NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Marriage Update

24 hours remaining – Help reach our $50K goal for Prop 8 Defense!

Yesterday, we asked you to help fund the Prop 8 legal defense with a donation to the NOM Legal Defense Fund. Many of you stepped up and we have now raised $15,000 toward our $50,000 goal.

It’s a good start, but with 24 hours remaining, I’m asking you to please make a gift right now to help us reach our goal.

It’s urgent that we finish the trial stage of this litigation fully funded, so that we can begin planning the thorough and comprehensive appeal strategy that will be needed – regardless of how Judge Walker rules in the trial court.  We can’t afford to let financial considerations dictate the outcome of this case.

We don’t have the backing of wealthy Hollywood liberals or gay billionaires – we all need to step up and make sure the Prop 8 defense team has the resources to protect marriage -- all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. If everyone receiving this email were to give just $10, we would reach our goal many times over. Will you join us today?

Please click here to make an urgent online contribution of $10, $25, $50 or even $500 if you can afford it. All gifts are tax deductible, and every dollar will go toward the Prop 8 litigation expenses.  We have until noon Saturday to reach our goal. Please make your gift right now.

Support the Prop 8 Legal Defense!

After a marathon day of closing arguments, interviews, and press conferences yesterday, one thing is certain: The fight for Prop 8 is just beginning and we’re in this for the long haul.

Let me be clear: The battle over Prop 8 is a battle for the future of marriage in America. Ted Olson made no pretense yesterday – his goal is to overturn marriage not just in California but in every state across the nation, striking down state laws and constitutional amendments in 45 states.

As Maggie told the press after leaving the courtroom yesterday afternoon:

Chuck Cooper is a heckuva lawyer. At stake in this case is the future of marriage in all 50 states, and he's right that this attempt to shut down the debate by constitutionalizing gay marriage will backfire. Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn't seem to understand the argument,  and judging from today's exchanges, neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8.  But millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well.

We must be there every step of the way. Will you stand with us today? Over the next 48 hours, we have set a goal to raise $50,000 for the defense of Prop 8. Your gifts are tax deductible, and every dollar raised will go directly toward the legal fees and litigation expenses incurred in the Prop 8 trial.

Most of us can afford $20, or even $50 to help fight for marriage. (Think one less meal out with your family this month.) Some may even be able to give $100, $500 or $1000. Whatever you can afford, your gift is urgently needed. Please click here to make an online donation that will help ensure that we can take this fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Chuck Cooper and all the Prop 8 legal team have been very generous with their time – but still the costs of a lengthy trial, followed by two years of appeals all the way to the United States Supreme Court, will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps into the millions.  Our side doesn’t have a handful of Hollywood liberals and gay billionaires to fund our efforts – this is about all of us coming together to do what we can.

Consider these words from Pastor Jim Garlow – pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, and founder of the California Pastors Rapid Response Team:

“[The same-sex marriage debate] is THE major change point of the last few decades.  While the abortion issue is a foundational issue, the marriage definition issue is a survival issue.  No single social issue has threatened to forever muzzle Bible believing Christians like this contest.

"If we lose on this one, the culture loses.  One person has astutely observed that ’we cannot win the culture war merely on Prop 8, but we can lose it on Prop 8.'

"It is imperative that all pastors and Christian leaders view this for what it is: an irretrievable moment, with profound and lasting consequences.  We must vigorously support Prop 8, as if our ministries and our lives depend on it.  Ultimately, they will."

Losing simply isn’t an option. As most of you know by now, at NOM we have seen victory after stunning victory over the past two years, not because we had the largest organizational structure or the biggest lobbying budget, but because we have been willing to stand in the breach and put everything on the line. Together we have stood firm, shocking the media pundits and gay marriage activists alike, with victories in California, Maine, New York and New Jersey.

It’s time to do it again. Please stand with us and make your most generous contribution today! Together we will take this fight for marriage and the rights of California voters all the way to the Supreme Court – and win!

Statement From Maggie

"Chuck Cooper is a heckuva lawyer. At stake in this case is the future of marriage in all 50 states, and he's right that this attempt to shut down the debate by constitutionalizing gay marriage will backfire. Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn't seem to understand the argument, and judging from today's exchanges neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8.   But millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well."

