists for every other category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, except for race; (2) lacks a distinction between homosexual inclination and conduct, thus affirming and protecting extramarital sexual conduct; (3) supports the redefinition of marriage, as state-level laws like ENDA have been invoked in state court decisions finding marriage discriminatory or irrational; (4) rejects the biological basis of gender by defining “gender identity” as something people may choose at variance with their biological sex; and (5) threatens religious liberty by punishing as discrimination the religious or moral disapproval of same-sex sexual conduct, while protecting only some religious employers.

Click here to see more from the Bishops' conference regarding their position on this bill, which passed the Senate last week 64-32. Speaker of the House John Boehner has stated firmly that the measure will not be brought up for consideration in that chamber.

National Organization for Marriage Disappointed with Senate Passage of ENDA; Confident Speaker’s Leadership Will Defeat Measure in House

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"ENDA could be a Trojan horse that enables the marriage redefinition agenda to be forced on the entire nation through the courts." — Brian Brown, NOM president —


Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today expressed disappointment at the Senate's passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA), but cited confidence in House Speaker John Boehner's leadership as giving a firm expectation that the measure will be defeated.

"We are very disappointed by the Senate's passage of this bill," said Brian Brown, NOM's President. "While protecting people against discrimination is a very important goal, this legislation is problematic because of its broad and unclear definitions. Concepts like 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' are too vague to be a basis for such a law which could lead to individuals facing reprisals or even criminal action simply for expressing their values in the workplace."

Brown went on to note that NOM was especially disappointed in the measure's support by several Republican Senators: "We are disappointed with the Republican Senators who voted for this bill for failing to see its dangerous implications for pro-family Americans. Many of these Senators' constituents hold to traditional values like the belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but ENDA could be a Trojan horse that enables the marriage redefinition agenda to be forced on the entire nation through the courts."

While the measure passed in the Senate 64-32, it faces a very difficult road in the House, where Speaker John Boehner has publicly pledged his opposition to the bill and expressed an unwillingness to even take the matter up for a vote.

"We are grateful for Speaker Boehner’s leadership in the House on this issue," said Brown. "He understands the kinds of frivolous lawsuits and bullying through litigation that could come about as the result of such a measure."

Brown expressed hopes that other Republican leaders in the House would similarly announce their opposition to ENDA in order to send a strong signal to the special interest groups lobbying for the bill's passage. "We will be asking all of NOM's supporters to contact the House of Representatives urging that they reject ENDA," Brown said.


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

The "Non-Scandal" Keeps Getting More Scandalous

You may remember that the mainstream media and liberal politicians began saying several weeks ago that early reports of the IRS targeting organizations and individuals based on political ideology had turned out to be a "non-scandal" - but yesterday's developments as much as anything show that this very real scandal simply cannot be so easily dismissed.

From hearings yesterday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee comes this shocking news, via a headline in the Daily Caller: "White House, IRS exchanged confidential taxpayer info." The Daily Caller reports:

[IRS Official Sarah] Ingram appeared before Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee Wednesday and claimed she could not recall a document that contained confidential taxpayer information.

“Well one of the areas of interest is there’s a significant redaction that quotes the statute 6103. Do you know who is underneath that blackout?” Issa asked Ingram.

“I don’t recall the document so I can’t help you with what’s underneath that redaction,” Ingram said.

“Her response has not put concerns to rest,” Oversight staffer Frederick Hill said.

You can read the rest here.

Understandably so, if the following exchange is any indication of her response:

Meanwhile, NOM is grateful to Representative Issa for his strong leadership on House Oversight and Government Reform to hold the IRS accountable for misconduct and felonious actions, and particularly for his pledge to investigate the leak which resulted in our own confidential tax information getting into the hands of the Human Rights Campaign.

We are also continually grateful to Chairman Camp of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee for his own commitment to securing justice for all those targeted by the IRS and making sure the American people get the answers they deserve about how deep this scandal runs.