NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Law

Bobby Jindal Knows Exactly What Marriage Is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Target in the Same-sex Marriage War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Marriage Debate is Far From Over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on The Sacramento Bee.

We Must Fight On!



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last week's US Supreme Court ruling on marriage is an illegitimate decision and a gross example of legislating from the bench!

Plain and simple, what the small majority (5/4) of the justices has done is simply invent a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage' out of thin air, and invalidated the decision of over 50 million voters and their elected officials in the process. It is the worst exercise of judicial activism I've ever seen.

Justice John Roberts called it "an act of will, not legal judgment" and he properly compared it to other illegitimate Court decisions of history, specifically the Dred Scott decision that determined that African Americans were the mere property of their "masters."

But despite this terrible blow, we will fight on. We will not give up! And we will not accept this decision to be "the last word" about marriage in America.

We have a lot of work ahead to reverse this illegitimate decision, and we have a plan ready to launch. But we urgently need your financial help today to carry the fight forward. Please make an emergency contribution of $50, $100 or $500 or more.

Help Us Fight On

Not only has the Court's majority thrown the legal definition of marriage aside, they have put in the crosshairs every American that believes in the truth of marriage. We are already seeing examples of discrimination and possible persecution against those of us that believe in marriage as between one man and one woman. Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas all worry aloud — rightly so — that it will not be long before cases will be brought involving punishment of people and groups by the government for not agreeing to go along with the new orthodoxy of marriage.

The Obama Administration can be expected to be at the forefront of this punishment and persecution as they become a tool of gay activists to crush any dissenting view of marriage. Already a top Obama lawyer has hinted that Christian schools and other nonprofit and charitable groups that refuse to go along might lose their tax-exempt status.

But it won't stop there. Soon, any lever of power the government can wield will be used to force compliance — whether that be the tax code, revocation of government contracts, new provisions in employment law, denial of access to services and benefits, etc. — whatever the federal government has at its disposal to force individuals and organizations to comply will be utilized.

That is why a major part of our plan going forward is to push for the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) in Congress. This critical legislation will provide some measure of protection against governmental discrimination and punishment for people who continue to hold to the truth of marriage as one man and one woman.

But advancing this legislation in Congress will not be easy. We will need substantial resources to battle the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who will work hand in hand with President Obama to force compliance with this new ruling.

We are asking for your immediate financial contribution today to fight to protect marriage supporters by getting Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act. Our plan calls for investing more than $150,000 in this effort over the next several months. We urgently need your help to reach this goal.

But it is not enough to only pass FADA at the federal level; we must advance it in every state in the nation. Thus, our plan includes working with allies at the state level to support state-based versions of the First Amendment Defense Act. We will work to pass this legislation through state Legislatures, and we will look to put it on the ballot directly in many states.

We need your financial help for this cause. Will you consider making a gift of $100 today so that we can get started? Of course, it that is too much, please give what you are able. And if you can give more than that, it would be a great blessing.

Help Us Fight On

It's also clear from last week’s ruling that we need to replace some of these justices. Thankfully, several are expected to retire soon and that is why it is critical that we elect a pro-marriage champion as President. NOM is already leading to accomplish this by issuing The People's Marriage Pledge to give voice to the millions of Americans who believe, as we do, that marriage must be protected.

Our national action plan includes making substantial investments of resources to promote The People's Marriage Pledge, and to engage in independent communications to educate voters about which candidates are true marriage champions. We cannot afford to have another presidential nominee who only gives lip service to the cause of marriage — we need a champion who will act! That's why we must raise substantial resources to accomplish this task.

If you believe that our next President of the United States must be a champion for true marriage, then we ask you to donate today so that we can make this a reality in the future.

There are other elements of our plan to go forward, and I will discuss these in future communications. For now, rest assured that NOM is in this fight for the long haul, and we trust you will be there with us.

These are dark days, but we are not defeated. Indeed, we have been reenergized and are more determined than ever to reverse this injustice and restore God's institution of marriage to its proper place in American law and culture.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — Our opponents are now counting on you to give up, and so is a majority of the US Supreme Court. Remember it was Justice Ginsburg who violated judicial ethics to comment publicly that the American people will easily accept this illegitimate decision. Please act today to prove her wrong! Your contribution of $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 or more will be an investment in the next phase of this struggle and allow us to begin to fight back and ultimately reverse this terrible decision.


Donate Today

"SCOTUS is Not the Final Word on Marriage"

NOM President and co-founder Brian Brown discusses the future of marriage today in the Washington Examiner:

Words in FamilyThis not the first time that the Court has relied on its own conception of liberty to justify a decision. One of the best examples of this phenomenon was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in which a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional because of the implied right of slaveholders. African Americans were thus not people entitled to the rights of citizens, but instead property subject to the will of their masters.

In terms of its legal reasoning, the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is the Dred Scott decision of our time. It is illegitimate and completing lacking in constitutional authority. It is the product of unaccountable judges legislating from the bench, usurping the role of elected officials and voters and imposing a social policy on the nation because they think they know best.

And like Dred Scott, America need not accept it as the final word, the "law of the land" or even a decision worthy of respect.

