NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Culture

Stop Legislation That Persecutes People of Faith



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Moving forward with a sweeping agenda they call "Beyond Marriage Equality" backers of redefining marriage have introduced new legislation, HR 3185, that would create special rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people and empower them to pursue legal action whenever they perceive an individual or businesses has "discriminated" based on "sexual orientation or gender identity."

Sponsored by the grossly-misnamed Human Rights Campaign special interest group, HR 3185 is breathtaking in its scope. It would allow gay and lesbian activists to persecute Americans in virtually every area of society — in employment, public accommodations, housing, credit, and a dozen other areas of civil life. Wherever federal law prohibits racial discrimination, it would also prohibit "discrimination" based on "sexual orientation and gender identity."

The legislation puts in the crosshairs anyone who believes God created people male and female. It would declare that a traditional view of human sexuality is hateful and bigoted and treat Christians, Jews and other people of faith just as the law treats racists. HR 3185 specifically denies someone who has been targeted the ability to rely on the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense against the complaint of discrimination.

Defend Those of Faith Today!

Americans across the land are witnessing the persecution of wedding professionals who are being forced by homosexual activists to participate in same-sex ceremonies even though doing so violates their deeply held religious beliefs concerning marriage. Bakers, photographers, florists, inn keepers and others have been persecuted, sued and fined simply because they do not wish to personally participate in a gay 'wedding.' HR 3185 will extend this persecution far beyond the wedding industry and will impact Americans in virtually every area of life.

Under HR 3185, all that a gay, lesbian or transgendered person needs to do is allege that an individual or business has somehow discriminated based on sexual orientation or gender identity and the full force of the federal government can be brought down on the person accused.

Just imagine how this proposed law would be used. Virtually any time a LGBT person feels they have been discriminated against they would be able to pursue a special legal claim using the force of the federal government as a powerful stick to punish people.

What lies "beyond marriage equality" is persecution. And that's what HR 3185 should be called — The Persecution of Americans Act.

Please act today to help us defeat HR 3185. Click here to send a message to your federal representatives asking them to vote against this dangerous proposal that will result in rampant persecution of Americans in virtually every area of civil life.

It is imperative that members of Congress hear immediately that the American people will not tolerate the creation of powerful special rights for one segment of society, and allow them to use the power of the federal government to persecute anyone who disagrees with them.

Please act today to stop HR 3185

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — Please help us defeat HR 3185 by making a much-needed financial contribution. The backers of this outrageous legislation expect that NOM will not have the resources to mount an effective fight. Please prove them wrong with your gift of $5, $10, $25, $50 or $100 or more. Thank you.


Donate Today

Help Us Protect People of Faith By Enacting the First Amendment Defense Act



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Now that the US Supreme Court has illegitimately redefined marriage, it's open season on Christians and other people of faith who continue to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Supporters of marriage across the country have been charged by governmental entities with "discrimination" and subsequently fined, shamed and punished. In Washington, the state Attorney General is suing a 70-year old grandmother simply because she didn't want to personally participate in arranging flowers for a gay 'wedding' because doing so violates her religious beliefs. He has threatened her with financial ruin unless she agrees to apologize, change her ways and pay a fine. Across the border in Oregon, the state has fined two Christian bakers $135,000 because they did not want to bake a cake celebrating a gay 'wedding' even though same-sex 'marriage' was illegal in Oregon at the time.

These are not isolated incidents. Photographers, inn keepers, printers and others have similarly been hit with charges of "discrimination," then hauled before governmental entities and hit with large fines and punishments.

As bad as these things are at the state level, the biggest potential for abuse lies with the federal government which can exercise phenomenal power to attempt to force marriage supporters to abandon their viewpoints or risk punitive measures. Nonprofit groups like NOM or charities representing religious groups could be stripped of their tax exemption. Religious schools could be denied accreditation. Adoption agencies could have their licenses revoked. Charitable and social welfare groups could be put out of business unless they change their polices and positions. The potential ways that the Obama Administration could punish supporters of marriage are virtually limitless.

That is why it is critical that Congress enact the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, HR 2802) which prohibits the federal government from taking any adverse action against any individual or organization for their support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For example, it would prohibit the government from going after a minister or church for refusing to officiate a same-sex 'wedding.'

Please help us enact this critical legislation by making a contribution of $15, $25, $35, $50, $75 or $100 or more.

I'll make a quick donation of $15.

