NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Marriage

Louisiana Governor Stands Strong Against Same-Sex Marriage

“Hollywood and the media elite are hostile to our values and they tip the scales to our liberal opponents at every opportunity,” wrote Jindal. “Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. It’s a deliberate strategy. And it’s time for corporate America to make a decision.” - Gov. Bobby Jindal

J000287As Americans across our nation prepare for the March for Marriage this Saturday, April 25th, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has bravely defended his stance on marriage in one of the most high-profile media publications out there: The New York Times’ Opinion Pages.

Politico covers Gov. Jindal’s piece:

The Republican 2016 hopeful penned an op-ed with the headline “I’m holding firm against gay marriage.” It accused “radical liberals” of teaming up with businesses to push same-sex marriage and other LGBT protections that he believes threaten religious liberty. As evidence, the Louisiana Republican pointed to the widespread public outcry that earlier this year pushed both Arkansas and Indiana to insert anti-discrimination protections into their religious freedom laws.

Jindal expressed support for a new bill in Louisiana called the “Marriage and Conscience Act” that would allow private businesses and institutions to refuse service based on their own definitions of marriage without the threat of government action. He called on conservatives to harness their traditional alliance with corporate interests to halt progressives’ momentum on pushing LGBT protections.

“This strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters,” Jindal wrote, calling for a new “grand bargain.”

You can read Jindal’s original piece here. And in case there was any doubt, Jindal makes his intention transparently clear:

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.

Well said, Gov. Jindal. We couldn't agree more.

Differing Opinions Are Not Welcome at John Hopkins University

Andrew Guernsey, a political science and classics major at John Hopkins University, reports via National Review that John Hopkins has launched another attack on individuals who hold conservative beliefs. This week, JHU’s student government voted to ban any hypothetical future Chick-fil-A outlet from their campus.

The student government allegedly disagrees with the personal opinions of the fast food chain’s owner on the topic of marriage. Guernsey, president of the student group Johns Hopkins University Voice for Life, explains why the student government’s decision is so dangerous:

ThinkstockPhotos-187643976The student government’s vote went beyond merely expressing support for same-sex marriage. The Chick-fil-A ban seeks to introduce unprecedented discrimination against companies owned by religious conservatives into the university’s contracting policies, even though only a few years ago, prominent liberals like Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama had held the same views on marriage. In banning Chick-fil-A from campus for “homophobia,” the JHU student government is only a short step from similarly giving the boot to socially conservative Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, and Jewish student groups from campus, as we have seen happen at Vanderbilt University, the 23 campuses of California State University, and others throughout the country.

In a free-market economy, the company that makes the best food at the lowest price usually wins more business. At a university, the robust free market of thought similarly should allow the best ideas to win out in an unfettered debate. The Chick-fil-A ban hurts both types of free market on campus. If the argument for redefining marriage into a genderless contract for any two consenting adults is so strong, then advocates for it should not need the student government’s version of the thought police to silence dissenting voices.

Guernsey is absolutely correct: silencing dissenting voices is an affront to the American university system. JHU’s message is crystal clear: any students who disagree with their opinion are not welcome on Johns Hopkins' campus. It is no shock, but it is a shame. There are many brilliant students at JHU who should be given the opportunity to hear both sides of an argument and make the decision for themselves. While Johns Hopkins may have seemingly “silenced” potential dissenting voices, it won’t last.

Truth can never be fully silenced nor destroyed. The student government at Hopkins can spin their decisions any way they want, but sharp students like Guernsey can see exactly what their real intention is: discrimination, all in the name of “tolerance.”

A Country for the People Should be Decided by the People

American history is fraught with differences of opinion: Patriots and Loyalists, Conservatives and Liberals, Federalists and Anti-federalists, to name a few. However, simply because there are two sides to an issue does not provide a reason for the Supreme Court to step in and rule on that issue. As Kyle Duncan writes in an article for Public Discourse:

ThinkstockPhotos-118461784The fact that Americans have reached different conclusions about same-sex marriage is not a sign of a constitutional crisis that requires the Supreme Court to step in. On the contrary, it’s a sign that our Constitution is working the way it should. In our federal system, this issue must be resolved at the state level. To resolve it through federal judicial decree would demean the democratic process, marginalize the views of millions of Americans, and do incalculable damage to our national civic life.

