NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Culture

Bobby Jindal Knows Exactly What Marriage Is

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding marriage exemplifies that the majority of the justices do not understand the cultural significance, biological requirements, or historical reasoning of marriage, Bobby Jindal assures everyone that he is not “evolving” on marriage:

Bobby-JindalGOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal says he will not change his stance on marriage.

The Louisiana governor made that clear when he sat down for an interview with The Daily Signal earlier this year in Baton Rouge.

“My faith teaches me that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m not changing,” Jindal says. “I know it’s politically fashionable to evolve. I’m not evolving and it doesn’t matter to me what the polls say…that is one of those issues that I’m not going to change on.”

Jindal has called the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing gay marriage an “all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians.”

While Jindal says his state will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, he has also stated that court clerks and state workers can’t be forced to support the ruling if they have religious objections.

Jindal says he will continue to push for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman.

Original article and video can be found via The Daily Signal.

The Next Target in the Same-sex Marriage War

Now that the Supreme Court has failed the American people and are forcing states to accept same-sex marriage, what is the next target of same-sex marriage proponents? Dominic Lynch has the answer: after Obergefell, churches are next.

ThinkstockPhotos-122468669Chief Justice Roberts's Obergefell dissent lays the stakes on the table:

Today's decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is -- unlike the right imagined by the majority -- actually spelled out in the Constitution. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

How do we get from "marriage equality" to churches forced into performing weddings that violate their teachings? Lawsuits.

Imagine a same sex couple who consider themselves deeply Catholic want to get married at the Catholic church of their choice. They approach the pastor and he declines to officiate the wedding or be a party to it. The spurned couple might then file a non-discrimination lawsuit against the pastor and his parish making the simple argument that because same-sex marriage is a right protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a parish cannot discriminate in who it weds and who it doesn't.

The religious liberty protections of the First Amendment can only hold up so long when put under the scrutiny that drove Burwell. Play some mental gymnastics a la Roberts and suddenly a centuries-old protection of religious liberty fades away. "Prohibiting" could be construed to mean "Congress can't prohibit except when..." And "free exercise" could take a similar meaning: "Churches can practice their faith freely except when..." It's not a far stretch to suggest this can happen. If Burwell happened, this can happen.

Advocates of same sex marriage have avoided discussing religious liberty protections outside of some editorials that scoff at the idea that the free exercise of religion would ever be threatened by the gay marriage movement. Ultimately, our society is one step away from the previously unthinkable stage of government-coerced marriages in churches.

Unless Congress, governors, and state legislatures act immediately, government-coerced weddings are a matter of when, not if.

The Marriage Debate is Far From Over

Frank Schubert, a long-time partner with NOM and an indispensable marriage champion, pens his insightful observations on how the Supreme Court’s ruling will affect our nation’s continued war on marriage:

The long-expected decision of the U.S. Supreme Court imposing same-sex marriage on the country has been issued. The obvious next question is whether this settles the matter, and there’s a one-word answer: “Hardly.”

If anything, the court’s decision is likely to roil the nation and pave a path toward more cultural conflict, not less.

I have been engaged with the American people in a robust debate on the nature of marriage and how it should be treated in the law ever since I managed the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California. I’ve been involved in legislative and electoral contests in more than a dozen states and in every region of the country.

I realize that many people disagree with the view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That’s what makes a debate and why we have elections. My side prevailed in four public votes and lost in four others. That is how closely divided the nation is on same-sex marriage.

The 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court has illegitimately truncated that debate. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

The court’s narrow majority has substituted its views for those of countless elected officials and more than 50 million voters who decided that traditional marriage should be preserved in their respective states. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called it exercising “super legislative” authority.

In legislating from the bench, the court has deprived both sides of the satisfaction of potentially winning the public debate, while cheating the losing side of any solace that might come from being defeated in a fair fight.

