NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Featured

Check Out Our New Website!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today I'll be brief and to the point: I am happy to announce, new for the new year, that NOM's website has gotten a makeover!

We've been working hard at rolling out this redesign, and I hope that this new site will enable NOM to serve you and all our constituents better in 2014 and in all the marriage battles ahead.

Of course, as with everything NOM does, this has been only made possible through your generosity and financial support. From the bottom of my heart, I give you my thanks.

Due you your generosity, NOM met our fundraising goal to close 2013 and completed our million dollar matching campaign! It came right down to the wire, but your generous giving enabled us to raise the $1 million just in time and to have the full amount matched by our generous donor's pledge! So now — all thanks to you! — NOM heads into this critical year with $2 million that will help us give marriage the defense it needs and deserves!

In addition to checking out the new NationForMarriage.org sometime today, here are two other things you can do for marriage in America:

First, if you haven't done so already, please sign our new petition to the U.S. Congress calling for marriage to be protected through an amendment to the Constitution. (If you want to read more about this new initiative, click here.)

This petition is vitally important and opportune. We've seen, from the stunning decision by the Supreme Court this week to reinstate Utah's marriage amendment, that the question of marriage is still very much up for grabs! So we need to capitalize on this newfound momentum and urge Congress today to protect marriage once and for all with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution!

Second, if you live in Indiana, or if you have friends and family that do, please make sure you or they visit this important action notice, and take the steps to contact the Indiana legislature today. We're urging them to pass the proposed marriage amendment there and put it on the ballot for the state's voters in November!

Again, I cannot express how grateful I am for you and all of NOM's great supporters: you really are the best!

God bless you for all you do to stand up and fight for marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

National Organization for Marriage Commends US Supreme Court for Staying Utah Federal Judge's Ruling Redefining Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 6, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless, and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today commended the US Supreme Court for staying the decision of Utah federal judge Robert Shelby which invalidated the state's definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The stay will prevent further same-sex 'marriages' from being performed and allows the higher courts to consider Utah's appeal of the ruling in a deliberate and thorough fashion.

"It was outrageous that this brazen judge appointed by President Obama would substitute his views for the sovereign decision made by both the Utah Legislature and the people of the state, who voted overwhelmingly in favor of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless, and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion."

Judge Shelby, appointed to the bench by President Obama, issued his decision late on a Friday afternoon during the holidays, and refused to stay it to allow the state to appeal the ruling. Shelby justified his decision in part by speculating that a majority of the US Supreme Court would agree to redefine marriage, something they specifically declined to do in 2013 when they considered two cases before them on the issue. Instead, the majority in the Supreme Court ruled that states do in fact have the power to define marriage, a finding that Shelby twisted to justify his rewriting Utah's marriage laws.

"The actions of this activist judge are an affront to the rule of law and the sovereign rights of the people of Utah to define marriage," Brown said. "Shelby has attempted to twist what the Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor decision - that states have the right to define marriage - and turn it into the exact opposite conclusion. It's gratifying that the US Supreme Court has decided to stop this nonsense and allow the state of Utah the time to reverse it on appeal."

Brown noted that no matter how this case is decided, it highlights the need to preserve marriage in the US Constitution. "Everyone in America should be concerned to see how easily activist judges can cavalierly toss out the will of overwhelming majorities of legislators and voters alike. It's becoming increasingly clear that the people of America need to reclaim their sovereignty and amend the US Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

###

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

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

National Organization for Marriage Decries “In Your Face” Gay ‘Marriage’ Event at Rose Parade

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 30, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


“The decision to allow two gay couples to ‘marry’ on a float during the Rose Parade denigrates this once family-friendly event.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

“Former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome once famously said of gay ‘marriage,’ ‘This door’s wide open now; it’s going to happen whether you like it or not.’

“Unfortunately, his words have proven to be all too true. The decision to allow two gay couples to ‘marry’ on a float during the Rose Parade denigrates this once family-friendly event. It’s another ‘in your face’ example that should serve as a teachable moment for the American people. Once marriage is redefined to make it genderless, this perverse construct of ‘marriage’ is forced on everyone. Just as unsuspecting children watching the Rose Parade will be exposed to the spectacle of men ‘marrying’ men with the attendant public hugging and kissing, so too will American children be told in school that marriage as the union of one man and one woman is bigoted and discriminatory. Those who think that the ongoing marriage debate doesn’t affect them should rethink their position. Once marriage is redefined to make it genderless, it’s going to be foisted on every American no matter the historic truth of marriage. The record is replete with examples of people who have been punished for refusing to support genderless marriage. At least with the Rose Parade, parents watching on television are forewarned and can simply change the channel – although families who long ago made plans to travel to the event will have to either abandon their plans or be forced to endure this political spectacle. We urge Americans to demand that their political leaders change the legal channel to make sure true marriage is protected and preserved.”