I'll make a quick donation of $25.

I'll make a quick donation of $35.

I'll make a quick donation of $50.

I'll make a quick donation of $75.

I'll make a quick donation of $100 or more.

Public opinion polls show that the American public overwhelmingly agrees with us that nobody should be forced against their will to support same-sex 'marriage'. They agree that it is wrong for government to punish people simply for believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

We have a limited amount of time to pass this important legislation before partisan politics results in gridlock in Washington. Fortunately, we have already made great progress in advancing the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA).

The Senate version of FADA, S. 1598 authored by Utah Senator Mike Lee, has 36 Senate cosponsors. The House version, HR 2802 authored by Idaho Representative Raul Labrador, currently has 142 cosponsors. That means that over 40% of the entire Congress is officially supporting this critical legislation — an impressive accomplishment!

Despite this high degree of Congressional support, enactment of FADA will take a fierce fight. NOM must raise $100,000 immediately to mount a full court blitz to pass this legislation.

We are counting on your help!

Fortunately, several of our best supporters have recognized the importance of protecting people of faith and they have joined together to match your donation to NOM dollar for dollar up to $250,000. They realize that we must capitalize on the momentum we have built and ensure once and for all that nobody will be targeted by the federal government ever again simply because they support traditional marriage. That means there has never been a better time to support NOM. Not only will we put your donation immediately to use in defense of religious liberty by pushing for enactment of the First Amendment Defense Act, but every dollar you give will be doubled!

I'll make a quick donation of $15 which will be matched dollar for dollar.

I'll make a quick donation of $25 which will be matched dollar for dollar.

I'll make a quick donation of $35 which will be matched dollar for dollar.

I'll make a quick donation of $50 which will be matched dollar for dollar.

I'll make a quick donation of $75 which will be matched dollar for dollar.

I'll make a quick donation of $100 or more which will be matched dollar for dollar.

Back when the US Supreme Court issued a similarly illegitimate decision when they forced abortion on the nation in their infamous Roe v Wade ruling, at least the government did not attempt to force every American to support abortion or risk punishment. In fact, Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment which for decades protected those who oppose abortion by preventing taxpayer money to be used to fund abortions.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the illegitimate ruling redefining marriage. Today, powerful governmental officials are prepared to wield all the levers of government to force every American, charity and religious group to support same-sex 'marriage' or risk their livelihood.

The First Amendment Defense Act is the Hyde Amendment of the marriage issue. It will protect people of faith from being forced to be involved in supporting this illegitimate attempt by the Supreme Court to redefine marriage.

Please help us protect American families and the religious and charitable institutions they treasure by making a generous financial contribution to NOM today.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — Please don't forget that your contribution will be doubled as a result of a much-needed matching program offered by some of our best donors. Your gift of $25 will result in a $50 donation; your gift of $50 will mean that NOM receives $100, money that will immediately go to fighting for the religious liberty rights of individuals and groups who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Donate Today

The Pendulum Is Moving

David French writes at National Review that three national polls show Americans rejecting the ruling of the US Supreme Court that purported to redefine marriage, and that support for same-sex ‘marriage’ is dropping. He attributes this in part to the behavior of same-sex ‘marriage’ supporters – “social justice warriors”– whom he says in the wake of the Supreme Court decision “proceeded to act like hectoring, condescending, arrogant scolds — loudly and publicly, day after day.” As published in National Review:

ThinkstockPhotos-186354183The Social Justice Warriors forgot that most Americans just don’t like mean people. And in one two-week span of American life, millions of SJWs helpfully and unmistakably labeled themselves with their rainbow profile pictures, then proceeded to act like hectoring, condescending, arrogant scolds — loudly and publicly, day after day. They were mean. They mocked Christians, celebrated the plight of a Christian baker’s family as it faced financial ruin for refusing to facilitate a gay wedding, and kept pointing at the Supreme Court and the White House as if they represented some sort of cosmic scoreboard — as if the only response for conservatives was to take their ball, slink away, and go home.

. . .

A generation ago, the social-justice Left tried its best to silence the pro-life movement — to treat the very utterance of pro-life sentiment as an affront against women. They failed, utterly. Pro-life speech is still of course constitutionally protected, and the pro-life movement is arguably stronger than it’s ever been. Indeed, it’s just received an incalculable boost through videos that show Planned Parenthood being Planned Parenthood. Unable to learn, the social-justice Left is going back to the old, failed playbook of the 1990s — trying its best to silence cultural conservatives on marriage – and in so doing they are once again showing their totalitarian colors. Once again, they’re being mean. Americans don’t like mean.