This decision joins other infamous rulings that lacked constitutional legitimacy, including the Dred Scott case declaring that African Americans were not citizens but property, and Roe v. Wade mandating abortion in every state. Just as Roe did not settle the issue of abortion, Obergefell v. Hodges won’t settle the marriage debate.

The inevitable result of this ruling will be to ensure that marriage remains controversial. The most immediate political conflict concerns what actions governments might take to force acceptance of the ruling. In states with gay marriage, bakers, florists, photographers and innkeepers have been punished for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Religious groups have been forced to close ministries such as adoption agencies to avoid violating their beliefs. President Barack Obama’s top litigator has already hinted that Christian colleges could lose their tax exemptions if they do not allow gay couples to live together on campus.

Chief Justice Roberts noted the court majority “ominously” gives lip service to religious liberty by saying that religious people and groups can “teach” and “advocate” for traditional marriage, but the Constitution guarantees the right to the exercise of religion.

There will be a pitched legislative battle in Congress to enact the First Amendment Defense Act (S 1598/HR 2802) to prevent any federal agency from taking adverse action against anyone based on their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The court’s decision will also powerfully inject marriage into the 2016 presidential contest. The most direct course to reverse this ruling lies in the next president appointing new justices to the Supreme Court. Social conservatives will do everything possible to ensure that the Republican nominee is a strong pro-marriage champion, making this a litmus test throughout the GOP primaries and caucuses.

There will also be a strong push to amend the U.S. Constitution, not only to reverse this ruling, but to hold the Supreme Court more accountable. Is amending the constitution easy? No, but neither is recalling a governor or removing state Supreme Court justices, yet these things have been accomplished.

Liberals will bemoan these conflicts as a continuation of the “culture wars,” but they are responsible for advancing them. As long as important values are under fire, especially when they involve giving government the power to subvert unalienable rights granted by our creator, conservatives must either engage the debate or surrender. I don’t see any white flags on the horizon.

Frank Schubert is founder of Mission Public Affairs, a Sacramento political consulting firm. He ran the pro-Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 and several other campaigns around the country supporting traditional marriage.

This article originally appeared on The Sacramento Bee.

No Longer is it US: It’s Them vs. Us

Real Clear Politics features a sharp piece by William Murchison that appraises what the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage means for our country. With this latest turn of events, it is hard to find proof that the majority of our unelected judicial leaders fully understand what the terms “democracy,” “liberty,” and “marriage” truly mean:

ThinkstockPhotos-89614480We live at an odd and dangerous moment -- one framed only in part by the court's recent extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. There is much else to flummox and worry us. "Consent of the governed" seems the last thing on the minds of those determined to herd the sheep -- you and me -- to supposedly brighter pastures.

"We know what's good for you!" is their loud, if unarticulated, injunction. Generally succeeded by: "Shut up -- didn't you hear what we said?"

Chief Justice John Roberts posed a broader, sounder question -- "Just who do we think we are?" -- to his colleagues in the marriage case. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court handed to Americans a new, untested definition of human domestic relationships. Old understandings of marriage were off. We needed a new one -- see? -- and we got it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, as is his wont, saw to the bottom of the matter, writing in dissent: "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

You can take all this if you like as a succession of harrumphings by angry losers. Or you can consider, shall we say, the Big Picture: one bigger than the court, bigger than any wedding party, whatever its sexual composition.

The United States of America -- your country and mine -- has for several decades been unmooring itself from allegiance to truths once generally agreed on as essential to human happiness and freedom. Whether we necessarily meant to slip ancient anchors, that has been the effect. The old American vision no longer serves! A new one is wanted! That's been the consistent narrative.

. . .

The victors want to sweep off the table everything that doesn't please them, replacing it with creations of their own design. What's more, by virtue of their patience and persistence, the victors run vast regions of our country, both geographical and intellectual. They'll tell you Alexander Hamilton doesn't belong on the $10 bill and that our president was right to bathe the White House -- the people's house -- in the rainbow colors of gay liberation.