Live Commentary from Brian Brown: 4pm ET

Friends,

Given the way the day's events are shaping up, we've rearranged the day’s schedule a bit. This gives us a chance to connect with you midway through the day, and then to return for a recap when the arguments wrap up.

I will now be providing live, interactive video commentary on the morning’s developments at 4pm Eastern Time (1pm Pacific time). This is YOUR chance to log on and ask questions regarding the case or the arguments being made by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

At 4pm Eastern, please log on to www.prop8case.com and click on the link under the live video feed that says: "Watch in High Quality and Chat Live."  You’ll then be able to submit your question, and I’ll respond to as many as I can.

Later, when the day's arguments are over, Maggie Gallagher will be checking in from San Francisco with her recap of the day.

Meanwhile, please stay active on Twitter and Facebook . . . our opponents love to try to shout us down in these forums, or overwhelm us with the sheer volume of posts. Let's make sure our side is heard as well! We're tweeting #prop8 and @nomtweets!

See you at 4pm Eastern at www.prop8case.com!

Brian Brown

President, National Organization for Marriage

Jon Rauch Defends Prop 8 Expert Witness David Blankenhorn

In a letter to the New York Times published today, Jonathan Rauch, prominent pro-gay marriage author, defends David Blankenhorn, who testified as an expert witness in Prop 8 trial, from scurrilous multiple attacks by Frank Rich:

"Frank Rich, for the third time since February, unfairly criticizes David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and a witness in the trial over Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. . ."

Kudos Jon. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/opinion/l16rich.html

Visit Prop8Case.com at 1pm ET for live coverage of Prop 8 Closing Arguments!

Today’s the day . . . closing arguments on California’s Proposition 8 begin at 10am PT/1pm ET in Judge Walker’s San Francisco courtroom, as the plaintiffs seek to make the case that marriage is bigoted, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

NOM chair Maggie Gallagher is in the courtroom and will be liveblogging and live-Tweeting throughout the day. Check in at www.prop8case.com for the latest blog posts, Tweets, media coverage and commentary. Then, when arguments finish, sometime around 7pm ET / 4pm PT, I’ll be online with live streaming video to give some immediate reaction to the day’s arguments.

Here’s a quick rundown of the day’s schedule (all times PDT):

10:00 – 11:30am:     Plaintiffs’ Argument (Ted Olson & David Boies)

11:30 – 11:45am:     City and County of San Francisco

11:45 – 12:00pm:     Governor, Attorney General and County Defendants

12:00 – 1:00pm:       Lunch

1:00 – 3:15pm:         Prop 8 Proponents (Charles Cooper)

3:15 – 3:45pm:         Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal (Olson & Boies)

So invite your friends, and then check in often throughout the day. While you’re there, please consider a gift to the NOM Legal Defense Fund. Donations are tax deductible and every dollar raised will go to help offset the cost of legal fees and other litigation expenses.

The Core Civil Right to Vote for Marriage

From my syndicated column this week:

This week, the Proposition 8 trial draws to a close.

This is the trial that never should have been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Ted Olson, once a GOP advocate for judicial restraint. Yet this week, he will be pleading with the judge to nullify the votes of 7 million Californians -- and, by extension, the votes of millions of Americans in other states who have exercised their right to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not a case about California law. This is the case that will decide the future of marriage for the entire country.

*     *     *

I am flying to San Francisco to be there at this historic moment, to live blog the event for the National Organization for Marriage. The last time I was in the Bay Area a few months ago I was sitting in an upscale bar in Oakland talking to a friend. A young woman, pretty, well-dressed, educated, walked over to my table and proceeded to yell at me. "You should be ashamed of yourself!" she said. I looked her in the eye and told her simply I was very proud of the work that I did, although I understood she disagreed. That made her even madder. "You should go South," she sputtered. "Go South, this is San Francisco!"

Actually it was Oakland, but I took her point. It was an illuminating moment. Here was an educated young woman who believed she had a right to purify an entire American city of those who disagreed with her about gay marriage. She behaved in a way that I would describe as uncivilized, but she saw herself as a great champion of civility, of tolerance, and of civil rights.