###

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

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

Hope: Virtue of the Victorious, NOM Marriage News

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I've been reflecting on the virtue of Hope this Christmas Season, often referred to as a "season of hope" — especially as I was reading, hearing and watching some of the news in the days leading up to the celebration of Our Lord's birth. It was less than hopeful.

Of course, the days surrounding the historical birth of Christ probably didn't look hopeful to the people living at that time. Then, as now, required looking at things a bit differently: looking at the events of this world with the clarity provided by the eyes of Faith.

We had a recent and powerful manifestation of Faith and Hope in the case of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson. The reaction of his fans and supporters, not to mention his family, to the way Phil and his Faith was viciously targeted by the homosexual lobby were beacons of Hope.

The outpouring of support for Phil has been stupendous, and signatures to our petition for A&E to apologize and reinstate Phil continue to pour in — currently at more than 60,000!

If you haven't yet signed our petition, please do so today... and share this message with your family and friends.

Hope Must Be Shared

Hope necessarily drew the Wise Men from the East to glorify the newly born Savior... but the people of Bethlehem didn't see that — they only saw the vindictive and brutal retaliation of King Herod.

You and I are often very much like those poor townsfolk, who see only the brutality without seeing the underlying magnificence of God's blessings.

These days, to watch the news you might wonder if there's any decency or morality left in America. But you and I both know that's because the news presents a distorted and unbalanced picture of things.

We've seen first-hand these past couple weeks that an enormous but too-often silent majority of Americans still stand for the same values and beliefs you and I hold so dear. And when they finally speak up, their voice is so loud that even the biased media must take notice.

But what about those other stories that came out several days before Christmas? Where is the hope to be found in them?

In Utah, of course, last Friday an activist judge — appointed to the federal bench by President Obama — brazenly and unilaterally struck down the state's constitutional amendment defending marriage. Then on Tuesday of this week, compounding the problem, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied the state of Utah's request for an injunction against that ruling.

The state had asked for such an injunction until Utah has its day in court to defend the perfectly constitutional and common-sense law that the District Judge Robert Shelby had absurdly ruled against.

But the leaders of Utah remain resolute... and this is our signal of hope. The Governor and other public officials have condemned the district judge's ruling that creates a constitutional crisis and overrides the will of both Utah's citizens and legislature.

We're encouraging Governor Gary Herbert to continue standing strong, thanking him for his critical leadership and asking that he continue doing all he can to defend marriage from this latest attack by a federal judge. Please sign the letter of support and encouragement to Governor Herbert today, and share this second message of Hope with your friends and family as well.

Utah wasn't the last place we got bad news from over the past few days. Just days before Christmas, in Ohio, another federal judge named Timothy Black issued a narrow ruling on Ohio's law defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

While the narrow ruling only immediately applied to situations involving the listing of a spouse on a death certificate and orders state officials to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses for that purpose, it still undermines Ohio's marriage law in a dangerous and irresponsible way. Particularly egregious is the reasoning outlined in the written decision from Judge Black which is far from narrow and completely misreads and manipulates the Supreme Court's decision on DOMA last summer which affirmed the right of states to determine their own marriage laws.

So what about this other case of 'vetoing the voters' from the bench? Where can we possibly look there to find another message of Hope this Christmas season?

Well, that brings me back to what I said at the outset: sometimes finding Hope requires looking with eyes of Faith.

The Hope I hold onto in the case of Ohio is the same Hope I have for our whole country and indeed our whole world. It is, in fact, the very Hope of Christmas itself. And that's the true and profound message of Hope I want to share today.

I was struck by the narrative of Christmas in the Gospel this year by one phrase, in fact one word: "... suddenly there was a great multitude of the heavenly host, glorifying God." Suddenly.

Those shepherds weren't even expecting one angel: can you imagine their surprise when a host of them appeared?

But even that pales in comparison with the surprise of the Babe in the manger itself: when suddenly, with the miraculous birth of Jesus, "the light shone in the darkness," like a bolt of lightning when He entered our world.