The redefinition of marriage goes even beyond an attack on our society’s core institution. At stake is the role of parenting, rights under family law, and the authority of self-governance:

The step from the older to the newer version of marriage is a momentous one. As Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the Sixth Circuit, the concept of marriage as a man-woman institution is “measured in millennia, not centuries or decades,” and “until recently [it] had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” In Windsor, the Supreme Court similarly observed that “marriage between a man and a woman had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.” Thus, when state citizens decide whether to adopt same-sex marriage, one thing appears inescapably true: they are exercising their sovereign authority over the basic architecture of family law.

Only from this perspective can we see what is truly at stake in the same-sex marriage cases. The plaintiffs are not merely asking the Court to recognize a new right. Instead, they are asking the Court to declare that the Constitution removes this issue from democratic deliberation. It is often asked by proponents of same-sex marriage what “harms” would flow from judicial recognition of their claims. From the perspective of democratic self-government, those harms would be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible.

As Duncan logically articulates, marriage, self-government, and civility are all at stake. Sadly, it will take years to pick up the broken pieces of our system, the pieces that cracked when religious freedom and state rights were openly attacked. But if the Supreme Court believes that the American people will watch their right to self-governance be undermined, they are mistaken. And this weekend is just the beginning.

Radio Interview with Brian Brown

smallwefreedoms-journal-squareLonnie Poindexter, host of The Freedom’s Journal Radio Show, recently interviewed NOM President Brian Brown about the upcoming March for Marriage.

Be sure to listen to the full interview below! For more information, feel free to explore the myriad of offerings from Urban Family Communications.

Why Should You Support the 2015 March for Marriage?

The Family Research Council, one of NOM's March for Marriage coalition partners, provides excellent insight into many of the reasons why it is so important to support the upcoming March:

ThinkstockPhotos-146835966With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of state marriage laws on Tuesday, April 28th, supporters of natural marriage plan to gather in Washington, D.C. on April 25th to rally and pray for the Court. Saturday's "March for Marriage" will begin at noon in front of the U.S. Capitol and finish at the steps of the Supreme Court. Schedule, map, and speakers can all be viewed here.

For the past two years, state and federal courts have dealt with the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 2013 United States v. Windsor decision, mostly choosing to ignore the limits of the holding and instead imposing judicial redefinitions of marriage on states where voters have previously chosen to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (FRC Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg has written previously regarding Windsor's narrow outcome). This spring, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to correct the course of lower courts and reaffirm its previous declarations that marriage policy "[b]y history and tradition" has been "treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States."

Given the profound costs to the rule of law, federalism, and First Amendment freedoms that will result from a judicial redefinition of marriage imposed on all fifty states, the Supreme Court would be wise to leave to the democratic process a policy question nowhere answered in the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, when polled earlier this year by WPA Opinion Research, that's precisely the outcome 61% of Americans said they wanted to see. Saturday's March for Marriage will offer thousands of Americans the public opportunity to remind the country and the Court that marriage has profound public importance and deserves the careful definition and debate that can only occur in the democratic process.

Thank you to FRC and everyone else who is marching with us to defend marriage, freedom, and truth!

ADF's Countdown to Scotus: Debate on April 23, 2015

ThinkstockPhotos-178951575On Thursday, April 23,Alliance Defending Freedom's Austin Nimocks andThe Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson will be debating Roberta Kaplan, Paul Weiss, and Prof. Steve Sanders from Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

This event promises to be both insightful and fascinating for anyone in the area who would like to attend.

Debate: Does the Constitution require states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages?

When: Thursday, April 23rd, 6 p.m.

Where: O’Byrne Gallery, Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) Headquarters, 1776 D Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006

For more information or to RSVP, please email [email protected] or call 202.888.7636

In addition, you can visit the event site here.

John Eastman: Just the Facts, Ma'am

More than fifty-million people have, by their votes, demonstrated that they continue to understand the profound importance of marriage. They deserve better than to have the decision to protect or redefine marriage taken out of their hands by the Supreme Court.