...The decision last week is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage. NOM is committed to overturning this ruling and containing its effects.

This is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle to protect marriage. Read on to learn about three major steps that NOM is taking to reverse this unjust ruling. We will not rest until the injustice of this decision is undone and marriage is restored to our nation's laws as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman.

 

No Longer is it US: It’s Them vs. Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

From KQED.org:

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

Support the First Amendment Defense Act Today!



Dear Marriage Supporter,

As you know, a 5-4 ruling of the US Supreme Court has resulted in marriage being redefined, with genderless 'marriage’ now being imposed on every state in the nation. This is a terrible decision that entirely lacks constitutional authority.

NOM is committed to working to reverse this decision over time. But until that happens, we need to minimize the damage that is going to be caused to individuals, churches and other organizations that support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Please act today to support the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) today by completing this Action Alert. FADA will prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. For example, the bill would prohibit the IRS from stripping a church of its tax exemption for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings.

This common-sense and urgently-need bill has become "must pass" legislation in light of the US Supreme Court decision. I urge you to contact your US Senators and Members of Congress to ask them to support this legislation.

Take Action Today to Support the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) (S. 1598, H.R. 2802)

It is imperative that we convince the leaders of Congress to move FADA to a vote at the earliest possible moment. Those on the left will be ready to denounce the effort as "discrimination," but the real discrimination on the marriage issue has been felt by those who stand for the truth of marriage. People have lost their jobs, been fined, put out of business, forced to abandon their charitable missions, and threatened by government officials with financial ruin, all for expressing support for marriage in the public square.

We will be in a heated battle to secure passage of the First Amendment Defense Act, which is why we need to raise $150,000 for a strong communications and advocacy campaign. Please consider making an immediate financial contribution to help protect supporters of marriage from being punished and discriminated against.

We need to build a groundswell of public support for FADA. That groundswell starts with you. Please take the simple step of completing this Action Alert to ask your elected representatives to support this most important legislation prohibiting discrimination against supporters of true marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

How to Respond to SCOTUS Ruling on Marriage

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution. - Ryan Anderson

While the decision of the Supreme Court is both tragic and unsurprising, marriage supporters should not give up hope. While the ruling is a disappointment, it is by no means the deciding outcome in the war on marriage. Marriage has always been defined by nature as between one man and one woman. No matter what laws the Supreme Court Justices change, they cannot change the truth.

Ryan Anderson offers encouraging words and advice on how marriage defenders can continue the fight to defend marriage as it has always been defined - the union between one man and one woman:

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman.

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

You can read Anderson’s full article at The Daily Signal.

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

All Eyes on the Supreme Court



Dear Marriage Supporter,

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

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

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

Bait & Switch

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

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

The People's Marriage Pledge

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

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

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

Support the First Amendment Defense Act

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

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

Rally in Rome

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

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

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

We Need Your Help Now More Than Ever

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

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

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

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

Our Very Way of Life is on the Line

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

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

stk308123rkn

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the full article at Conservative Review.

What is the Real Goal of “Marriage Equality”?

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

For the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

Jim Garlow: Marriage Leaders and Capitulators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some YouGov poll results were as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Chart 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

The full article is available via HotAir.

The Decision on Marriage Should Not Be Rushed

"Expanding the definition of marriage away from the way cultures and civilization have always defined it can only lead to further confusion.” - Rev. Russell Moore

As the world readies for the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, defenders of marriage are urging the justices to take into account all the known effects that redefining marriage would bring upon our nation.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing that now is the time for marriage to be redefined, because the “popular opinion” promulgated by the media is that marriage should be redefined. In contrast, marriage champions are asking the Supreme Court to look at the facts, look at what is actually written in the constitution, and look at what is best for the children.

While the media may very well be against us, NOM will never give up fighting for marriage, for freedom, and for truth.

ThinkstockPhotos-494897031The idea that same-sex marriage might have uncertain effects on children is strongly contested by those who want the court to declare that same-sex couples have a right to marry in all 50 states. Among the 31 plaintiffs in the cases that will be argued at the court on April 28 are parents who have spent years seeking formal recognition on their children's birth certificates or adoption papers.

But opponents, in dozens of briefs asking the court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, insist they are not motivated by any prejudice toward gays and lesbians.

"This is an issue on which people of good will may reasonably disagree," lawyer John Bursch wrote in his defense of Michigan's gay-marriage ban. Bursch argued on behalf of the states that same-sex couples can claim no constitutional right to marriage.

. . .

The concern for children is among several threads that run through the legal, political, social and religious arguments being advanced in support of upholding the same-sex marriage bans.

"If children don't do as well when they are raised by same-sex parents, why would we want to establish or encourage that as a social norm?" asked the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, a Catholic University sociology professor. Sullins has analyzed data in government surveys and concluded that children brought up by two parents of the same sex have a higher rate of emotional problems than their peers raised by heterosexual parents.

Sullins has been harshly criticized by sociologists who support same-sex marriage, but he said he stands by his data. "I don't know of any Catholic way to compute the equation," he said. "The idea that there are no differences is emphatically mistaken. I don't know how else to say that."

For the full article, please visit 12NewsNow.