NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Law

Jeb Bush Stands Up For Right Not To Be Coerced

ThinkstockPhotos-chariastThe beginning stages of the presidential campaign are starting to bring the views of the various candidates into focus. Jeb Bush recently told CBN that he supports the right of a Christian small business owner to decline to provide services for a same-sex ‘wedding.’ He correctly understands that people ought to remain free to exercise their beliefs about marriage and that this is not discrimination. He also reiterated his position that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a constitutional right:

"A big country, a tolerant country ought to be able to figure out the difference between discriminating someone because of their sexual orientation and not forcing someone to participate in a wedding that they find goes against their moral beliefs," Bush said.

Shouldn’t it be obvious that as our own free arbiters of what we support, we should also be able to choose what not to support? Americans being forced to conform to other people’s opinions on social issues, is a brazen attack against individual rights:

In recent months, the question of service provision, religion and sexuality has become a hot button issue, with court cases arising over incidents of people being refused service because of their sexual orientation, or business owners being forced to provide services to same sex partners despite their religious convictions.

The issue was further fanned by the recent signing of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which allow business owners to cite religious rights as a reasons for refusing service. Gay rights group have condemned the acts, and cited them as a form of discrimination.

Source via Christian Today.

The Real Revelations from the Faked Same-sex Marriage Study

An op-ed in The American Spectator reviews muted media reaction to the disclosure that a widely publicized study claiming that a gay canvasser speaking to a voter at their home would produce remarkable and long-lasting change in support of same-sex ‘marriage’ was faked. They note that the media’s coverage of the scandal was tepid, especially compared to the original coverage when the false study was issued.

dv763009Some news outlets even carried comments from same-sex marriage activists stating that even though the study was completely fabricated, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t true! Some even urge the study be redone properly. The author provocatively suggests that social scientists instead conduct studies to determine the effect on public opinion of the media portraying supporters of marriage as bigots, or the impact of judges ignoring the will of voters and imposing their own views in the law, or the impact on public opinion of a small business owner losing her shop rather than her religious principles.

Daniel Flynn, author of the article, comments on the fraudulent study.

Two aspiring political scientists exposed a widely referenced study, which maintained that homosexuals discussing gay marriage with citizens proved “capable of producing a cascade of opinion change,” as a total fraud.

Berkeley grad student Joshua Kalla and Stanford professor David Broockman, eager to add to the project with their own study, discovered that the survey firm identified in “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality” maintained “no familiarity with the project,” “never had an employee with the name of the staffer” believed as assisting the research, and “denied having the capabilities” to conduct such an endeavor.

He continues to show that voters never really wanted same-sex marriage in many of the places such laws were passed, and the result of such laws on the average person.

What happens to donations to traditional marriage initiatives when they result in job loss, let’s say from a tech company that produces a popular web browser, for one who gives to a ballot initiative protecting man-woman unions? Perhaps an experiment could focus on the effects of the mass media’s incessant, not-so-subliminal name calling—e.g., “bigot,” “homophobe,” “hater”—on public opinion. Or, maybe, researchers could study the rather straightforward cause-and-effect of how judges refusing to allow people to vote on the laws that govern them transform the laws that govern people—and ultimately the public’s views. Another alternative might be to gauge the uptick in support for gay marriage resulting from a small business owner—a baker, for instance, who refuses to cook up a wedding cake for a homosexual couple—losing her shop instead of her religious principles.

Codifying gay marriage has never been about canvassers, gay or straight, persuading Americans. Voters, after all, rejected same-sex marriage in California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and other blue states only to watch judges order them to embrace it. America’s evolution on gay marriage came as a conversion by the sword.

His commentary shows the corruption in academia, and the media, for what it is:

We imagine science as disinterested, dispassionate, impartial, objective. The reality of science, particularly so-called social science, occasionally reveals biased partisans gathering data to support a predetermined conclusion.