ThinkstockPhotos-85447250In his most recent Public Discourse article, NOM Chairman John Eastman takes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to task  for her egregious declaration: the American people will accept a Supreme Court decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Justice Ginsburg believes that this decision, which would force all states to license same-sex partners as “married,” will be accepted readily by the American people because “the change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” according to Ginsburg.

However, Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on this subject also turned out to be simply untrue:

The numbers are staggering, though you won’t see them reported in the nation’s major newspapers. The issue has been on the ballot in thirty-nine statewide elections in thirty-five different states. The cumulative total: 51,483,777 votes in favor of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage, versus 33,015,412 votes in favor of same-sex marriage. That’s a vote margin of 60.93 percent to 39.07 percent, a landslide in American politics.

In addition to disproving Justice Ginsburg’s claim, Dr. Eastman also explains why same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right:

The petitioners’ demand that the Court “find” a right to same-sex “marriage” implicit in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment threatens to drag the Supreme Court, and the country, into another such quagmire. If the Constitution clearly compelled such a result, then it would be the “painful duty” of the Court to say so, a position recognized by the Court nearly two centuries ago in the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland. But the Constitution’s text does not remotely compel such a result. Without such a clear command, accepting the petitioners’ arguments would more accurately be described as a “self-inflicted wound” than the exercise of a “painful duty.”

So why is it that the Constitution’s text does not mandate same-sex marriage throughout the land? It does provide that “No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the law.” Hence the “marriage equality” mantra from the proponents of same-sex marriage. That mantra may be a good debating tactic, but it is not a good legal argument, for it assumes the very thing in dispute.

The real truth is that the American people value the institution of marriage, and they are willing to fight to defend it as between one man and one woman. Regardless of Justice Ginsberg's personal opinions, Americans will not passively watch their precious rights and institutions crumble. Sorry Justice Ginsburg, but those are the facts.

You can read the full article via Public Discourse.

The 2015 March for Marriage



Dear Marriage Supporter,

I just got a bit of good news that I wanted to share with you.

I just received a phone call from a lovely couple in Altoona, Pennsylvania, who have chartered a bus and gathered 30 of their friends to come to the March for Marriage next weekend! Isn't that wonderful?

In the midst of all the struggles and hardships that come with this job, it seems like God always sends me blessings like this when I most need them — and for that I am grateful.

It simply reminds me that there are countless marriage heroes all across our great nation willing to make heroic sacrifices to stand up in defense of God's truth about marriage.

Speakers and Special Guests

I am pleased to announce the following people as speakers and honored guests at this year's March:

Running Out Of Time

As I mentioned yesterday, we are running out of time to secure funding for the buses we have reserved.

We have received so many requests for assistance with funding buses to bring marriage supporters to Washington, DC for the March — the majority of which come from Churches in less affluent areas.

While the outpouring of support in the past few days has been absolutely remarkable — thank you! — we still have a tremendous need for funding to ensure that everyone who wants to come to the March to make their voice heard in defense of marriage is able to do so!

We need to raise $20,000 over the weekend to stay on track and I am praying that you will make an immediate contribution in support of the March to help us fund buses.

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Thank you so much for all you do in defense of marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Defending the Sanctity of Marriage

In a guest editorial piece in the Auburn Villager, Auburn residentDennis Shannon explains the logical reasoning that compels him to oppose sanctioning same-sex “marriage”:

Opposition to same sex marriage is about protecting the rights of children to a father and a mother. The primary reason that the state has a vested interest in marriage, as I understand it, is that marriage is the social institution that provides the best environment to nourish, protect, socialize and educate children. Social scientists indicate that children who are raised by a father and mother that are married to each other have the best chance of success in life. This is not to impugn single parents who do their best for their children.