There's just one trouble. Uprooting truth, or that which has historically been taken for truth, requires more than Justice Anthony Kennedy's say-so. Our elitist Supreme Court has guaranteed for us cultural and constitutional headaches for which no pharmacological remedy exists, headaches possibly of the sort that Mike Huckabee forecasts, involving defiance and division.

Listen to KQED Radio’s Forum Featuring NOM’s President, Brian Brown!

From KQED.org:

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Gay men and women "ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. "The Constitution grants them that right." San Franciscans waving rainbow flags outside City Hall tearfully hugged each other after hearing the news, which came right before the San Francisco Pride Celebration and Parade weekend. We discuss the 5-4 decision and what this means for the country.

All Eyes on the Supreme Court



Dear Marriage Supporter,

The US Supreme Court decision on marriage will come down either tomorrow or Monday. Of course, no matter what the Court does decide, they cannot ever change the truth of marriage. Marriage is not a political institution that can be reshaped to suit a popular ideology. It is an institution with a unique meaning and purpose — to bring the two halves of humanity together to give children the best opportunity to experience the love of both their mother and father. Every civilization since the dawn of time has recognized that this is a universal, foundational truth. Hopefully a majority of Supreme Court justices will as well.

If you live near Washington, DC, please try to come to the steps of the Court to be with us when the decision is rendered. I will be there myself. Plan on arriving Friday morning by 9am. Decisions are issued starting at 10am.

If the decision does not come down on Friday, there will be rally at the Court on Monday morning beginning at 9:00am. Again, the decision will be released at 10:00am eastern time. Please join me there.

Bait & Switch

As we have written about frequently, so much of the movement in support of same-sex 'marriage' has been contrived, the result of deliberate attempts to manipulate public opinion. Polls are constructed in such a way to show outsized support for redefining marriage; the media writes at least five times the number of stories favoring gay 'marriage' than they do stories featuring opposition to it; and the public is constantly bombarded with pro-gay characters on television and in the movies.

The Weekly Standard published an excellent article this week about the "Bait & Switch" approach used by same-sex 'marriage' advocates. Now that these advocates believe they have won the public relations battle with polls showing a majority of Americans are on their side, they are stepping back from their previous assertions — including the view that gays and lesbians are 'born that way' and that redefining marriage won't actually change marriage — because they no longer serve their purposes. If you have a few minutes, it's worth reading the article.

The People's Marriage Pledge

As we've discussed many times, one of the most important things we can do to protect marriage, especially if the Supreme Court decision goes against us, is to elect a strong pro-marriage champion as President of the United States. NOM's Presidential Marriage Pledge asks the candidates to commit to take specific actions as president to protect marriage. The pledge has been distributed to all the Republican candidates for president, and we will begin reporting in the next couple of weeks on who has agreed to sign.

In the meantime, you can act today to advance the cause of marriage in the presidential contest by signing The People's Marriage Pledge. As a signer, you are serving notice that you will only support a candidate who pledges to stand with us to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Unfortunately, many Republican candidates have wealthy donors and consultants whispering in their ears that they should stay away from "divisive" social issues generally, and marriage in particular. By signing The People's Marriage Pledge, you will help us counter the influence of these GOP insiders by showing that the American people at the grassroots level demand a candidate who stands with them in support of marriage.

Support the First Amendment Defense Act

The First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) is critical legislation pending in Congress that will protect people who believe in the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman from being discriminated against by government. The legislation is authored in the US Senate by Sen. Mike Lee and in the House by Rep. Raul Labrador.

If you have not yet contacted your federal representatives urging them to support this critical legislation, please do so today. NOM is working hard with other allies to push this legislation so that people and organizations who support true marriage are not subjected to adverse actions by the government. No person or group should be forced to embrace same-sex 'marriage' or risk being punished if they refuse.

Rally in Rome

You likely didn't read much about this in the media here in the US (because it runs contrary to the narrative they want to advance that "everyone" is now on board with redefining marriage) but there was a huge outpouring of opposition to gay unions recently in Rome, where Italy's Prime Minister is advancing a civil union measure and also advocates the teaching of "gender theory" in schools.