Warning from Canada: Do Not Redefine Marriage

Many same-sex marriage advocates continue to falsely present the redefinition of marriage as simply providing respect and recognition to loving same-sex couples, with no consequences for anyone else. But as we have seen with the frequent attacks against supporters of traditional marriage - bakers, florists, and others - this has already been proven to be false. To get a fuller exposition of the consequences of redefining marriage, we only have to look at what has happened with our northern neighbor.

Mid adult couple holding their childrenThe article from Dawn Stefanowicz is not the first such warning we’ve had. In 2012, the backers of the proposed marriage amendment in Minnesota held a day-long seminal featuring many speakers from Canada, including a prominent Archbishop, who detailed the 300 plus cases of supporters of marriage being punished, and the constant pressure of the government to push this radical understanding of marriage on children. Dawn Stefanowicz uses Canada’s decline due to legalizing same-sex marriage as an all too apt example of what kind of fire the United States is playing with today:

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

. . .

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

She continues to warn Americans that a federal redefinition of marriage will authorize the “State as Ultimate Arbiter of parenthood”:

Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

. . .

In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

In addition, the rights and freedom that made our nation a land of liberty will too be disregarded if same-sex marriage is legalized:

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

. . .

It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Many more issues will occur if the Supreme Court decides to redefine marriage. We recognize the flagrant lies that are told, the false “tolerance” that is being promulgated, the egregious attacks on our liberties. Our neighbor Canada knows these first-hand as well, even to a more frightening degree. We must never give up the fight for marriage, because if marriage is redefined, we know that first amendments rights will also be “redefined.”

Read the full article at The Public Discourse.

The War on Free Speech

Kirsten Powers has a new book that outlines the agenda and strategy of the same-sex marriage lobby to suppress free speech throughout the country. The American Unity Fund seems to be spearheading this attack by exhibiting it’s ability to sway policy against the American people. As Stella Morabito reports via The Federalist:

ThinkstockPhotos-186674643Powers has dubbed today’s intolerant purveyors of leftist causes the [sic] “the illiberal left” because, as a liberal herself, she sees them as anything but liberal about allowing a voice to those who don’t toe their rigid line. Her book catalogues and analyzes the dehumanization and demonization techniques the illiberal Left applies towards anyone who dares to veer from their rigid narratives. Their sacred cows include abortion, climate change, same-sex marriage, and second-wave feminism. Dissenters are systematically smeared and destroyed.

. . .

But I would add that most of this is coming straight out of the Left’s holy of holies: the LGBT lobby (whose agenda Powers happens to support.) Because next up on the LGBT hit parade is the literal silencing of America—with the force of the federal government behind it.

Morabito's article, outlining Powers’ book and the LGBT agenda, defines AUF and its next step after the Supreme Court decision is finished.

The American Unity Fund is a heavily funded new super-PAC looking to blanket the country with LGBT anti-discrimination laws. In effect, those laws aim to wipe out any alternative voice to the LGBT agenda. The effort is being spearheaded by billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer and another wealthy hedge fund manager, Tim Gill. Gill’s operations—the Gill Foundation and Gill Action—have been dedicated to “nonpartisan” gains for the LGBT lobby on the legislative and judicial fronts.

But with an expected federal win for gay marriage from the Supreme Court, the LGBT movement is poised to shift its focus to policing speech in the workplace, schools, businesses, and public squares across America.

While it seems that the target of AUF actions is anyone who supports traditional marriage, the issue is far more pervasive: America is about to be blanketed by anti-free speech policies from the same-sex marriage agenda.

Assuming the Supreme Court signs on to the same-sex marriage meme come June, we can expect to see a noose tightening around both public and private speech, including spontaneous conversation, in America. The ultimate effect of the “Freedom for All Americans” campaign will be to criminalize the expression of conservative as well as traditional religious thought on issues of marriage and family. In doing so, it will further stunt independent thought or debate in the wider political context.

. . .