The point is... it has happened before. Hope can come suddenly in the most unlooked for and unlikely event. It has happened in the great events of history, but we've all known it to happen in our own lives at various times. Christmas reminds us of this: that hope springs eternal.

So, there's a message of Hope this Christmas. It's a paradox, really. We see and recognize darkness: but we see it, through eyes of Faith, as a place where light might suddenly shine. May we do everything in our power to help, and never to hinder, that light.

Merry Christmas!

Faithfully, and hopefully,

Brian S. Brown

P.S.: I mentioned in closing that there's a part we have to play in bringing His light to the darkness. With that in mind, here is something you can do to help us extend this hope to everyone in America: make a generous, year-end gift of any amount, knowing that your donation will be matched, dollar-for-dollar by a generous supporter.

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Ohio Court Ruling Ignoring State's Definition of Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 23, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Though seemingly confined to how Ohio's death certificates treat so-called same-sex 'marriages' performed elsewhere, the ruling is utterly unlawful and violates the sovereignty of the people of Ohio. We call on the state to appeal the ruling of this activist judge." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned a federal court ruling in Ohio that purports to force the state to list same-sex couples as 'married' on state death certificates in violation of the state constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, a provision overwhelmingly adopted by voters in 2004.

"Though seemingly confined to how Ohio's death certificates treat so-called same-sex 'marriages' performed elsewhere, the ruling is utterly unlawful and violates the sovereignty of the people of Ohio. We call on the state to appeal the ruling of this activist judge," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president.

NOM particularly condemned the statement by Judge Timothy Black that it is the responsibility of judges like him to implement the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Windsor vs. United States case that struck down one section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Black was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama, who supports redefining marriage.

"In the DOMA case, the US Supreme Court specifically ruled that it is the right of the states to define marriage," Brown said. "This activist judge is grossly twisting the Court's ruling in the DOMA case in order to justify a ruling that is completely at odds with the law. In the process, he has issued an open invitation for gay marriage activists to bring a wider lawsuit to redefine marriage entirely. This cannot be allowed to stand."

###

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

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

National Organization for Marriage Calls on Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to Issue Emergency Stay Halting Utah Same-sex Marriage Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 23, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"It is patently wrong and unjust that the people of Utah should lose their right to define marriage because of the ruling of a single Obama appointee to the federal bench. We call on the Tenth Circuit to grant an immediate stay." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to issue an immediate stay of the decision issued late Friday by circuit Judge Robert Shelby invalidating Utah's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, adopted by nearly two-thirds of state voters, and imposing same-sex marriage on the state. This morning Shelby, an appointee of President Obama, denied the state's request to stay his decision.

"It is patently wrong and unjust that the people of Utah should lose their right to define marriage because of the ruling of a single Obama appointee to the federal bench," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president. "This decision provokes a constitutional crisis. Not only is it unlawful, it roils the body politic and does great damage to the people's confidence in the judicial system itself as a lone federal judge attempts to usurp the sovereignty of the state. We call on the Tenth Circuit to grant an immediate stay so that our higher courts can carefully and thoughtfully consider the profoundly important issues raised by this case."

Judge Shelby justified his decision issued late on Friday in part by speculating that a majority of the US Supreme Court would agree to redefine marriage, something they specifically declined to do in 2013 when they considered two cases before them on the issue. Instead, the majority in the Supreme Court ruled that states do in fact have the power to define marriage.

"It's outrageous that this judge is ignoring what the US Supreme Court has actually ruled, and instead speculates that they will eventually agree with him that marriage should be redefined to make it genderless and reorient it away from the interests of children and instead make it about providing official recognition of adult sexual relationships," Brown said. "This judicial activism must be stopped."

###

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

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

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Ruling by Utah Judge Redefining Marriage and Overriding the Will of the People

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"This ruling should concern every American who cares about the rights of citizens and their involvement in determining the laws that govern us. This trend of vetoing the voters from the bench must be stopped." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the December 20th decision by a federal district court judge in Utah which overruled the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Justice Robert Shelby wrote in his decision that even though the majority opinion in the Windsor case overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act specifically stated that it was up to the states to define marriage, he believes the Court will find in the future that marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, and thus Shelby invalidated Utah's amendment in anticipation of such a future ruling.