Ted Olson will talk in court this week like a civilized man. But Ted Olson, as much as any one man, is responsible for the idea that there is no real debate to be had about gay marriage, that all the legitimacy, all the arguments, all the good will and good reasons are on his side. He will be asking this judge to disrespect the views of his fellow Americans, to brand them ignorant, irrational and bigoted, and to take away our right to vote for marriage. And he will be bathed in applause for doing so.

Full text: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20100615/cm_ucmg/thecorecivilrighttovoteformarriage

U.K Chief Rabbi: "The Pope is Right About the Threat to Freedom"

Marriage Update/Maggie Gallagher

The Chief Rabbi's  eloquent defense of religious liberty:

"There are times when human rights become human wrongs. This happens when rights become more than a defence of human dignity, which is their proper sphere, and become instead a political ideology, relentlessly trampling down everything in their path. This is happening increasingly in Britain, and it is why the Pope's protest against the Equality Bill, whether we agree with it or not, should be taken seriously.

Let me make it clear that I believe homosexuals have rights that need defending. Like Jews, they have been a persecuted minority for far too long. They too, like Jews, were victims of the Holocaust. They have a case that should be heard. . . .

[R]eligious vision burned brightly in the minds of those such as John Locke, who first formulated the idea of rights in the 17th century. It was integral to the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." John F. Kennedy made a similar statement in his great inaugural address: "The rights of Man come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God."

. . . .using the ideology of human rights to assault religion risks undermining the very foundation of human rights themselves. When a Christian airport worker is banned from wearing a cross, when a nurse is sacked after a role-play exercise in which he suggested that patients pray, when Roman Catholic adoption agencies are forced to close because they do not place children for adoption with same-sex couples and when a Jewish school is told that its religious admissions policy is, not in intent but in effect, racist, we are in dangerous territory indeed."

Re-engineering the Family?

Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

Heather McDonald has just published a very thoughtful and brave piece on National Review online.

It begins this way:

An image from a TV ad for gay marriage, reproduced in the January18 New Yorker, provides a Rorschach test for reactions to America'songoing revolution in family structure. Two men in black suits stand shoulder-to-shoulder in a group of people, looking into each other'seyes. In their arms are two newborns in white baby clothes and blankets. Though it's not immediately apparent from the photo, the men are at a baptism for their infants. The ad, still being test-marketed, is called "Family Values," and is intended to emphasize the "conventionality of gay couples," explains The New Yorker.

If your reaction to the image is: "Where's the mother(s)?" you may not yet be fully on board the "conventionality" bandwagon. If your reaction to the foregoing question, however, is: "Why does it matter?" then you are keeping pace with the revolution. "Why does it matter?" may ultimately prove the more appropriate response, but no one should pretend that it represents anything other than a radical revision of the traditional relationship between parents and children - one whose consequences no one can predict.

New Study: Married Biological Parents Best

Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

A new government study just came out that looks at child abuse. 

Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?

Answer: Married biological parents. (see page 5-25).

All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents. 

The big gap is between the intact married biological family and every other family form. Children living with both their mom and dad united by marriage have  one-third the rate of serious child abuse, compared to children in any other family structure. 

Here's my question for Ted and David as they strive to prove that Science Says same-sex unions are just like opposite-sex ones, when it comes to children.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps alone of all the family structures science has ever studied, children living with same-sex couples do just as well as children in intact married families.  (Perhaps that is true even though your own expert witness admits there is no research on gay male families and child outcomes, and there is no nationally representative study that follows children raised from birth to adulthood by same-sex outcomes and compares how they do to children in other family forms ).

Perhaps. 

But does this study, which is one of hundreds with similar results favoring the natural family give  Ted Olson and David Boies pause late at night as they assert the scientific irrationality of respect for the natural family at all I wonder?  Ted and David, I'm wondering: not even a little bit?