ThinkstockPhotos-57442653 (1)I oppose same sex marriage because I am for the First Amendment of the Constitution, which gives me the right to practice my faith without interference from the state. Anywhere same sex marriage is the law of the land, the first amendment right to freedom of religion becomes null and void. The perceived rights of homosexuals always seem to trump the rights of people of faith to carry out their lives in accordance with their beliefs. Parents lose their rights to the moral education of their children, bakers must participate in same sex marriage by baking cakes for the “marriage” or be forced out of business (which recently happened in Washington State), professional photographers must film a ceremony that they do not approve of or face severe fines … it goes on and on. Religious speech is being restricted in the military and officers have been punished for not endorsing homosexuality. In Canada and in Europe, pastors have been threatened with jail for “hate speech” for preaching on the Biblical view of sexuality and marriage. That can happen here as well if things continue on their current trend.

Many of the forefathers of this nation – Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Congregationalists, Catholics, Mennonites and Jews - came to this nation to escape persecution in Europe so that they could practice their faith as they saw fit. If the Supreme Court makes same sex marriage the law of the land, we will have lost much of the freedom for which this country was founded.

Although there are many things that could be improved in Alabama, I was never more proud of my adopted state than when we voted to protect the welfare of children, parental rights and our religious liberties by voting for the Sanctity of Marriage law.

You can read his full Auburn Villager editorial here. Bravo to Mr. Shannon for speaking out in defense of marriage as between a man and a woman. Our founding fathers would applaud you!

Hollywood Is Pushing a Pro-SSM Agenda, But Where Will it Stop?

We have often seen same-sex marriage activists trying to force their pro-SSM agenda onto as many people as possible through business, education, the courts, and the media, but a recent GLAAD report shows some more unsettling results.

The report indicates that the number of films and TV shows featuring LGBT characters (and often, same-sex marriage) has risen to an all time high, over-representing true statistics by nearly 500%. But what is even more concerning is that GLAAD says this is still not enough: they want even more leading roles for LGBT characters, more racial diversity, and voiced discontent with the occasional “less-than-positive portrayals of the homosexual lifestyle by some filmmakers.”

The article also explains, in part, how GLAAD “measured” their data:

200274063-001To produce its 2015 “Studio Responsibility Index,” homosexual advocacy group GLAAD analyzed the film releases of seven major film studios and their affiliates and found that out of 161 movies released in 2014, 25 featured characters with non-traditional sexual preferences such as homosexuality or bisexuality – a total of 15.5 percent. The major film studios were more likely to feature gay characters – nearly 18 percent of their films did so, compared to just 11 percent of those released by their smaller, “indie”-style affiliates.

Considering a recent Gallup poll found that only 3.4 percent of the U.S. population identifies as homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, the number of films featuring homosexual characters would seem to be inordinately large.

GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis announced that studios should "continue increasing the number and profile of positive portrayals of homosexuals at American cinemas in order to change the 'hearts and minds'" of those who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.

“Only when they make those changes and catch up to other, more consistently inclusive media portrayals will we be able to say that America’s film industry is a full partner in accelerating acceptance,” Ellis said.

“Studies have repeatedly shown that in absence of someone knowing an LGBT person in real life, programs and films with LGBT characters can help foster understanding and acceptance,” Ellis continued.

Understanding and acceptance are noble goals indeed, but is this really Ellis' goal? Advocacy groups like GLAAD have a history of utilizing mass outlets like Hollywood and the film industry for the sole purpose of forcing their beliefs on everyone, and then attacking those who don't conform.

No big screen film can ever change a fundamental truth: that family begins with marriage between one man and one woman, and children deserve both their mother and father.

Pope Francis Speaks Out Against Gender Theory

Pope Francis, who is renowned for his humility and compassion for all, has recently spoken out again in defense of sexual complementarity within the family. The Pope had strong words for advocates of gender theory, radical feminism, as well as any attempts to deny the crucial and beautiful differences between males and females:

POTD_Pope-baby_2521172c...Man and woman are the image and likeness of God. This tells us that not only is man taken in himself the image of God, not only is woman taken in herself the image of God, but also man and woman, as a couple, are the image of God. The difference between man and woman is not for opposition, or for subordination, but for communion and procreation, always in the image and likeness of God.