The mere act of engaging the Social Justice Warriors is a win. Your words have the chance to persuade, and their overreaction has a chance to repel. So speak merrily, conservative friends, and reap the benefits of liberal rage.

When honest people see the anti-marriage agenda exposed for its foulness, they will flock even faster to the side of truth. As the polls indicate, this is already happening. Clearly, the fight is not over; we must continue to stand and fight for the truth about marriage: the union of one man and one woman.

Please see National Review for the full article.

White House Witness: Protect Every Child's Right to a Mom and Dad

Join the National Organization for Marriage as we gather in front of the White House to pray the Rosary on August 15th from 10am-12pm. The purpose of this event is to give witness to the nation the glory of God's plan for marriage through prayer, fasting & sacrifice.

Our goal is to have at least 500 men (and women) gathered in front of the White House to show our support for the belief that every child has the right to a mother and a father.

Please see White House Witness for more details. We hope you can make it!

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Redefining Marriage Puts All Children at Risk

Our culture has become one focused on satisfying adult desires, no matter the cost. The recent Planned Parenthood scandal reinforces this fact, but its existence is not the cause. Of course, selling baby body parts is disgusting and an egregious offense against humanity, but it can only exist if people want it to exist. And we, as a culture, do.

ThinkstockPhotos-79072286American culture has left chastity by the wayside, thus endangering the lives of the unborn. This first surfaced in the divorce culture, then in the acceptance of abortion, and now in the legalization of same-sex marriage. Ryan T. Anderson explains this progression:

Adults must have what they want, including children. If those children cannot be conceived through a natural act of love, they must be manufactured. Far more children will be destroyed than will be born, of course, but we have decided that adult desires come first.

Giving people the right to get what they want, even a baby, sounds like an expansion of freedom. But it’s not. Activities that were once prohibited are now acceptable, protected, and even privileged. The Supreme Court ensured the legalization of contraception and abortion, for example. And now the government mandates that other people promote them. Obamacare requires employers to provide free contraception and abortifacients, and the State of California and the District of Columbia are attempting to require insurance coverage of elective surgical abortion.

ThinkstockPhotos-100614973Children should be conceived within a relationship that will provide them with the love and care of the man and woman who gave them life. The unborn child has a right to life, yes, but also deserves a mother and father, and where possible the mother and father who brought the child into being. Because of human frailty, it isn’t always possible for a child to be raised in his natural family, but that should be the ideal to which our policy aspires. And we should never intentionally deprive a child of such an upbringing. And yet redefining marriage does precisely that. That’s another reason why Justice Kennedy got the case so wrong.

The only way to ensure the safety of our children is to give them a family--a mother and a father, to love and care for them.

To read Ryan Anderson’s full article, please visit Town Hall.

NOM President Brian Brown Speaks at The FAMiLY Leadership Summit

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, recently joined Republican presidential candidates and conservative luminaries in addressing the 2,500 activists who attended the FAMiLY LEADER’s Family Leadership Summit, which NOM was proud to co-sponsor. In his interview, Brown discussed the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, and counseled conservatives on what to do next.

Brian-Brown (1)Speaking out against the current judicial tyranny ruling America, Brown outlined four key points of action for conservatives in the wake of the Supreme Court’s unjust decision:

1. We must affirm that marriage is the lifelong bond between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation.

2. We must reject the Supreme Court’s decision vehemently in the public square. Pastors must speak out against gay marriage, average people must discuss traditional marriage at the workplace, and lawmakers must fight to repeal the Court’s decision.

3. We must overturn this decision. This point is a particularly daunting task. In the upcoming election we need to elect a president who will champion the cause for the family, and work to overturn this decision within the next election cycle.

4. Until we overturn Obergefell, we must contain the effects of the decision. There are a number of ways to contain the effects of the ruling, including FADA, a bill that guarantees first amendment rights.

Brown ended on an optimistic note, saying never to give up hope; all things are possible with God. He then said that we should be glad that we are to be persecuted—for we have an extraordinary opportunity to stand up for truth.

Watch Brian Brown’s full video interview below:

FLS15-Brown from The Family Leadership Summit on Vimeo.