"This ruling is a travesty of justice," said Brian Brown, NOM President. "The voters of Utah made their will in this matter perfectly clear less than 10 years ago when adopting an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This ruling should concern every American who cares about the rights of citizens and their involvement in determining the laws that govern us. This trend of vetoing the voters from the bench must be stopped."

NOM commended Utah's Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet for his decision to immediately seek an emergency stay of the decision to facilitate an orderly appeal of the case to the higher courts. Such a move is essential because, according to news reports, immediately following the issuance of Shelby's ruling, clerks in Salt Lake County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the county District Attorney stated that there was no reason to wait to do so.

"We appreciate Attorney General Tarbet's swift action in seeking a stay of this decision and his commitment to appeal the ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals," Brown said. "The rush to issue same-sex ‘marriage' licenses in Salt Lake County before the ink is even dry on Judge Shelby's decision is unseemly and an insult to the people. This is one of the most important issues facing the state and country. The constitution of the United States is not changed because a single judge says it should be. This critical matter needs to be considered by the higher courts immediately."

Brown said that the decision is further evidence that it is time to amend the US Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. "The decision today is remarkable because the judge claims that it's the purview of the state to define marriage, yet he has invalidated their definition of marriage, one overwhelmingly adopted by both the state Legislature and the people of Utah. Everyone in America should be concerned to see how easily activist judges can cavalierly toss out the will of overwhelming majorities of legislators and voters alike. It's becoming increasingly clear that the people of America need to reclaim their sovereignty and amend the US Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

###

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

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

Duck and Cover? NOM Marriage News

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

During the height of the Cold War, the watchword was vigilance. Civil Defense was everyone's responsibility, and the key was to remain vigilant. The specter of nuclear war haunted every facet of life. In schools and workplaces nationwide, drills were held to practice for the event everyone hoped would never happen. Sirens would go off, and children and businessmen alike would crawl under their desks and assume the posture they were told would protect them: duck and cover. It was a culture of vigilance, but also (troublingly) largely a culture of fear as well.

Today, in America, marriage is under attack. The attacks seem to be coming from everywhere. There's definitely a need for the pro-marriage majority, especially people of faith, to remain vigilant. But emphatically this must never mean duck and cover. We can't cower under our desks and live in fear: we need to stand up, boldly, and rally together to face down the attacks. We mustn't be duck and coverers: we must be duck commanders.

Keep Calm and Quack On

I'm alluding, of course, to Phil Robertson. The "Duck Commander" patriarch of the hit reality TV show Duck Dynasty made such an impact in the news this week I know that I don't need to bother recapping.

And hopefully by now you've already signed, and have shared with your family and friends, our petition of support for Phil demanding an apology and his reinstatement from the executives over at A&E. If you haven't already taken action, please do so right away! We need to stand up for Phil's right to express his religious beliefs without being threatened and intimidated or even punished.

It is ludicrous, in America in 2013, that Christians and other people of faith should feel the need to "duck and cover" when it comes to expressing their beliefs, which are protected by the very first clauses of the very first amendment to our Constitution! Of course, that same amendment, in addition to protecting our free exercise of religion, also guarantees us the right of free speech.

That's what our petition in support of Phil is all about. It's not so much about the content of what he said or how he said it, but about his right to say it in the free public square.

Of course, there is an irony to GLAAD raising the war cry, ringing the air raid sirens, in reaction to Phil's words in his G.Q. interview. His words had a certain color some may find offensive, sure. They expressed values and beliefs with which people are free to disagree, absolutely. But for GLAAD, of all groups, to demand for A&E to punish him for these words manifests an irony that would almost be funny if it wasn't so offensive.

The same organization, GLAAD, has awarded and celebrated the gay blogger, Joe Jervis (of the famous gay blog, Joe.My.G*d). Apart from the blasphemous and offensive title of his blog, Jervis makes a living saying hateful things about Christians and others who disagree with his views, and saying them often in a pretty crude and crass manner.

Of course, Jervis is nothing in comparison with Dan Savage, whom we all know well for his hate-filled rants about Christianity (such as his statement that the Bible is "bulls**t"). And guess what? GLAAD has been just as cozy with Savage in the past as well!

It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? An organization which, far from censuring, celebrates gay activists who say the most vile things about Christians and all people of faith, turning around and demanding swift and severe punishment against a Christian man simply for paraphrasing a verse of the Bible and expressing beliefs shared by literally billions of people worldwide!