Letter to Court Regarding Televised Trials

Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

NOM filed this letter regarding Rule 77-3:

January 27, 2010 

Hon. Phyllis Hamilton
Chair of the Rules Committee
United States Courthouse
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Local Rule 77-3

Dear Judge Walker,

My objection to televising high-profile trials is not theoretical.  It emerges directly from the experience of the attempt to televise the trial for Proposition 8.  Two-thirds of the expert witnesses-people who had been willing to sit for deposition, to prepare testimony, to fly to Sacramento to testify-dropped out under the prospect of having their faces and names televised.  I understand their reluctance, because I know (personally) the kind of hatred and threats that adopting a high-profile position against gay marriage now generate.  Many people I know who had a low profile-donors of a few hundred dollars or less-unexpectedly faced a tidal wave of hate that has impacted their personal and professional lives. People I know have been attacked on the street for holding up a "Yes on 8" sign, received death threats, and lost their jobs. Read More »

This isn't really a trial update.

Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

While David Blankenhorn is on the hand try to explain to David Boies the nature of marriage as a cross-cultural virtually universal human social institution, I was at Colorado University at Boulder, at the invitation of the St. Thomas Aquinas Center for Catholic Thought, debating same-sex marriage with Jonathan Rauch.

The Catholic News Agency's account (which strikes me a reasonably accurate for a quick summary), says in part:

"Gallagher rested her defense of marriage on a question of truth. She said the parties to the debate were using the same words to mean different things. "The first question for me is: Are same-sex unions 'marriages'?"

I then went on to say:

"I'm against discrimination, I'm against hatred, I'm in favor of marriage equality, but I don't think same-sex marriage is marriage. Therefore I think it is wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe that same-sex unions are marriages."

Putting Christianity on Trial

Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

What do Olson and Boies think they are doing? Watching accounts of this trial unfold this week  I had a big "aha" moment. It's now clear:    Ted and David think they are conducting the Scopes trial!  

When this trial began I told you: gay marriage activists were putting 7 million Californians on trial.  (Ed Whelan over at National Review has a brilliant series "Judge Walker's Witch Hunt" . . . explaining how intellectually absurd it is to conduct a "trial" into the subjective motivations of 7 million voters, constitutionally speaking.). But this week it got worse:  They are clearly putting Christianity itself on trial.  Why else have an expert read statements of Catholic and Southern Baptist doctrines into the record?

And why put a Stanford Prof. named Gary Segura on the stand to testify ""religion is the chief obstacle for gays' and lesbians' political progress."

Could the zero-sum nature of the game be any clear?  Rights for gays and lesbians, in their minds, depends on invalidating the voting rights of religious people when it comes to gay marriage, because their votes are influenced by their religion--i.e. bigotry.  

Here's their brilliant legal strategy: Ted and David want  the Supreme Court to rule that Catholicism and Southern Baptism and related Christian denominations are bigotry.  

(That's why their next move is to subpoena --i.e. drag into court against their will--two San Diego Christian pastors who emerged as leaders in the Prop 8 fight, Pastor Jim Garlow and Pastor Miles MacPherson.  Why should participating in democracy give somebody a right to drag you to Sacramento to court?)  

I know many  gay people do not agree with this anti-religion strategy. And I also know  many gay rights activists  are getting increasingly worried about the legal strategy and tactics employed by these two  legal eagles may backfire.  (See the Jan. 17 Los Angeles Times story, "Gay Marriage Supporters fear Supreme Court's Ruling was an Omen," and also Dale Carpenter's comment about the "bad start" for pro-gay marriage advocates.)

Ted Olson and David Boies think they can persuade the Supreme Court that Science with a capital "S" proves the voters are wrong about the natural family.  Then they want to pit Science with a capital "S" against "Big Religion," 

I bet Ted and David lay awake late at night think "Hey!, maybe someday someone will make a movie about us!"

Oh wait, somebody is.

Frustrated by the fact that Supreme Court intervened to block the televising of this trial, according to the gay press one gay marriage advocate is planning to film daily "re-enactments" of the trial, based on anti-Prop 8 bloggers accounts, and post them on you tube.  No, I am not making that up.

San Diego Mayor Sanders: The Reason Prop 8 Happened

Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testified today in the Prop 8 trial, in favor of misusing the Consittution to overturn the rights of 7 million Californian voters.  

Here's the interesting thing most people don't know.  San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders is the reason Prop 8 got on the ballot.