After Obergefell, Support for Same-sex "Marriage" Drops

As a recent AP-GFK polls shows, 41% of Americans now disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, while only 39% support the decision. As Brietbart reports, when it comes to same-sex marriage conflicting with religious liberty, the numbers are of an even greater difference:

The AP poll reveals that 42% of Americans favor legal gay marriage, while a similar poll carried out last April showed 48% in favor. Moreover, in conflicts between the interests of same-sex couples and those of religious liberty, a majority of Americans (56%) believe that government should rule in favor of religious freedom.

ThinkstockPhotos-521108245The issue of religious freedom seems to be the deciding factor in this turn in opinion. Americans do not like to see their fellow citizens mistreated and harassed by the government for committing no wrong save the crime of having moral convictions. In the past months, wedding related businesses and judges have suffered for holding to their belief in traditional marriage, causing outrage across the country. The AP’s report reflects this fact:

Specifically, more Americans believe that local officials with religious objections should be exempted from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 49% siding with the exemption and 47% saying they should be obliged to comply with the law. Moreover, an increasing number of U.S. citizens believe that wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples. Whereas in April 52% thought they should be accorded this option, the number was up to 59% in the recent poll.

“What the Supreme Court did is jeopardize our religious freedoms,” said Michael Boehm, 61, an industrial controls engineer from the Detroit area who describes himself as a conservative-leaning independent.

“You’re going to see a conflict between civil law and people who want to live their lives according to their faiths,” Boehm said.

The poll was conducted in the aftermath of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, in which the Supreme Court erasing state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, effectively making same-sex marriage the law of the land.

Americans will not let the forces of injustice trample upon them. We must never compromise our core beliefs. We must always stand up for truth. The Obergefell decision attacks among other things, the institution of the family, marriage, and religious freedom; the Obergefell decision will not stand.

See Breitbart for more.

Brian Brown: America Needs a Leader Who Will Protect the Family

In the coming election, America needs a candidate willing to stand up for truth. The DNC has failed America in this respect; the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage under the Obama administration has incontrovertibly proved that.

When we turn to the GOP though, we are met with an alarming lack of leadership on social issues. Two top presidential candidates, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, have both remained relatively silent on the marriage decision. Brian Brown, The National Organization for Marriage’s president, reflects:

ThinkstockPhotos-532747033The battle against abortion and same-sex marriage has turned into an all out war for the soul of the country, between those who believe in religious liberty and those who want to trample it.

With this Supreme Court decision, many in the movement, including pastors and priests, believe they will be forced to risk their personal freedom with persecution, possible jail time, or even martyrdom.

The 2016 presidential campaign will be long and difficult. This decision by two of the top-tier candidates to duck one of the most controversial and important issues of our time shows they are not ready to fight for the principles conservatives expect and demand of their candidates.

In the 2016 presidential election, the National Organization for Marriage will only support a leader, someone who will fight for marriage, in spite of a court’s decision.

See Fox News for Brian Brown’s full analysis.

The Nation Refuses to Accept Supreme Redefinition of Marriage



Marriage Supporter,

Not Accepted

Ruther Bader Ginsburg was wrong. Justice Ginsburg violated judicial ethics when she gave a media interview presaging her vote to redefine marriage (even before the case was briefed or argued) in which she outrageously predicted that the Supreme Court decision imposing same-sex 'marriage' would be readily accepted by the country. The evidence that the country is not embracing this ruling mounts every day.

A nationwide survey of voters conducted by Reuters found that only 51% of Americans support same-sex 'marriage' following the Supreme Court ruling — a considerably smaller percentage than many national polls found prior to the ruling — and nearly two thirds of Republicans oppose the Supreme Court decision. Reuters noted that this will likely ensure that opposition to the Supreme Court ruling will be a pivotal issue in the selection of the Republican presidential nominee.

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Solidly Reject SCOTUS Ruling

Almost without exception, the Republican candidates running for president have roundly criticized the Supreme Court for its ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage.' Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum have been particularly critical, and have called for a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage. Even moderates like Governor Chris Christie have taken the Court to task for their illegitimate ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage' on the nation.

Santorum Keynotes NOM Gala; Signs Presidential Marriage Pledge

Sen. Rick Santorum gave the keynote address to NOM's Second Annual Marriage Gala in Washington, DC on July 2nd. Sen. Santorum ripped the US Supreme Court for their illegitimate ruling and pledged as president to work to reverse it, saying "this will not stand," bringing the crowd of nearly 400 people to their feet.