Of course, GLAAD as an organization awards "journalists" (I use the term loosely) like Jervis and Savage who manifest GLAAD's methods of bullying and intimidation. GLAAD, like its ally HRC, doesn't want a debate on marriage. They don't want to argue on the merits — maybe they know they'll lose? They simply want to intimidate Christians into cowering under their desks, ducking and covering and hoping they won't feel the wrath of the truly intolerant same-sex marriage lobby.

But Phil Robertson won't consent to duck and cover. He won't hide under the desk. He's standing up to GLAAD and to the bullies they ally with and celebrate. And we're standing with him.

And it's good timing, too. Because the sirens are ringing again.

New Kids on the Bloc

This week, in New Mexico, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state's laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman are unconstitutional.

In fact, the radical activists judges on the bench there brought down this decision while the whole social media world was on fire with the story of Phil Robertson and the attacks on his (and, implicitly, on all of our) first amendment rights.

Again, you can't help but note some irony in it all. Here's a court reading a figment into the constitution on the very same day on which our country witnesses one of the most public and sensational attacks on the plain words of the constitution we've seen in a long time.

Of course, this judicial bench has sympathies with the bullying bloc of same-sex marriage radicals, and this isn't the first time the New Mexico Supreme Court has given evidence of those sympathies.

In the case of Elane Photography (which I mentioned in last week's newsletter), this was the same court that opined...

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

I said the sirens were ringing again, and this is what I meant. It's that recurring sound that you know you've heard before and sends a quick chill down your spine, making you shudder. I'll admit, that tone — the tone of intolerance, discrimination, bigotry — which rings in these words can be enough to make you want to duck and cover and hope somehow it just all goes away.

It's the same tone we've seen from the liberal journalists and media, and gay activists on Twitter and Facebook, in responding to Phil Robertson: "Sure, he's allowed to have his opinion. But not in public. Not out in the open. Behind the closed doors of his church, of around his family dinner table (but only after the credits roll, of course)."

In short, it's the message to Christians, people of faith, and everyone who believes in the simple truth about men's and women's complimentary nature as designed by God for their union in marriage: Duck and cover. Go get under your desk. Stay quiet. Or pay the price. The "price of citizenship."

Well, we're not ducking. We're standing up and drowning out this hateful message with an outpouring of support for Phil and for one another. We're letting them hear us, loud and clear — as clear as a duck call rings across a marsh through the fog of a Fall morning.

Stand strong, everyone, in this latest assault. Stand. For marriage, for our first amendment rights, for Phil, and for future generations who will not be consigned to hide under their desks.

Keep calm and carry on.

Sincerely,

Brian S. Brown

P.S.: Please don't forget to sign the petition of support for Phil today! And then, share with all your family and friends. Click here to download a flyer you can share at work or in school, at your place of worship, during a study group or club meeting, or simply hang around town. Let's let the Robertsons and the executives at A&E know that the majority of Americans stand with Phil!

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Activist Court Ruling Redefining Marriage in New Mexico

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Once again activist judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — Reacting to today's ruling of the New Mexico Supreme Court that declared unconstitutional current state marriage laws limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the National Organization for Marriage (http://www.nationformarriage.org) (NOM) released a statement condemning the ruling and calling for a federal law to prevent further radical attacks on marriage nationwide.

"Today's opinion by the New Mexico Supreme Court is disappointing but not surprising. These are the same justices that demanded in an earlier ruling that Christians be the ones to compromise and deny their faith, in the case of Elane Photography. Once again, activists judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico," stated Brian Brown, NOM president. "This is a continuation of a very dangerous rush towards silencing people of faith who simply believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. The National Organization for Marriage will do everything in its power to protect believers of true marriage in New Mexico and around the nation from the fallout of radical judges who deny the truth of marriage."

Brown said that the decision underscores the need for Congress to pass a federal Marriage Protection Amendment. He said that without such an enactment, activist judges around the nation will continue to act unilaterally to redefine marriage, and Brown warned of threats to religious freedom and other first amendment rights which he said always follows in the wake of such decisions.

A federal Marriage Protection Amendment has been proposed by Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, and enjoys support from NOM and many other allied organizations.

###

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

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

National Organization for Marriage Launches Nationwide Petition To Protest A&E's Suspension of Phil Robertson From Duck Dynasty

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"It's truly outrageous and shocking that the A&E Networks succumbed to bullying by homosexual groups, and legitimized it, by suspending Phil Robertson from his own show. This simply cannot be allowed to stand." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today launched a nationwide petition aimed at forcing the A&E Networks to reinstate Phil Robertson to the Duck Dynasty show, and to apologize to him and all people of faith for their incredibly poor decision to suspend him.