The square where the rally was held holds 300,000 people, and news media representatives say the crowd far exceeded the capacity of the square. Rally organizers estimate that 1 million people attended to show their support for traditional marriage and the natural family.

Backers want us to believe that the movement to redefine marriage enjoys worldwide support and that if we fail to embrace it here in America we will somehow be out of step with other countries. But the truth is that only 19 nations — less than 10% of countries in the world — allow for genderless marriage, and almost all of those are in the west. The rest of the world continues to support protecting marriage because they realize that marriage serves immense societal purposes, and does not exist simply to satisfy the political demands of powerful activists.

We Need Your Help Now More Than Ever

No matter what the US Supreme Court decides, our work in defense of marriage is far from over. Indeed, what we do will take on even great importance as we move into this next "post-Supreme Court" phase of the battle. If we win the Court case, marriage will be on the ballot in countless states as advocates attempt to convince voters to redefine marriage. And if we lose, we have an ambitious game plan ready to mitigate the damage in the short term, and work to reverse the ruling over the longer term.

Please help us continue to fight for the truth of marriage as God designed it

We will be in a new era of the marriage battle by the time you receive our next newsletter. Let us resolve together that no matter what the Court decides, we will never accept an illegitimate decision and we will always fight for what we know to be good and right — that marriage was ordained by God, that it is one man and one woman, and that it is a powerful public good for children, families, and for society as a whole.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

Our Very Way of Life is on the Line

By now you should be prepared for the worst. There is a strong possibility (many say high likelihood) that the Supreme Court will impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire nation either tomorrow or Monday. While this would be an illegitimate and lawless ruling (because there is no constitutional authority for it), we must remember that man-made law never supersedes natural law. “Marriage” will ever remain the union between a man and a woman because its unique meaning and purpose is to bring together the two halves of humanity to provide the best environment for raising children.

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace, a longtime friend of NOM’s, has penned a provocative article in Conservative Review where he points out that a negative ruling will prove to be a boon to the marriage movement over time, just as Roe v. Wade reinvigorated the pro-life movement. The first benefit, he predicts, will be to separate out the true conservatives in the field of GOP presidential candidates from those who are only pretending to be conservative:

stk308123rkn

All of our other options of faux coexistence and kicking the can down the road are over. The age of feigned tolerance is at an end and – behold! – the age of forced compliance is now at hand.

We are about to find out why there was so much bravery at the Alamo—because there was no backdoor. There will be no fence to straddle. There will be no neutrality. There will be no polls or elections we supposedly have to win with a gutless establishment Republican we rationalize as an excuse to punt. There will only be “choose ye this day whom you will serve.”

No less than our very way of life is on the line. Such as:

-Marriage, the most fundamentally important institution of a civilized society
-Federalism, which is our most basic form of governance
-The constitutional rule of law and separation of powers
-The will of the people, as in the over 50 million Americans that voted to enshrine marriage in their state constitutions
-The Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment's religious freedom protections in clear and present danger

Any so-called Republican or religious leader that is willing to respond to such a blitzkrieg on liberty with tripe like “the courts have spoken” or “it’s time to move on” is a charlatan, and there’s no way they’d defend our liberties against any other Leftist assault, either.

You can read the full article at Conservative Review.

What is the Real Goal of “Marriage Equality”?

Even states that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples continue to distinguish between marriage and same-sex “marriage” for many purposes.

In an article on The Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod, an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, asks the crucial question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” really want?

ThinkstockPhotos-75461595Massachusetts and New York continue to treat marriage and same-sex coupling differently. Despite eliminating from law the fundamental predicate that every marriage involves a man and a woman and binds the father and the mother of any children that result from the union, the courts and lawmakers of Massachusetts and New York have left in place incidents of marriage that presuppose this predicate. Yet proponents of marriage equality are not flooding the Massachusetts or New York courts with lawsuits to eliminate those incidents.