There’s so much to unpack here, but if pressed to dissect this vat of worms, I’d say that the Orwellian “Freedom for All Americans” meme boils down to the ancient urge to centralize power. That always begins with controlling people, which, in turn, requires the control of human relationships. To control relationships, central planners need to divide and conquer people by restricting their ability to communicate with one another.

Read full article via The Federalist.

Louisiana’s Fight for Freedom

True Americans are open to all ideas, but they are not willing to redefine society norms merely to please special interest groups. Recently, Louisiana has demonstrated that they uphold the American belief that citizens, not unelected judges, should decide the laws for themselves:

ThinkstockPhotos-176954063In Louisiana, a new bill has been proposed to protect those who have suffered unjust government discrimination. Opponents are demonizing the bill’s supporters and calling them names, misrepresenting the contents of the proposal, using scare tactics, and generally acting with fundamentalist zeal instead of dispassionate deliberation and rational discourse. They would deny to an entire class of Louisiana citizens legal protection from discriminatory acts, simply because members of that class do not share their own moral views.

Naturally, those zealous opponents are supporters of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

The bill is known as the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act. As its name suggests, it is designed to codify legal protections for those who have moral and religious convictions about the nature of marriage and whose convictions are out of favor with cultural elites and powerful political actors. Specifically, it would protect those who perceive that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The bill is timely, necessary, and well-justified.

. . .

The truth is that Louisianans, like Americans generally, disagree about the nature of marriage and they do so because they have reasons to believe what they believe about marriage. States do not use their considerable power to prevent marriage revisionists from advocating the redefinition of marriage or from acting on their views, and states should not use their power to prevent natural marriage proponents from acting on their conviction that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

You can read the full article via Public Discourse.

All States Should Take Texas’ Lead

Texas is taking a strong stance to protect their State’s right to define marriage, regardless of what ruling the Supreme Court issues:

State lawmakers are considering at least five bills designed to block same-sex marriages, which are currently illegal in the state, and some state leaders say they’ll battle to bar the unions regardless of any Supreme Court decision.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement reaffirming his opposition to same-sex marriage. He said, “Texans — not unelected federal judges — should decide this important issue for their state.”

A Texas state representative backs this judicial move with several historical precedences. In addition to Texas, Alabama, Michigan, and Louisiana are also taking a stance:

ThinkstockPhotos-126425189In Louisiana, lawmakers are studying the “Marriage and Conscience Act,” which, if passed, would allow employers to deny same-sex spouses marriage benefits and give state contractors the right to refuse to hire gays and lesbians who marry.

“As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, wrote in The New York Times.

These states are holding up the right of not only their citizens, but also the right of the State to not be dismissed by unelected officials in the federal government.

In 2005, Texas voters passed a referendum banning same-sex marriages. A federal judge last year ruled the ban unconstitutional but issued a stay on his ruling as the issue moved through higher courts.

The fact that the Supreme Court is considering cases from Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky but not Texas should preclude state officials here from automatically following any decision from the highest court, said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, which opposes same-sex marriages.

The people’s will, proved through the 2005 referendum, outweighs any decisions by a federal court, he said. One of his bills would bar public funding to license or recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples, regardless of any Supreme Court ruling. As of late Monday (May 11), the bill appeared to have a majority of support in the state House.

Leading by example is one of the highest and effective forms of leadership, and Texas is proving that their ideals and their government truly are led by the people. All states and all citizens should take up the American cause to give the power back to the people, and let the states decide their own fates.

“The sovereignty of states is not something to be taken lightly,” Bell said. “It’s something intended by the framers of our Constitution.”

Source and quotes via Religion News.

There's Something Different About a Wedding: Same-sex Marriage Affects Everyone

In a recent article from The Washington Post, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, defends her decision to abstain from providing flowers for her friend’s same-sex wedding ceremony:

ThinkstockPhotos-479346023I’ve been a florist in Richmond, Wash., for more than 30 years. In that time, I’ve developed close relationships with many of my clients.