"What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality — decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us," said Brian Brown. "But the teaching of Christianity be damned in the eyes of the grossly misnamed Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and their allies. They will brook no objection, tolerate no dissent and accept no disagreement when it comes to their orthodoxy. It's truly outrageous and shocking that the A&E Networks succumbed to bullying by homosexual groups, and legitimized it, by suspending Phil Robertson from his own show. This simply cannot be allowed to stand," said Brian Brown president of NOM.

NOM's petition allows people to contact A&E Networks to demand that Robertson be immediately reinstated. The petition was emailed to 500,000 supporters. It says, "A&E's executives may not believe in the bible, and that is your right. But you have no right to silence the millions of Christians like Phil Robertson who uphold the word of God. You have succumbed to the demands of bullies like the HRC and GLAAD, which is disgraceful for an entity whose very existence depends on the free exchange of ideas."

"This episode sparked by the bigotry of the HRC and GLAAD is a powerful teachable moment for the American people, as they witness on a grand scale the utter intolerance of groups demanding same-sex marriage," said Brian Brown. "They have gone after people of faith all across this country who desire nothing more than to live their faith in the public square. Now they are going after Phil Robertson. If they get away with silencing Phil, nobody is safe from their abject bullying. I hope that the justices of the US Supreme Court are paying attention to what is occurring."

###

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

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

Sign Our Petition to Stand with Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The gay lobby bullies are at it again. This time they've attacked one of the most popular Christians in America — Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty's Robertson family. They are calling him "vile" and say he is pushing "extreme stereotypes" and "lies." The grossly misnamed Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and their Hollywood ally GLAAD have demanded that Phil be punished and, incredibly, Wednesday night A&E succumbed to the gay bullies and suspended Phil Robertson!

What is this man guilty of that would spur such "outrage" and result in him being banned by A&E?

Phil Robertson told GQ magazine he believes that homosexuality is a sin. He says engaging in homosexuality is sinful. He says that "everything is blurred on what's right and wrong...sin becomes fine." He told the magazine (in colorful language) that he doesn't understand why a man would engage in homosexual sex when the beauty of a woman is available. And he also said that he doesn't judge anyone (that is the job of Almighty God, he says), that he loves all people, and that, "I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me."

Well guess what — homosexuality IS a sin in the bible, and virtually every other sacred text out there. Engaging in homosexual sex IS considered by God to be sinful according to the teachings of most religions. And sin is NOT logical. Sin is deceitful, harmful and degrading to the human soul.

What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality — decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us.

But Christianity, and every other major religion, be damned in the eyes of the HRC, GLAAD and their allies. They will brook no objection, tolerate no dissent and accept no disagreement when it comes to their orthodoxy. In their twisted worldview, anyone who dares to speak the truth about homosexuality must be punished and effectively banished from civil society.

They are brutal bullies, plain and simple.

We're not going to take the bullying of Phil Robertson and every other person of faith quietly. Will you join with us and immediately sign our petition demanding that Phil be reinstated with an apology from A&E?

It's important that we get thousands of people to sign our petition to let A&E, Hollywood, GLAAD and the HRC know they aren't going to get away with bullying Phil Robertson simply for expressing a true, Christian perspective on what the bible tells us is sinful.

None of us hate homosexuals. We have gays and lesbians as members of our own families and communities, and we love them as God has told us we should love all people. We're all created in the image and likeness of God. But loving our brothers and sisters does not mean we must love sinful behavior.

It's truly outrageous and shocking that the A&E Networks succumbed to this bullying, and legitimized it, by suspending Phil Robertson from his own show. This simply cannot be allowed to stand. It's imperative that we push back — strongly and immediately — with a show of support for Phil Robertson.

Please sign our petition right away and forward it to every person you know.

Phil's life is itself a testimony to the truth of Christianity. He said yesterday that, "I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together."

Phil's heartfelt testimony to his conversion and what it means to him to preach biblical teaching is an experience to which so many Americans, and many more all across the planet, can relate on a very deep level.

Do we want to live in a country where we cannot express something we believe so sincerely and feel so strongly without fear of reprisals, bullying, and intimidation? Do we want to let groups like HRC that spew hateful rhetoric and incite bigotry towards Christians dictate what is and is not acceptable to say in the public square in America? What kind of America will that mean for our children? And, more immediately, what would that mean for the future of marriage in America?