This raises a question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” want? If they are asking for governments to make marriage and same-sex couples the same in law, then they are asking for governments to eliminate the incidents of marriage that connect children to their natural parents. If same-sex “marriage” proponents are not asking governments to eliminate those legal securities for children, then they are not asking for full marriage equality.

. . .

The reality of same-sex “marriage” has not yet caught up with the logic; for now, Massachusetts still distinguishes between real marriage and same-sex “marriage.” But even if some of the incidents securing the rights and duties of parents and their children remain in place, the inchoate effort to achieve marriage equality harms the culture of marriage and thereby harms the children whom marriage is supposed to protect, particularly the least well-off.

These are costs of the as-yet-unsuccessful effort to make marriage and same-sex couplings the same in law. The law teaches, and people are prone to learn from it. The law of same-sex “marriage” is that man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, are fungible. A marriage can be a marriage without one or the other, according to the desires of the adults involved. Thus, the law of states such as Massachusetts reinforces a culture that devalues fathers and mothers as people with distinct duties toward their children.

Ultimately, the goal of the “marriage equality movement” is to destroy the family. When you take away the one man and one woman stipulation from marriage, you turn marriage into a mere legality signifying the preferences of two adults, and you demean children into “options.” We will never stop defending marriage as the union between one man and woman, because we believe that men and women are both uniquely different and essential, and children are not “mere options,” but the embodiment of hope for the future.

For the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

Jim Garlow: Marriage Leaders and Capitulators

A courageous defender of marriage and longtime friend of NOM, Jim Garlow, senior pastor at Skyline Church in San Diego, California, offers his insightful analysis on the impending Supreme Court ruling, and challenges us to think about whether we, the people, will decide to do what is right, or what is easy:

[M]y concern is less with prognosticating on what the court might do, but rather on the reaction of the Christian community to the presumed attempted destruction of marriage, specifically from its leaders. What should we expect?

It appears to me that there are some who suffer from “Tony Campolo Syndrome.” That is, they are on the verge of “stepping over” – coming out of the “one-man-one-woman marriage closet” – and a bit eager to embrace so-called same-sex “marriage.”

Why will several prominent Christian “leaders” do this? It will not be because they can biblically defend it. They cannot.

It will because – now how do I say this nicely? – they are cowardly. You see, it is now culturally chic – oh, so very cool – to affirm so called same-sex “marriage.” By doing so, one appears so “with it,” so “relevant.” And it make you appear – notice, only appear – to be so kind and grace giving.

I fully expect several high-profile pastors and Christian leaders – based on the “rumblings” – to use the Supreme Court decision as an excuse –a casuistry – to violate Scripture. The phrasing that will be used will be very similar and even more boring. Even more tragic, it will be deceptive.

One phrase that will be used repeatedly is “that ship has sailed.” It seems to ease their conscience that they can now fit in culturally with the radical homosexual agenda and not have to suffer from any of the barbs, jabs and bullying hurled at those who stand with Scripture.

. . .

While it is true that that “the ship may have sailed,” that ship will sink! It is the proverbial Titanic. (The problem is it will try to take so many of us down with it – even though we’ve been warning of the “iceberg” for some time!)

And those who stand for truth – those with titanium scriptural backbones – will face entirely new challenges in defending biblical marriage.

Christian leaders will be divided into two categories: Neville Chamberlains, that is, the compromisers, and Winston Churchills, the courageous champions.

For those whose World War II history is slipping, Neville Chamberlain compromised and set up Hitler to kill tens of millions of people. Winston Churchill knew what had to be done against Hitler, and did it.

The Chamberlain cowardly “Christian leaders” will assert that “it’s all over. There’s nothing we can do. It has been decided.”

The Churchillian ABC (Authentically Biblically Christian) leaders will rise up and say, “never give up!”

Why will they do this? Because they are dinosauric and cannot get with the times? No!