One of my favorites was Rob Ingersoll. Ingersoll came in often and we’d talk. Like me, he had an artistic eye. I’d try to create really special arrangements for him. I knew he was gay, but it didn’t matter — I enjoyed his company and his creativity.

Then he asked me to create the floral arrangements for his wedding. I love Rob, and I’d always been happy to design for his special days. But there’s something different about a wedding.

Ultimately, Stutzman decided to act according to her religious conscience, and had to turn down the offer:

When I told Rob, I felt terrible that I couldn’t share this day with him, as I’d shared so many with him before. I took his hands and said, “I’m sorry I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.” Rob said he understood, and that he hoped his mom would walk him down the aisle, but he wasn’t sure. We talked about how he got engaged and why they decided to get married after all these years. He asked me for the names of other flower shops. I gave him the names of three floral artists that I knew would do a good job, because I knew he would want something very special. We hugged and he left.

I never imagined what would happen next. Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued me after hearing in the media what had happened. That was shocking. Even more surprising, Rob and his partner Curt, with their ACLU attorneys, filed suit shortly thereafter. A judge ruled against me, but this week, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, I appealed.

We’ve always heard that same-sex marriage would never affect anyone aside from the same-sex couples who wanted to be married. But a judge recently told me that my freedom to live and work according to my beliefs about marriage expired the day same-sex marriage became the law in my state.

You can read the full article here.

Texas Bill Would Protect Local Officials From Issuing Same-sex Marriage Licenses

From The Washington Post:

ThinkstockPhotos-496264349Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.

Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.

The measure, by Rep. Cecil Bell, a Republican from the outskirts of Houston, would prohibit state and local officials from using taxpayer dollars “to issue, enforce, or recognize a marriage license . . . for a union other than a union between one man and one woman.”

Bell said the bill “simply preserves state sovereignty over marriage.”

You can read the full article here.

Corrections: Where the Same-Sex Advocates Got It Wrong

In an article recently posted on The Public Discourse, James Phillips, an assistant professor of law at Brigham Young University, highlights and responds to errors made by pro-same-sex marriage justices Kennedy and Sotomayor. Phillips points out that there were 6 major errors in logic, precedent, and history made to support the passing of a same-sex marriage bill last week.

This post will outline these 6 errors, as well as the arguments against them.

Error #1: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same

Justice Sotomayor claimed that Massachusetts’ heterosexual marriage rates have remained constant since the state allowed same-sex marriage. If she had paid attention to an opposing amicus brief filed by 100 Scholars of Marriage, she would have seen that data clearly tells us otherwise, for instance:

Marriage rates have dropped by 8.9 percent since the state [MA] redefined marriage. And Massachusetts is not alone. The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage… Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent).

ThinkstockPhotos-131579672Error #2: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around

Justice Sotomayer argued that marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t actually increase the likelihood of creating a stable family life:

‘Marriage doesn’t do that on any level. How many married couples do fathers with the benefits or the requirements of marriage walk away from their children? So it’s not that the institution alone does it and that without it that father is going to stay in marriage.’

But as Phillips points out:

This is a classic example of the exception fallacy. Of course some men and women walk away from their marriage and their children. But that is the exception, not the rule, and it is certainly counter to the social norm of marriage.

Error #3: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples

When Mr. Bursch brought forth the argument that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity, Justice Kennedy expressed surprise at this, stating that he believed that whole purpose of “traditional marriage” was to bestow dignity on both man and woman. Now same-sex couples want that same “ennoblement.” But as Phillips explains:

Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that states were interested in bestowing dignity on couples by allowing them to marry, that would be a means to enticing couples to marry. The end or purpose of encouraging marriage in this way would still be the fact that society—particularly children—benefits when men and women marry. It makes no sense for the state to go through the trouble and expense to regulate and subsidize marriage if the state gets nothing out of it in return—and it’s not simply about bestowing dignity on consenting adult love of all sizes and shapes.