This is a major moment in the cultural battle over the truth of marriage, and whether America will tolerate an ongoing debate about same-sex unions. If the HRC and GLAAD are able to silence Phil Robertson, nobody's safe from their abject bullying.

Please, act today and sign our petition demanding that A&E reinstate Phil Robertson. It's imperative that the country's "pro-Phil" reaction be swift and immediate. Don't let this petition sit for even an hour. Sign it right away, and forward it to every person you can.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

The National Organization for Marriage Reacts to Federal Judge Legalizing Polygamy, Cites Same-Sex Marriage Rationale

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 16, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"For years, we have warned of the importance of preserving the norms of marriage and its definition as the union of one man and one woman. Now we see the next step in the path of consequences for abandoning those norms. Left on its current course, in a few years marriage could be unrecognizable." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the December 13th decision by a federal district court judge to strike down Utah's polygamy ban as unconstitutional. While the decision in Brown v. Buhman by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups on Friday stops short of mandating legally-enforceable plural marriages, it relies on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage to require the state to allow polygamous "spiritual marriages" and "religious cohabitation" and ultimately tees up the issue for the US Supreme Court to further redefine marriage. The case stems from the relationship of "Sister Wives" who claim "marriage" to a single husband and are featured on a prominent cable television network.

"This decision is the next step along the path blazed by same-sex marriage advocates who have convinced federal judges to transform the societal norm of marriage as the union of one man and one woman designed primarily for the benefit of any children produced of their union into an institution that recognizes intimate, romantic relationships between consenting adults," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "For years, we have warned of the importance of preserving the norms of marriage and its definition as the union of one man and one woman. Now we see the next step in the path of consequences for abandoning those norms. Left on its current course, in a few years marriage could be unrecognizable."

Brown explained that Friday's decision stops short of imposing state-sanctioned polygamous marriages because the plaintiffs in the case did not specifically seek such relief. However, Brown said that with this decision advocates for polygamist marriage tee up the issue for the US Supreme Court to find polygamists entitled to official state-recognition of their plural 'marriages' just like gay and lesbian couples have been able to do in several states that have redefined marriage. The polygamy decision relies in large part on the same legal rationale utilized to impose same-sex marriage.

"There's no doubt that the arguments for same-sex marriage were a template for this case," Brown said. "Once marriage is determined to be primarily about providing government recognition and benefits for loving, committed relationships, there is simply no principled way not to extend 'marriage' to everyone, no matter the nature of their relationship. People in polygamist, plural marriages are just a short step away now from winning official marriage rights. Adult incest practitioners will have similar claims, as will adult siblings and other close relations. Lost in this disastrous push to transform marriage into the satisfaction of adult sexual desires are the interests of children, and their right to the love of one mother and one father."

###

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

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

Let Them Eat Cake, NOM Marriage News

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

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

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

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

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

Flash-back: "The Price of Citizenship"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Wait. ACT NOW.

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

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

How?

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

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

In remarks to the Examiner, Lee said:

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

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

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

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

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

Proof that Standing in the Truth Can Still Win Hearts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Can You Make a Better Pizza? NOM Marriage News

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Recently, I came across a news story about a relatively new company called Modamily. The name is a mash-up of the words "modern" and "family" and, according to the organization's website, this is its mission:

Modamily provides a network where members can meet other like-minded people who dream of becoming a parent. There are many ways to become a parent, and what Modamily does is help our members find someone that wants to raise a child in a similar fashion as they do.

The journalist doing the report calls Modamily "a dating site that cuts straight to the divorce."

Don't We Already Have Good Pizza?

The website promotes "co-parenting" as an alternative to the "old" way of parenting (which involves falling in love with someone and cooperating with that person to create a child).

The FAQ on the site goes to some trouble to dispel any notions of this "new" model not living up to the old standard:

[Question:] If people find a good parent match on Modamily - why just have a baby together and not also start a relationship?

[Answer:] The desire to become a parent is why men and women use Modamily, but there is nothing preventing the development of a relationship. Our primary goal is to create a community for great potential parents that removes the stress and pressures associated with feeling that in order to be a parent one must find a spouse first.

The man behind this new movement is Ivan Fatovic, who says that his work amounts to "helping people fulfill their dream of becoming a parent on their own terms" [emphasis added]. He says he thinks that "co-parenting" is "the next big thing."