NOM's Marriage Gala is an opportunity to bring together many of our strongest supporters from throughout the country to hear from NOM's team of leaders, including our Chairman, John Eastman, and Co-Founder, Professor Robert George. In addition to hearing from Senator Santorum, who received NOM's prestigious Marriage Champion Award in recognition of his steadfast support for traditional marriage and his work helping NOM in its earliest days, NOM also honored Sherif Girgis with the Public Square Leadership Award. Mr. Girgis, a Rhodes Scholar, is the co-author (with Robby George and Ryan Anderson) of the book "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense."

It was announced at the Gala that Sen. Santorum has become the first 2016 presidential candidate to sign NOM's Presidential Marriage Pledge, promising to take specific actions as president to restore traditional marriage and protect supporters of marriage against attempts to marginalize and punish them.

Sign the People's Marriage Pledge Today!

NOM expects a number of other candidates to join Sen. Santorum as signatories of the Presidential Marriage Pledge in coming days.

NOM Unveils Five Point Plan

The Marriage Gala also served as the venue for NOM to unveil our five-part plan to mitigate the damage of the Supreme Court ruling and to work to reverse it. Our plan includes:

  1. Elect a pro-marriage President of the United States in 2016.
  2. Hold the Republican Party and its representatives accountable to the American people when it comes to marriage.
  3. Ensure Congress and state Legislatures move swiftly to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to prevent any government agency from discriminating against people or institutions that believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
  4. Build and strengthen a grassroots pro-marriage movement.
  5. Support actions to amend the Constitution to repeal this illegitimate decision by a bare majority of justices.

Alabama Supreme Court Asked To Reject SCOTUS Ruling

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage,' the Alabama Supreme Court was a forceful defender of its state's citizens, refusing to permit local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite orders of a federal judge to do so. Lead by Chief Justice Roy Moore, the state's highest court ruled that a lower federal court judge lacked the authority to impose an order on the state since the US Supreme Court had previously ruled that there was no federal constitutional right to gay 'marriage.' Now that the SCOTUS ruling has been issued reversing their prior ruling and imposing gay 'marriage' on the nation, the Alabama Supreme Court has invited parties involved in the state marriage litigation to submit briefs advising the state how to respond.

In response to the request, Liberty Counsel has filed a brief with the state Supreme Court suggesting that they ignore the US Supreme Court ruling because it is unlawful and lacks constitutional legitimacy. Liberty Counsel's brief points out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Dred Scott case, which said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens. The organization asked the Alabama Supreme Court to similarly resist compliance with the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, saying "A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen."

Judges, Clerks and Citizens Resist SCOTUS Ruling

State judges and clerks across the country are refusing to participate in giving legitimacy to the US Supreme Court's lawless ruling. A state judge in Ohio, C. Allen McConnell, recently refused to participate in a same-sex 'marriage' because doing so violates his personal and religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that Texas must "act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans" and must "immediately do anything we can to help our County Clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the Court's ruling."

Numerous County Clerks in Kentucky and other states have refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples, saying that doing so violates their religious beliefs.

Support Grows For First Amendment Defense Act

The proposed First Amendment Defense Act is generating significant support. Yesterday the House Freedom Caucus called on the House leadership to schedule a vote on the legislation before Congress leaves on its August recess. Currently, 98 members of the House of Representatives have co-sponsored HR 2802, authored by Rep. Raul Labrador, with more representatives signing up daily. In the Senate, 25 Senators have co-sponsored S. 1598, authored by Sen. Mike Lee, including nearly all the Senators who are presidential hopefuls (Cruz, Rubio, and Graham). Rand Paul has not yet co-sponsored the legislation.

Please contact your federal representatives and ask them to co-sponsor and support the First Amendment Defense Act, which will protect supporters of marriage from being punished by the government if they do not embrace the Supreme Court's illegitimate ruling.