He gave moving testimony in court today about how much he loves his lesbian daughter.  Sure.  But he ran for office promising the people of San Diego he opposed gay marriage.  And then, he signed a city council resolution trying to overturn Prop 22 instead of meeting his obligations, living up to his promises.  And he used his daughter as an excuse.  That's wrong.  Politicians are not elected to advance the views and values of their families.

The National Organization for Marriage, which has been credited by gay rights activists as one of the main reasons Prop 8 qualified for the ballot, got involved because Mayor Sander betrayed his campaign vows.  I was asked to fly to San Diego in October of 2007 by a group of San Diego Catholics upset about the Mayor's betrayal.  That meeting lead directly to NOM's decision to try to raise a million dollars in January of 2008  to help Protect Marriage get this on the ballot.  The rest is history. Thank-you Mayor Sanders.

End of Week one: Gay Marriage Advocates Rebuked

Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

What happened to the dynamite duo of Ted Olson and David Boies?  After the first week of this trial the shine is off their allegedly invincible legal skills.

First loss, as Brian Brown wrote:

"Once again the Supreme Court has stepped in to protect marriage supporters from potential harassment and intimidation, this time by squashing the effort by Judge Vaughn Walker to break all the rules in order to televise this trial.

That's two strikes against Judge Walker, by the way; even the liberal Ninth Circuit couldn't stomach Judge Walker's earlier ruling allowing an unlimited fishing expedition into the private campaign strategy communications of Protect Marriage. 

And it also makes the second time that Justice Anthony Kennedy has stepped forward to try to protect at least the process, to create a more even playing field for supporters of marriage. You will remember it was Justice Kennedy who granted an emergency stay that prevented the release of the names of thousands of Washingtonians who signed a petition overturning an "all-but-marriage" bill, after some gay-marriage advocates said they would try to replicate the effort in California to post these names on the internet.

Justice Kennedy joined four other justices to keep Judge Walker from hastily lifting the TV ban in order to televise the Prop 8 trial: "The balance of equities favors applicants. While applicants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the trial is broadcast, respondents have not alleged any harm if the trial is not broadcast."

Brian continues, "The trial, which gay marriage advocates had hoped would be some kind of cultural zeitgeist-shifting moment, is turning out to be a bit of a dud from their point of view. . . The hotshot team of Olson and Boies, misled by their own intellectual arrogance, which includes a profound lack of respect for the views of those Americans who disagree with them (including 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8), appears off to a not-so-hot start. Harvard Prof. Nancy Cott says procreation--the creation of new life in the only kind of union where that child can reliably know and be known by, love and be loved by her own mom and dad--is no longer really a purpose of marriage (although she has to admit that it once was, at least sort of). Marriage is now about adults and our relationships. Once again, gay-marriage advocates are only reinforcing what we've been telling you: You can't support both the idea that "children need a mom and dad" and "gay marriage." Gay marriage ends one marriage tradition and irrevocably marks the beginning of using the law to reinforce a radically different idea about marriage. . . .

The obvious truth, repeated over and over again in the legal history of marriage in the U.S., is that the government thought marriage mattered because marital unions produce and protect children. They do this in two ways: First, by creating faithful, exclusive, enduring sexual unions that create the best context fo conceiving children. And second, by preventing (if the man and woman are faithful) the default harms of unregulated opposite-sex union: many fatherless children, many overburdened mothers, many men disconnected from family life.

This is the argument that Ted Olson told Newsweek "cannot be taken seriously." Good luck with that, Ted. Seven million Californians took it very seriously, and so do the majority of state courts that have considered it, several international human rights courts, and of course every major faith tradition.

On Christianity and marriage, San Francisco attorney Therese Stewart worked hard to establish that Catholics' and Baptists' views on marriage and sex are illegitimate bigotry. She actually had Yale Prof. George Chauncey read into the record official statements by the Vatican and by the Southern Baptist Convention. I had to laugh to keep from crying. This is the city that in an official resolution condemned the Catholic Church and urged a sitting Catholic archbishop to "defy" his own faith and side with the City Council's on gay adoption. Could gay-marriage advocates try any harder to fuel the perception that a victory for gay marriage requires the defeat of religious liberty, tolerance, and civility for Christianity and other traditional faiths?

I don't really think this is the way to win Justice Kennedy's heart. We'll see."