Experience teaches us: to know himself well and to grow harmoniously, the human being needs reciprocity between man and woman. When this does not happen, we see the consequences. We are made to listen to and help one another. We can say that without reciprocal enrichment in this relationship — in thought and in action, in affections and in work, also in faith – the two cannot understand in depth what it means to be man and woman.

Modern and contemporary culture has opened new opportunities, new freedoms and new depths for the enrichment of the understanding of this difference. But it has also introduced many doubts and much skepticism. For instance, I wonder if the so-called gender theory is not also an expression of a frustration and resignation, which aims to eliminate the sexual difference because it no longer knows how to face it. Yes, we risk taking a step backward. The removal of the difference, in fact, is the problem, not the solution.

Aleteia has made the full text of the Pope’s catechesis available here.

VICTORY! Angie's List CEO Resigns

Less than a month after we launched our Dump Angie initiative, 2,290 former Angie's List members have canceled their accounts following the company's attack on the rights of Christians and other faiths, and an additional 4,938 have written the company with their disapproval, saying they would not be using Angie's List in the future. Thank you to all who have made the Dump Angie pledge!

In addition to thousands of marriage supporters taking action, now a second victory has emerged from our Dump Angie petition: Bill Oesterie has “surprised” everyone by voluntarily stepping down from his position as CEO of the company. Having co-founded the subscription service in 1995, Oesterie is leaving at one of the company’s rockiest times, due to its decision to withhold business from Indiana after the state passed a bill protecting the religious freedom rights of its citizens.

What Oesterie quickly learned was that discrimination against Christians is still, in fact, discrimination, and that does not sit well with the American people. However it seems that Oesterie does not want to publicly let on that the reaction to his stance against religious freedom influenced this latest decision:

ThinkstockPhotos-78052032 (1)Oesterle's public reasons for leaving the company are to "re-enter politics" -- although the last several weeks would suggest he never left them. Feeling the pain of a boycott, the pinch of another downward year (the Indianapolis Star says the business "relies heavily on investor money to stay afloat"), and a public decision to put his company at odds with the First Amendment almost certainly contributed to the sudden departure. Still, Oesterle says, his goal is to reverse the "shellacking" Indiana took in the RFRA debate.

"I can maybe do some things to help resolve some of the state's issues." His position as CEO, he explained, is "incompatible" with his political involvement -- a view that was no doubt reinforced courtesy of former subscribers. Even when Governor Mike Pence (R-Ind.) watered down the language protecting the freedom of belief, Oesterle complained that he didn't go far enough. "I abhor discrimination, I just do. I certainly support religious freedom... right up to the point that [it] discriminates against somebody else and actively does so." Like so many faux religious liberty supporters, he wants to protect everyone of discrimination but the true victims: men and women of faith.

Whether Oesterie or the media will admit it, it was the men and women who believe in their religious freedom rights who showed Oesterie the real effects of attacking the first amendment. Oesterie is one of many who have learned the hard way that marriage defenders are not submissive: they are refusing to compromise on something as important as marriage and family.

This is a great victory for religious freedom, and there are many more to come!

Diverse Faith Groups Come Together to Defend Marriage

As the battle to protect marriage makes it way to the Supreme Court, 19 religious organizations have filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking our Supreme Court justices to uphold the true definition of marriage and honor religious freedom:

ThinkstockPhotos-464959725"Notwithstanding our theological differences, we are united in declaring that the traditional institution of marriage is indispensable to the welfare of the American family and society," according to the brief filed earlier this month.

"We are also united in our belief that a decision requiring the states to license or recognize same-sex marriage would generate church-state conflicts that will imperil vital religious liberties."

It is wonderful to see varied denominations, such as the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all come together to protect the essential institution of marriage.

Speaking about the decision to unite, Eric Hawkins of the LDS Church said:

"While we have been outspoken proponents in favor of protections for LGBT people in such areas as housing and employment, we believe that a redefinition of marriage to include same–sex couples has profoundly troubling implications for society in the long-term. We have therefore joined with many other diverse faiths representing tens of millions of Americans in expressing our views to the Supreme Court.”

These groups should be applauded for not only their commitment to defending marriage, but also for allowing their united beliefs to bring them together to represent the voices of many other Americans. This joint group bears many similarities to another group who put aside their differences to establish the laws protecting our rights and freedom: the founding fathers.