Because they have figured out that there are some things worth continuing to fight for and, if necessary, die for. Yes, it will take a long time. But one-man-one-woman marriage is such a no-brainer, it will eventually win out.

You can read Garlow’s full article at WND.com.

Marriage Poll: SCOTUS Should Not Declare a Constitutional Right to Same-sex Marriage

The definition of marriage is an issue that dissolves borders and unifies diverse groups, as has been evidenced this past year, notably at the March for Marriage.

In a fiery post, HotAir examines a YouGov Poll, whose data reveals that the majority of “whites, blacks, [and] Latinos think SCOTUS should not declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Some YouGov poll results were as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As HotAir notes, if you remove the Supreme Court from the question, the numbers tilt in the opposite direction. When asked if they support same-sex couples marrying legally:

Chart 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[W]hy should blacks, white, and Latinos all flip towards opposition when you refine the question further to ask whether the Supreme Court should rule that gays have a constitutional right to marry? The answer, I think, lies in another part of YouGov’s question, where they stress that if the Court rules that way, “same-sex marriages will be allowed in states whose laws currently forbid them.” There are doubtless people in all three groups who didn’t realize until that question was put to them that that’s what a SCOTUS ruling on this subject would mean on the ground. Each state’s ability to set its own law on marriage will go out the window; it’ll be one uniform rule for the entire country by judicial decree. Turns out Americans aren’t crazy about that, which may signal a backlash brewing if the Court rules as everyone expects this week.

The full article is available via HotAir.

Big Surprise: Abstinence and Monogamy Are Best For Society

While the Federal Government has always admitted that monogamy and abstinence is a “reliable” way to prevent the transmission of STDs, they are now conceding that abstinence before marriage, paired with monogamy, is the most reliable way to prevent spreading STDs.

ThinkstockPhotos-462354181Even though the Federal Government would never dare to state it, in advocating monogamy and abstinence, they are tacitly confirming that what is best for society is marriage between one man and one woman, who are exclusive to each other, and are examples to their children of how the complementarity between a man and a woman lays the foundation for our society to flourish.

As reported by The Daily Signal:

The federal government is now calling abstinence and monogamy “the most reliable way to avoid transmission of STDs,” rather than just “a reliable way.”

This change was made in the Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest version of its Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, released earlier this month.

Beyond avoiding STDs, there are multiple other benefits from abstinence and monogamy.

For example, researchers at the Austin Institute report, “High numbers of sexual partners, as well as concurrent sexual partners, are not only a public health concern because of the risk of spreading sexually transmitted infections, but have also been linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse.”

. . .

A strong culture of marriage—where sex is linked to marriage and marriage is linked to childbearing—provides benefits for both adults and children, including better health, more stable and happier marriages, and protection from poverty and negative life outcomes for children. Leaders at every level should look for ways to help build and maintain a healthy culture of marriage.

For the full article, please visit The Daily Signal.

NOM Update: Support the 1st Amendment Defense Act



Dear Marriage Supporter,

A vital piece of legislation was just introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), and NOM urges you to ask your elected officials to support it just as we are.

This critical bill — the First Amendment Defense Act or FADA — has a simple purpose: "To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage." Could anything be more American than that? This country was birthed by a desire for freedom, to be able to think, worship and live according to personal choice — not fearing government interference or worse for refusing to go along with the status quo on issues of morality.

Can you please take a stand with us at this critical time and offer your best gift of $50, $100, or even $500 or more. We will put your gift to immediate use defending marriage on both the state and national level.

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

The first amendment of our beloved Constitution — which this legislation is striving to defend — says very simply:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Can you believe that there are people who actually want to deny first amendment rights to those of us who support marriage as God designed it, the union of one man and one woman?

Believe me — it's true! And that's why NOM is fighting every day to protect the very rights that you and I cherish. And that's why we are doing all we can to ensure that FADA, this important legislation before our Congress right now, is passed into law.

Please stand with us now at this critical time with your gift of $50, $100, or even $500 or more.