[Somewhat ironically, in the same interview, Mr. Fatovic was asked, "What is the worst business idea you've heard?" His reply? "That someone decided to open another pizza or hamburger shop in NYC. We already have good pizza." But couldn't one also suggest that we already had good parenting before he decided to reinvent that old staple?]

Tellingly, this is how Modamily answers a frequently-asked-question about its clientele make-up:

  • Single men and women, gay or straight, wanting to co-parent

  • Gay male couples wishing to find an egg donor for a surrogacy arrangement, or a known donor who will also be involved in the child's life

  • Lesbian couples looking for a sperm donor — this may be an anonymous or known sperm donor who could be part of their child's life

  • Men wishing to donate their sperm

  • Women wishing to donate their eggs

  • Women wishing to be surrogates

  • Men and Women looking for medical and legal information on how to become co-parents

This makes it crystal clear: Modamily isn't about helping those who have trouble conceiving become parents, even if perhaps through unconventional means.

No. Modamily is about changing the very notion and identity of parenthood. One specialist quoted in the news story hits the nail right on the head:

Dr. Robert Fellmeth, executive director of the Children's Advocacy Institute, said there's a reason for doing things the old-fashioned way.

"I'm a 19th century romantic in saying that there is an advantage in at least trying to have the relationship between the parent[s] that's deep and meaningful and goes beyond simply the mutual desire to have a child," he said.

"The child benefits from having two parents who love each other, who are willing to sacrifice for each other," he said. "If it fails, it fails, but at least try!"

Well, with all due respect to Dr. Fellmeth, I don't think there's anything very "19th century" about the notion of spousal love blossoming into the bearing and raising of children. Like good pizza that doesn't need reinventing, this model works just as well in our own century just as it has in every century past. Indeed, I believe the beautiful triadic model of mother-father-child is a very 21st century idea!

And I know I'm not alone.

The Foundations of a Stable Country

In Taiwan, over the weekend, hundreds of thousands poured into the streets to demonstrate in favor of "Civil Law 972" which is the country's statute that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The demonstrations come in response to a proposed bill to amend the text of Law 972 and strike the words "man" and "woman" so as to effectively render marriage a genderless institution.

Leaders of both the leading political party in Taiwan as well as an opposition party voiced opposition to the hasty proposal:

President of the Control Yuan party, Wang Chien-shien, marched with the protesters, saying that while he has "respect and support for all homosexual people," he fears that amending the marriage laws will "affect the healthy marriage system and healthy families, which are the foundations of a stable country," reported The China Post.

The ruling Kuomintang party (KMT) urged in a Nov. 29 press conference for a postponement in the review of the amendment.

"The KMT do not oppose gays or lesbians and we want to treat them legally and protect their human rights as well. But we need to be more careful when it comes to our traditional virtues that concern our families," said KMT spokesperson Lin Te-fu, reported Want China Times.

So much for the myth of shifting tides of public opinion regarding the definition of marriage. And what about that other myth, the one that says a same-sex 'marriage' regime is 'inevitable'?

In the Name of the Family

Nearly 6,000 miles from Taiwan, the people of Croatia also did something remarkable to preserve marriage. In Croatia, a group called "In the Name of the Family" led an initiative to place a pro-marriage ballot measure before the voters of the small Balkan nation.

Croats went to the polls on Sunday and voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with the measure gaining 66% of the popular vote!

One of the supporters of the initiative, a ballet dancer named Sanja Grgic, beautifully explained the rationale behind the measure: "I have nothing against gay people, I have many gay friends," she said, "but I voted in favour because I think children should grow up in a family that has a mother and a father" [SOURCE].

Kudos to Croatia!

Supporter, be encouraged by this news and remember that the redefinition of marriage and family to become genderless institutions is not at all inevitable, and it certainly hasn't carried public opinion away in any kind of landside.

On our side we have basic truth and common sense and fundamental good. We have, if you will, just plain old good pizza. Something that has stood the test of time and just plain works.
The founder of Modamily thinks opening up a new pizza shop is "the worst business idea," but I rather think he needs a clear-headed look in the mirror where he'll be confronted with a much worse idea. No child ever craved a "co-parent." No society ever thrived because of "Modamily." Societies that thrive do so because of real families, with moms and dads loving each other and raising the children produced from that love.

Together, we continue to stand in defense of that plain old good truth.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

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

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


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

nom_logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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