Error #4: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered

ThinkstockPhotos-465562267When several justices struggled to comprehend how redefining marriage to genderless terms would impact and harm the institution of marriage, Mr. Bursch correctly, but incompletely, argued how it would change the focus of marriage from fulfilling the needs of children to fulfilling the desires adults. If marriage is redefined, then the norm of fulfilling a child’s need to be raised by a man and a woman in order to learn how necessary interactions from each one, would be eliminated. And this is only one effect.

Error #5: There Is a Parallel between: Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell

The time between the Supreme Court decision calling for desegregation of elementary schools, the famous Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision invalidating state laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages (Loving v. Virginia), was thirteen years.

But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia. As Justice Kennedy put it, “I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.

Not all thirteen year periods are equivalent. They certainly are not here.

Error #6: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman

Several justices tried to form the analogy of recognizing exceptions to age restrictions to recognizing same-sex marriages. But as Phillips explained:

Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage... There are two historical and universal components to the definition of marriage in the United States, and in the Western world: gender diversity and only two spouses, one man and one woman. All other features—age, race, religion, coverture, dowry—are not part of the fundamental definition.

The American people want our justices to base their decisions on facts, and not make such errors in their decision as outlined here. Since the citizens of the United States will have to live with this decision for the entirety of America’s future, it would be best if such a decision had a basis in not only what the public wants, but also the truth of such matters.

Source via The Public Discourse

Same-Sex Marriage: Not a Constitutional Right

The collective wisdom and experience of the human race teaches us that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of a vibrant, self-sustaining society. - Ken Connelly 

ThinkstockPhotos-178371055In a recent opinion piece on CNSnews, Alliance Defending Freedom's Ken Connelly coherently outlines why same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right, as well as why the state, up until the 21st century, has supported marriage as a union that can only take place between one man and one woman.

Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental constitutional right. Each and every time the Supreme Court has spoken of the fundamental right to marry, it has done so with the clear understanding that marriage is the relationship of husband and wife. Furthermore, to establish that a right is fundamental from a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court has required that it be deeply rooted in the nation’s history, a requirement that the proponents of same-sex marriage obviously cannot satisfy.

Man-woman marriage laws are not a violation of equal protection, either. That constitutional doctrine requires the government to treat similar groups similarly. But same-sex couples are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples with respect to the state’s main reason for being involved in marriage, which is the creation and rearing of children. A man and woman can naturally create children and provide those children with both a mother and a father—same-sex couples cannot. Thus there is no constitutional requirement that they be treated the same in this context.

ThinkstockPhotos-492544249No matter what one’s conclusion as to the propriety of redefining marriage, it must be said that the resolution of this issue by direct political participation is proper in a democratic republic like ours. For as the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Windsor, the states, and by extension the people in those states, have the “essential authority to define the marital relation.”

This clear guidance from the Supreme Court as to the centrality of the people’s will on this issue has not stopped proponents of same-sex marriage from seeking to skip the debate and the legislative process entirely, opting rather to redefine marriage through the courts instead. Unfortunately, many lower federal courts have erroneously concluded that Windsor established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In so doing, these courts have usurped the right of the people to govern themselves.

The full piece is available here. As Connelly has noted, same-sex marriage proponents do not care what marriage truly is, nor do they care about what is best for children. Same-sex marriage is a blatant attack on the family, and an outright affront to American liberties. Strip marriage of the man-woman definition, and you strip all children of an equal chance at a stable family. Try to control the American people’s conscience, and you will see the fighting spirit that built this nation.

Whenever same-sex marriage activists try to shut down debate, or silence opposition, take heart: their violent actions are a testimony to the truth that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

ICYMI: Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Marriage

ThinkstockPhotos-167195559If you were unable to listen to the arguments brought before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, below is a recording, as well as a link to the transcripts of the articles that were brought forward.

No matter the outcome, the truth about marriage cannot be changed.

Please keep up your prayers and remember that the fight is far from over! As long as there are men and women willing to fight to protect marriage and religious liberty, there will always be hope.