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Not a week goes by when we don't see someone who supports true marriage be targeted for harassment or punishment. It's not only gay activists who are targeting marriage supporters, sometimes it's the government itself. The Attorney General of Washington state is suing a 70 year old Christian grandmother because she did not want to be forced to use her talents as a florist for a same-sex 'wedding' because doing so violated her deeply held beliefs about marriage. The AG has threatened to take all of her personal assets as punishment. Concern is growing across our nation that individuals and organizations that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman will increasingly be vulnerable to government retaliation. Indeed, a top lawyer for President Obama told the US Supreme Court that they may begin to revoke the tax exempt status of groups like Christian schools who do not embrace same-sex 'marriage' should the Court decide to impose a redefinition of marriage on the entire nation. And this despite the fact that more than 8 in 10 Americans who believe that our government should leave people free to follow their religious or moral beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives and run their businesses.

Gay and lesbian activists are fond of playing the "victim card" but the reality is that supporters of marriage are the real victims, targeted by activists simply for refusing to endorse same-sex marriage. These people have been driven from their jobs, fired, sued, suspended and ostracized. Add to that the potential for government to join in the punishment of marriage supporters, and the need for the FADA legislation becomes crystal clear. Every citizen who supports marriage must feel comfortable living out their religious or moral beliefs in public without fear of discrimination or retaliation. And that is exactly what the First Amendment Defense Act will protect. Congress must uphold our Nation's acceptance of people and entities that affirm traditional marriage.

So, we are doubling our efforts at NOM, doing all we can to help Senator Lee and Representative Labrador move their vital legislation through the Senate and the House of Representatives. On your behalf, we will always defend the right of all citizens to live out their religious or moral beliefs without fear of discrimination or even prosecution. There's no question that we are standing behind FADA — and we urge you to do so, as well.

And at the same time, NOM is taking action on every front possible to ensure marriage is not illegitimately redefined by the courts. We have not let up one iota in that battle. Can you please stand with us at this critical time and offer your best gift of $50, $100, or even $500 or more.

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

America has always been a country that encouraged freedom of speech, religion and thought. Yet now, some of our more vocal citizens won't rest until we all think just like they do and only say things they would say. I can't speak for you, but that angers me — it's tearing away one of the very things that makes our country "the land of the free."

There's no question in my mind — the next few weeks are critical, and will help shape the months and years ahead — especially given the presidential election that will lay the course for our nation for at least four years.

NOM is fighting every day on your behalf. We cannot change the status quo without the strong backing of Americans who share our beliefs. We must speak with a strong and powerful voice — and your support helps make that possible.

Please help us fight the battle and push forward to victory — for you and me, and for our nation.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


P.S. NOM is on the job every day, fighting for what you — and millions more Americans — believe. Thank you for continuing to help NOM face down each new challenge with strength and unity of voice. Your generous support truly matters as we stand firmly for marriage and for the First Amendment Defense Act.

The Slippery Slope of Same-sex Marriage

In an article on National Review, Ed Whelan comments on the powerful piece written by Jonathan Last for the Weekly Standard:

ThinkstockPhotos-465539699For those who haven’t been paying attention, Last shows that “the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions”:

It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family.

Last asks: “Remember when proponents of same-sex marriage mocked people who suggested that creating a right to same-sex ‘marriage’ might weaken the institution of marriage itself?” He points out that candid gay activists acknowledge that non-monogamy is rampant in gay marriages and that the marriage redefinition they are seeking will undermine the norm of marital monogamy . . ."

You can read Ed Whelan’s full commentary via National Review.

Congress is Stepping Up to Support Marriage and Religious Freedom



Dear Marriage Supporter,

The Congress is about to take major action to protect Americans who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and we must act immediately to support them.

Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador announced yesterday that they have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) to safeguard "individuals and institutions who promote traditional marriage from government retaliation."

Please complete this Action Alert to show your support for this critical legislation.

Sign the Action Alert!