Help NOM Today

Many people have written me asking how they can help fight the illegitimate ruling of the Supreme Court. While there are a number of actions that we urge people to take, including supporting the First Amendment Defense Act and signing The People's Marriage Pledge, perhaps the most important thing you can do is make a donation to NOM at this critical time. We are hard at work implementing our five-point plan, but we need to raise several hundred thousand dollars in the next few weeks to keep up our momentum. Please make a gift of $25, $50, $100, or $500 or more to show your support and help us undertake all the efforts that are needed. Working together, we will be successful!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

Our Plan Is Generating Support



Marriage Supporter,

Last week NOM unveiled our five-point plan to fight for marriage at our second annual Marriage Gala held in Washington, DC where Sen. Rick Santorum was our keynote speaker. I was very pleased with the supportive reaction from those in attendance. If you were not able to join us last week, here are the five key elements in our plan:

  1. Electing a Pro-Marriage Republican as President of the United States
  2. Holding the GOP Accountable
  3. Enacting the First Amendment Defense Act to protect the right of supporters of marriage to live their beliefs in the public square
  4. Build the grassroots through education and engagement, helping to rebuild a thriving marriage culture
  5. Lend support to other efforts to amend the constitution to repeal this decision

I am excited to announce that a number of heroic marriage supporters have committed to fight for marriage and we have combined pledges that will match every donation we receive over the next 30 days dollar for dollar up to a total of $250,000! What a great blessing this will be!

Will you please demonstrate your commitment to continue the fight for marriage by making an immediate contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 or more? We have an enormous amount of work to do over the next month and we urgently need your financial assistance today — and your donation will be matched dollar for dollar!

Fight for Marriage — Make an Immediate Contribution

Our plan has two primary objectives. First, in the short term we must protect those who believe in the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman from facing persecution and punishment for upholding their beliefs. Second, we must work over the longer term to reverse the illegitimate ruling of the US Supreme Court redefining marriage.

The five pillars of our plan all tie together to create a comprehensive approach. We will be active in Congress and at the state level; in courts and in the court of public opinion; and in public and behind the scenes.

But all of this depends on you. That's why I am asking you to make an urgent financial contribution today so that we have the resources to carry our plan forward. Remember, any donation you give over the next 30 days will be matched dollar for dollar.

I'll make a quick donation of $10 which means NOM will receive $20.

I'll make a quick donation of $25 which means NOM will receive $50.

I'll make a quick donation of $50 which means NOM will receive $100.

I'll make a quick donation of $100 which means NOM will receive $200.

I'll make a quick donation of $250 which means NOM will receive $500.

I'll make a quick donation of $500 which means NOM will receive $1,000.

I'll make a quick donation of $1,000 which means NOM will receive $2,000.

We expect the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to come up for its first hearing in Congress within the next several weeks and we have a lot to do to push this legislation forward. We need to organize people to contact their federal representatives, aggressively promote the legislation through the media, lobby members of Congress and prepare written materials and testimony.

Why is passing FADA so important? Because now that the Supreme Court has illegitimately redefined marriage for the entire nation, there will be a tremendous push by government to force every individual, business and organization to support it and to change their practices to bow to this new illegitimate understanding of marriage. Examples include stripping churches and religious and pro-family groups of their tax exemptions; denying people and businesses tax deductions, grants and access to federal resources unless they expressly support the new marriage regime; making support of gay 'marriage' a condition of receiving federal contracts or benefits; and pursuing other points of pressure to force compliance.

The Supreme Court's marriage decision has handed the Obama administration a heavy club to pound supporters of true marriage into submission, and you can count on them to use it. In fact, a top administration lawyer has already hinted that the federal government is going to punish people and groups that refuse to embrace same-sex 'marriage.'

The First Amendment Defense Act would stop President Obama and the federal government from taking any adverse action because of an individual's beliefs in support of maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Aaron and Melissa Klein know how the power of government can be brought to bear against supporters of marriage. When they declined to bake a cake for a same-sex 'marriage' ceremony, the state of Oregon found them guilty of discrimination and has fined them $135,000. Keep in mind that at the time the couple declined to participate in this ceremony, same-sex 'marriage' was illegal in Oregon. Now that the Supreme Court has imposed it on the entire country, imagine what will occur. This is why we need FADA to be enacted not only at the federal level but in every state as well.

Please help us protect supporters of marriage from government punishment and harassment by making an urgent financial contribution of whatever you can afford — $10, $25, $50, $100, $250 or $500 or more. And remember, your donation will be matched dollar for dollar by some of our best supporters.

Your Donation Will be Matched Dollar for Dollar!

We have already been working hard to implement our five-point plan. We're working to give presidential candidates the opportunity to sign our presidential pledge, engaging the American people in signing The People's Marriage Pledge, working behind the scenes to ensure that candidates are asked to support marriage when they campaign in key states, and pushing critical legislation in Congress and state Legislatures.