A Fresh Breeze Is Blowing



Dear Marriage Supporter,

What a difference a few days can make. There's a new breeze blowing and it sure is refreshing.

First, NOM was able to bring an estimated 15,000 people to Washington DC this past Saturday for the March for Marriage, where we loudly and proudly demonstrated to the justices of the Supreme Court, the media and opinion leaders that the American people continue to support marriage and they expect their votes and values to be respected.

Then yesterday at the Supreme Court the call for marriage to be redefined — something that we have repeatedly been told is inevitable — sputtered and fell flat.

A few days ago all we were hearing was that it was a certainty that the Supreme Court would redefine marriage. Now even the left is being forced to admit that they may lose because Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote, expressed grave concerns about changing an institution that has existed for millennia on the pretext that "we know better" than the judgment of every civilization for thousands of years.

I don't know if we're going to win before the US Supreme Court, but we certainly have a fighting chance.

What I do know is that the work we at NOM have done with the March for Marriage and everything leading up to the oral arguments yesterday has made a tremendous difference. And I know that our efforts over the next two months may be the most important work we will ever undertake.

You see, the Supreme Court is expected to issue their decision in Obergefell v Hodges — the case where gay activists are seeking to have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman declared unconstitutional — at the end of June. Between now and then, it is imperative that the justices and the media hear from us loudly and regularly on behalf of the American people that we expect them to uphold our votes for marriage and the right of voters and legislators to preserve marriage. They need to know that any decision purporting to redefine marriage will be seen as judicial activism and be considered illegitimate.

We have a lot on our plate right now, and unfortunately few resources with which to conduct our work. You see, with everything that we have thrown into the fight for marriage — between the March for Marriage, the Supreme Court fight and our tireless efforts to communicate the truth of marriage through the media — our coffers are empty.

Marriage Supporter, this is why I have to ask you for a financial contribution at this pivotal time. We've come so far, but the next two months is critical to the fight.

Won't you please recommit to the fight to defend marriage at this pivotal juncture by making a generous donation to NOM today?

We have an incredible amount of work to do in the next two months... preparing for the pending decision by the Supreme Court; launching a nationwide effort to pass legislation to protect people from having to participate in same-sex 'weddings' in states that have redefined marriage (or in the event that the Supreme Court redefines marriage in every state); preparing a new grassroots educational effort we have been developing to help teach people the importance of marriage to society and especially children; pushing a federal constitutional amendment to preserve marriage; working with allies in support of religious liberty legislation; and preparing to make support for marriage a key factor in next year's presidential race.

As I have always said, no politician or judge — not even the US Supreme Court — has the power to redefine marriage. Marriage was created by God at the dawn of Creation to bring the two halves of humanity together for their benefit and to provide the ideal environment for any children born of their union. Marriage is a universal truth and if the marriage movement experiences a Roe type of ruling, then just like the pro-life movement we will pursue the long path to reversing such a ruling. Win or lose before the Supreme Court, we will always fight for marriage.

But clearly and unmistakably, we have a chance to win before the Supreme Court and the next two months could make all the difference.

As people of faith, we were made for times just like these. Won't you please consider renewing your support today with a generous donation?

There is a fresh breeze blowing, my friend. Let's together build on our hard-won momentum and press on to victory.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Millennia



Dear Marriage Supporter,

I just got off the phone with NOM's Chairman, Constitutional Law professor John Eastman, who attended the oral arguments in the Supreme Court this morning.

I have to say, I was encouraged by what he had to say and by the reports coming out of the court this morning!

No doubt, the mainstream media is going to serve up slanted reporting that we're inevitably going to get a ruling establishing a Constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage' in the coming months. Don't be fooled!

The questioning by the justices was extremely encouraging because it focused on what marriage actually is and shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for and served society well.