Thank you to all who refuse to be silent about the true nature of marriage! Together, we will make our voices heard and protect marriage as it has always been, and no matter what, will always remain: a sacred union between one man and woman.

The Cost of Same-Sex Marriage: Children's Well-Being and Happiness

“How are heterosexuals harmed by same-sex marriage?” “Why don’t you want two people of the same gender who love each other to be married?” “Same-sex parents are just as good as heterosexual parents.”

ThinkstockPhotos-185028425Many of those advocating to redefine marriage have sought to turn marriage and parenthood into a political cause. But the truth of the matter is that marriage and parenthood are anything but political. Rather, they are universal truths that are ontologically, sociologically, and not to mention, spiritually based.

Already, we see an increasing number of adults who were once raised in same-sex households speaking out about the void in their lives. These courageous individuals are giving a face to the powerful social research findings uncovered by researchers such as Mark Regnerus and others.

As more and more same-sex couples assert their "right" to children, the voices of the children themselves are becoming more prominent. Here are excerpts from two of them who are speaking out on why children will always want and always need a mom and a dad:

In an open letter published on Public Discourse, Katy Faust writes to Justice Kennedy, explaining not only how same-sex marriage hurts children, but how it encourages an alternative form of parenting that denies a child their right to biological parents. She writes:

ThinkstockPhotos-83115964While it’s true that parents will be missing from a child’s life for many different reasons, redefining marriage will change marriage as a whole and thus parenting for many kids. Because the government’s interest in marriage is children, and the historic basis for marriage has been a procreative relationship, this new genderless definition which excludes a mother or father actually encourages “one or both biological parents to be missing from a child’s life.”

She goes on to laud the UN for recognizing the right of a child “to know and be cared for by his or her parents”:

We should follow the lead of the UN and prioritize the rights of children, who have an inherent right to their parents. Adults have the right to choose to enter into a partnership that cannot produce children, and government should not prevent such a decision. But as a society, our laws must uphold and encourage the family structure that best protects children’s rights.

Another woman recently shared her story with The Christian Institute:

A woman raised by two mothers has admitted the experience was “damaging and confusing”, and has warned of the potential for “irreparable, long-term damage to a child”.

Hetty Baynes Russell, 58, said her unconventional parental setup fostered “a life of confusion and a lack of emotional security”, which landed her in therapy for many years, “trying to make sense of it all”.

"Far from being a healthy, nurturing state of affairs, this arrangement — where I was caught in a destructive, triangular battle for my mother’s affection with another woman, while forced to watch helplessly as my father was emasculated and airbrushed from our lives — was simultaneously damaging and confusing”.

As same-sex marriage proponents continue to push hard for marriage redefinition, they falsely claim that they are "on the right side of history.” However, as these voices and many others are telling us, factual history will never be on their side: history shows us that marriage is and has always been between a man and woman. Our ancestral identity, and the very fact that we are here today is a testimony to the natural union of a man and a woman. These children raised in same-sex households understand the cost of redefining marriage. Let's listen to them: the real voices from the same-sex marriage movement.

Even From Thousands of Miles Away, Marriage Supporters Are Marching

When we talk about the effects of same-sex marriage, we always come back to our two highest values–faith and family. It seems so obvious that the destruction of traditional marriage is yet another blow to the black family, with untold harm for our children. And yet, there are some who still don’t understand the importance of this issue. ~CAAP

ThinkstockPhotos-122412432Even those who can't make it to Washington D.C. on April 25th will be supporting the March for Marriage from thousands of miles away!

ARV Tea Party is sponsoring a March for Marriage set in Russellville, Arkansas. Beginning at 3 pm, the group will march to the Pope Country Courthouse to show their support for traditional marriage. Once everyone arrives at the courthouse, Diane Owens, from the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) will be the featured speaker.

For those in Arkansas who can’t make it to the DC March, you can visit the event’s Facebook page here and check out out CAAP’s website for more information on their work. As demonstrated in the video below, CAAP shows their amazing support for the true definition of marriage every day!