It's so encouraging to see leaders of the Congress step forward to protect the rights of all Americans to speak out in support of marriage in the public square, especially when we are just a couple of weeks away from when the US Supreme Court might issue a ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage' on the entire nation.

You may remember that I wrote to you a few days ago to assure you that NOM had a plan to preserve marriage no matter what the US Supreme Court might rule. Well, support for the First Amendment Defense Act is a critical element in our plan. And we are counting on you to act immediately to lend your voice to those demanding that Congress pass this urgently-needed legislation today.

You see, the legal environment at the moment is that the best we can hope for right now is that the US Supreme Court decides that there is no federal constitutional right to redefine marriage. That is exactly what they should decide in the case before them.

But even if the majority of justices do decide the right way, such a ruling will still leave a number of states where marriage has tragically been redefined by legislative action or by popular vote.

And if the Supreme Court goes in the wrong direction, then every state in the union will be forced to live under a false view of marriage.

So you see, no matter what the Supreme Court decides it's imperative that the First Amendment Defense Act become law.

Please complete this Action Alert to your elected representatives and ask them to support the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802).

Sign the Action Alert!

The critically important legislation protects Americans who believe in the truth of marriage against actions by the federal government to punish or marginalize them. Specifically, the legislation would prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. For example, the bill would prohibit the IRS from stripping a church of its tax exemption for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings.

This is not just some theoretical concern. In the marriage case before the Supreme Court, the lawyer for President Obama explicitly said that if the Court imposes same-sex marriage, a religious college might lose their tax exempt status if they do not allow gay couples who are 'married' to live together on campus, even though such a living arrangement is completely contrary to the beliefs of the school.

The American people are conflicted on this issue of same-sex 'marriage' but they are strongly with us on this legislation. The truth is that people believe that if same-sex 'marriage' is imposed on the nation, it would be wrong to force every single individual or group to go along with it.

The First Amendment Defense Act is very modest, but you can count on the left and gay activists to attempt to portray it as a "license to discriminate." Baloney! The only discrimination that is happening in America today when it comes to gay 'marriage' is the rampant discrimination being leveled at people of faith who support the truth of marriage as one man and one woman.

We will have a whole lot more to say about this critically important legislation in the coming days and weeks, but for now let me close with a heartfelt request that you act immediately to sign this Action Alert asking your federal representatives to support the First Amendment Defense Act.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — Securing passage of this urgent legislation will be difficult. NOM will need to engage in a number of activities to promote the legislation and convince lawmakers to support it. Please consider making a financial contribution to NOM today to help us in our advocacy efforts.

What About the Children Who Want a Mom and a Dad?

Ryan Anderson, a long time friend of NOM and a formidable defender of marriage, calls attention to an important group that many media outlets overlook - children, raised by same-sex couples, who want a mom and a dad:

ThinkstockPhotos-494373553The New York Times ran an article this weekend profiling and quoting many children of gay and lesbian parents under the headline “What Could Gay Marriage Mean for the Kids?”

Noticeably absent were any children who, while loving their two moms or two dads, yearned for both a mom and dad.

In my new book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” I devote a chapter to highlighting the stories of children of gays and lesbians who have spoken out about how redefining marriage has social costs. Their basic story is the same: Same-sex marriage denies children like them a relationship with either a mother or a father—denies them their mother or their father.

Worse yet, people claiming marriage must be redefined as a matter of justice are telling children that the hurt they feel isn’t a legitimate response to objective reality but the result of their own misguided feelings. This is nothing less than victim shaming.

Although the loss suffered by these child victims is real and traumatic, their existence is never acknowledged by The New York Times.

. . .

Redefining marriage redefines parenting. So a legal system that redefines marriage changes a society’s culture and the values it promotes—as well as the expectations of its citizens. A society that redefines marriage, writes Barwick, “promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.”

Redefining marriage will stigmatize the children of same-sex couples, because they will not be allowed to give voice to their experience of lacking a mom or a dad.

For the full article, please visit The Daily Signal.