Justice Kennedy in particular — likely the swing vote in deciding this case — seemed concerned over nine individuals taking action to overturn something that has existed for millennia. But multiple justices seemed very much in favor of society organically debating the issue and the people determining for themselves the correct course forward with regards to marriage.

Of course, nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this — let alone on the basis of oral arguments. And let me make a point I've made before: no court or government has the power to redefine marriage. Marriage has existed before government — it was ordained by God at the Creation of the world — and the Supreme Court cannot redefine it.

Still, what we heard today is encouraging. For months we've endured a barrage of claims that it is "inevitable" that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage' on the entire nation. Yet today's questioning from the justices themselves makes clear nothing is inevitable.

In fact, it was very clear that the justices hearing arguments today understand what's at stake — that this case is about potentially upending an institution that has served society well for millennia. I am encouraged that they will find that the constitution does not prohibit states making laws defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And in so doing, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage.

A copy of our press release is here.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS: In a few days the justices will hold a conference and decide how they will rule, an opinion that is expected to be issued at the end of June. Please pray daily that they reach the right decision and find that traditional marriage laws are not unconstitutional.

Does the Definition of Marriage Matter? Ask the Children

As the Supreme Court decision on marriage continues this week, it is important to remember the group that will be most affected by this decision: our children.

ThinkstockPhotos-471500304Even those who are not married and/or have no children, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, have a stake in this battle, as each child is a future adult who will eventually have a hand in choosing the path of our nation and culture.

So what happens to children if we tell them that gender doesn’t matter? That they don’t need a mother and a father? That children raised by same-sex couples are no worse off than children raised by heterosexual couples? Brandi Walton, who grew up as an only child in a same-sex household, can tell us exactly what happens:

ThinkstockPhotos-57435315I knew from a young age that living with two women was not natural. I could especially see it in the homes of my friends who had a mom and a dad. I spent as much time with those friends as I possibly could. I yearned for the affection that my friends received from their dads. I wanted to know what it was like to be held and cherished by a man, what it was like to live with one from day to day.

As far as I was concerned, I already had one mother; I did not need another. My dream was that my mother would decide she wanted to be with men again, but obviously that dream did not come true. My grandfathers and uncles did the best they could when it came to spending time with me and doing all the daddy-daughter stuff, but it was not the same as having a full-time father, and I knew it. It always felt secondhand.

Growing up without the presence of a man in my home damaged me personally.

...As an adult, I have tried to talk to my mom about how difficult my life was, but she simply cannot relate because she was raised by a mom and a dad. As a child, I would not have spoken out about the way I was being raised, either. I love my mom. She was the center of my universe and the thought of saying something to outsiders that would have hurt her devastated me. Writing this letter right this very moment is devastating me.

ThinkstockPhotos-78181522

While adults are clamoring for the definition of marriage to be fundamentally altered, their children are silently crying out for a mother and father. The beautiful innocence of children allows them to see the world with clarity: children don’t care about politics; they don’t care about ethnicity; they don’t care what any judge, politician, or world leader tells them. Children just want their mom and dad.

This Supreme Court decision is not about liberals vs. conservatives, Republicans vs. Democrats, or even about gender: it is about children. Every child deserves to be raised by their mother and their father, and no adult has the right to deny a child either one.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides, one thing is certain: there will always be men and women who will fight to protect the true definition of marriage, and the family: one man and one woman, who together, bring children into this world.

National Organization for Marriage officials Available to Media Following US Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 27, 2015

Contact: Paul Bothwell (703) 474-6142 [email protected]


nom_logo Washington, DC. — Top officials from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation’s largest organization devoted to preserving traditional marriage, will be available on April 28th immediately following the conclusion of oral arguments presented to the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NOM led campaigns for traditional marriage laws in numerous states and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging them to uphold marriage.

 Brian Brown, President National Organization for MarriageWHEN:Tuesday, April 27, 2015WHERE:Washington, DC

WHO: John Eastman, Chairman National Organization for Marriage

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, please contact Paul Bothwell, [email protected], (703) 474-6142.