If you are like me, then your first reaction to the Supreme Court decision was probably great disappointment. But that quickly turned to anger and a renewed commitment to fight for what is just and true — preserving marriage as God designed it and as it has existed throughout the history of our nation and, indeed, civilization. I am not going to let the Supreme Court get away with what they've done and we have a plan to fix it.

I am counting on you to join me. Please make a donation today.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

The Awakening of the Silent Majority: First on Abortion, Next on Marriage

In spite of the fact that SCOTUS has failed the American people by choosing not to protect the institution of the family, marriage supporters have every reason to keep up the fight — just examine the pro-life movement.

The history of the pro-life movement demonstrates that Roe v. Wade did not at all end the war about abortion. Rather, Roe v. Wade stirred the pot, and awakened the silent pro-life majority. What is more, Roe v. Wade successfully showed apathetic civilians the true horrors of abortion, and brought more people to the pro-life movement than there had ever been before.

ThinkstockPhotos-153902795Obergefell v. Hodges is poised to do the exact same favors for the pro-marriage movement. Through a historical study of the pro-life movement, Michael J. New demonstrates why, despite popular opinion being contrariwise, the pro-marriage movement has every hope of becoming stronger:

Someone analyzing the GSS in 1975 might have gotten the impression that in the pro-choice position lay America’s future. In fact, countless surveys showed that young adults were far more likely to support legal abortion than the elderly. But someone analyzing the GSS forty years later could be excused for drawing a very different conclusion. Indeed, the GSS shows that young adults are actually the most pro-life age demographic. Supporters of traditional marriage should take comfort in this fact; it is reasonable to hope that the marriage situation—both culturally and legally—will improve, grim as the present outlook might seem.

The supporter of male-female marriage should draw three important lessons from these four decades of GSS survey data. First—and unsurprisingly—people often change their opinions over the course of their lifetimes; people become more “pro-choice” during their 30s and more “pro-life” during their 50s. This point coheres with the truism, supported by other significant research, that people often become more conservative with age.

Second, national opinion trends can change as well. For instance, one can see from the GSS that, in the 1990s, the debate over partial-birth abortion increased pro-life sentiment among nearly all demographic groups. Other surveys show that during that time period, a higher percentage of Americans came to consider abortion morally wrong, and believed that abortion should be banned in all circumstances. A September 1995 Gallup poll showed that only 33 percent of Americans identified as “pro-life.” That figure reached 51 percent in a Gallup poll taken in May 2009.

Third—and this is the most important—there can be surprising shifts in opinion even within demographic groups. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the GSS survey results consistently revealed that eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds were more supportive of legal abortion than was any other age cohort. But starting around the year 2000, this group became the most pro-life age cohort—more pro-life, even, than senior citizens.

What caused these unexpected shifts in public opinion on the abortion issue? The political pundits of the seventies foresaw neither the reality of legal abortion in the United States nor the effectiveness of incremental pro-life legislation.

. . .

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, no one could have predicted the developments that shifted public opinion in a more pro-life direction. Abortion opinion trends during the past forty years should offer some reassurance to supporters of traditional marriage. It’s hard to anticipate how reality will turn around and confront public opinion, but the truth often has a way of revealing itself. Demography today is not necessarily destiny tomorrow.

To read the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

All Dissenting Voices Must Be Silenced: SSM Erodes Free Speech

In a fiery article featured on Breitbart, John Nolte pens a loaded opinion piece, that comments on the recent developments in one of the infamous “wedding cake” episodes. Aaron and Melissa Klein have been not only unjustly fined for invoking their religious rights, but they have been ordered to remain silent after trying to speak up about the discrimination they have faced from the state, and from the proponents of “tolerance” - the same-sex marriage agenda:

ThinkstockPhotos-517523279A judge in Oregon has issued a gag order denying two Christian bakery owners from speaking out against same sex marriage.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” [Administrative Law Judge Alan] Avakian wrote.

The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.

Towards the end of the article, John Nolte gives a terse summary of how quickly religious rights and free speech have been eroded and slashed with the onset of the same-sex marriage movement. Consider their arguments through the years:

1995: We don’t want marriage, just civil unions.

2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.

2014: Bake me a cake, or else.

2015: Your opinion against same sex marriage is illegal.

The same-sex marriage agenda may believe they have scored a victory, but Americans don’t take being tread on lightly. We expect these types of attacks against American principles will awaken the silent majority to demand action protecting their rights.

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.