NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Marriage

"The Implications of Redefining Marriage are Staggering..."

The consequences of redefining marriage are formidable and grave, Michael Brown recently wrote at Charisma News.  Brown pointed out some of the absurdities of California's new law deleting the "biased" and "outdated" terms "husband" and "wife" from the state's marriage law.  The terms have been replaced with "spouse."

Women cannot be fathers and men cannot be mothers, Brown wrote.  He argued that marriage cannot be redefined unless words that are foundational to our existence are rendered meaningless:

Allow me to make some very simple statements...

Note to California: A woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother.

California-FamilyFurther note to California: The terms "husband and wife" are neither discriminatory nor outdated.

Further, further note to California: Your social experiment will fail.

I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who love each other deeply and who are committed to each other long-term, and I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who are absolutely devoted to their children.

I am simply pointing out that their union cannot rightly be called "marriage" (regardless of what the courts might say) without rendering foundational words and concepts meaningless, a sure recipe for cultural chaos.

To repeat: The implications of redefining marriage are staggering, and those of us who love and cherish marriage and family need to redouble our efforts and renew our courage to stand up for what is right and what is best, making a fresh determination to swim against the current flood tide of semantic and social confusion.

True marriage and family will prevail in the end.

The "cultural chaos" to which Brown referred is what has brought about intolerance and bigotry toward those who believe in marriage between one man and one woman.

When It Comes to Parents, It Isn't "The More The Merrier"

Blogging for the Ruth Institute, Jennifer Johnson recounted her experience of growing up with five parents.  The piece responds to claims by Masha Gessen, a prominent LGBT activist who was recently honored by the state department, who has famously celebrated her own unorthodox family as the shape of things to come:

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

Johnson's mother and father divorced when she was about three.  Her mother remarried once and her dad remarried twice, so she has experienced what life is like with five parents--a mother, a father, two stepmothers and a step-father.  Johnson's experience shows that growing up in such a structure is not as rosy of a picture as LGBT activists paint or something to be approached casually:

Child Custody

In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child...adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.

Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates... Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask [activists]: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.

If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.

It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.

Johnson's experience shows such structures have a profoundly negative impact on children--putting the desires of adults over the needs of children does a giant disservice to the young, vulnerable children involved.

Advocates of redefining marriage can push junk science through the liberal media and claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but when push comes to shove, science and common sense demonstrate otherwise.  Children like Johnson who were raised in unstable environments rarely wish the same on anyone else.

Is it just and fair for adults to put the well-being of children on the backburner so that adult desires can trump everything else?

Johnson also asked readers:

Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them.

Johnson's experiences say a lot about redefining marriage: it hurts children and even advocates of redefining marriage are glad that they benefitted from being raised by both a mother and a father.

Gessen has also advocated for the abolition of marriage altogether, saying:

...it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

LGBT Views on Marriage Differ Sharply From Most Americans

Wells Fargo recently surveyed LGBT investors and found stark contrasts between Americans' overall attitudes about marriage and LGBT respondents' views.

According to the San Francisco Business Times, the survey "found that 80 percent of Americans overall consider love and commitment to be the most important reasons to get married, whereas just 54 percent of LGBT respondents said that those are the most important reasons to marry" [emphasis added].

Bride and GroomSixty-one percent of the LGBT respondents said the ability to make healthcare decisions for one's partner is the most important right or benefit of marriage.  Fifty-eight percent of LGBT respondents said insurance and healthcare coverage was the most important and 56 percent said inheritance rights were the most important.

Interestingly, however, many states already have laws allowing same-sex couples to make healthcare decisions for each other; and in any case, this concern and others like it can be resolved through specific policies without redefining marriage.

It's also worth noting that federal regulations require hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to adopt written policies and procedures regarding patients’ visitation rights that allow hospital visitation for same-sex couples.  In short, it is not necessary for marriage to be redefined in order to allow same-sex couples to visit each other in the hospital or make healthcare decisions for each other.  As Ryan Anderson has pointed out, single people need to be visited in the hospital, too:

Every individual has those concerns. I am not married. When I get sick, I need somebody to visit me in the hospital. When I die, I need someone to inherit my wealth. That situation is not unique to a same-sex couple. That is a situation that matters for all of us.  So we need not redefine marriage to craft policy that will serve all citizens.

Specific policy changes can be made on matters like hospital visitation without redefining the institution of marriage.  Marriage isn't simply an institution that exists to grant any two people who care about each other the right to visit each other in the hospital; it's an institution that connects children with their biological parents and ensures that they have the chance to grow up benefitting from the unique contributions of both a mother and a father.  Marriage is an institution that reflects the complementary of the sexes and comprehensively unites husband and wife. 

It is imprudent and unnecessary to redefine marriage simply to address matters like hospital visitation policies.

Six Myths About Monogamy

Young people haven't given up on marriage.  Monogamy is still of great value to marriage and society.  Monogamy and marriage endure constant attacks, which frequently lack substance or logic, from determined progressives, yet commitment and marriage still prevail.

2012-11-26 Wedding CoupleAmy Otto takes on the six most common myths about monogamy in a post at The Federalist, exploring the benefits of monogamy and society's need for marriage.  Most young people do want to get married, contrary to sketchy polls that indicate otherwise, and popular fallacies about monogamy do not render monogamy archaic or a waste of time.

Six myths about monogamy are that it is dead because we are living longer than ever; it is only possible because of hormones, and those fade; other animals aren't monogamous, so there's no need for humans to be, either; "science-sounding stuff must be true"; the redefinition of marriage will make man-woman couples re-think fidelity; and people marry to meet all of their needs.

Otto writes:

Unrelenting denigration of marriage as an institution has been an obsession of “progressive” folks for some time. They tend to use whatever blunt instrument is handy to push the ideal of marriage out of the public square. Whether it’s in the name of feminism, gay marriage, or naïve hipsterism, a full-frontal assault on the institution, not just by gay-marriage-minded folks, but by those who truly don’t believe the standards of marriage like monogamy are possible, has only intensified.

[...]

Believing that marriage is a purely transactional relationship based on mutual-needs gaps is the precise thing leading to the illogical assumption that monogamy and marriage are dead ends.

The next time you see yet another piece declaring monogamy is “dead,” remember the writer wants you to lower your expectations. But marriage and its necessary component, monogamy, are still the best game in town.

Read the full article here.

California Senator: 'Husband' and 'Wife' are "Outdated, Biased" Terms

From FoxNews:

Husband-Wife-StrikethroughThe terms “husband” and “wife” have been deleted from California’s marriage law under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The terms will be replaced with “spouse” to accommodate same-sex marriage, which became legal in the state last year after the Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on it.

[...]

“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender” [emphasis added].

Further proof that redefining marriage is not simply about "equality" or expanding the institution to include more kinds of relationships; it is about fundamentally altering the meaning of the institution itself, and discarding terms like "husband" and "wife" to "the ash heap of history."

NOM President Featured in Legatus Magazine

Brian Brown, President of NOM, and his family were recently featured on the cover of Legatus Magazine as part of their coverage of the upcoming extraordinary synod of Catholic bishops on pastoral challenges to the family in the context of evangelization.

"At a time when the definition of marriage and family is being distorted almost daily, The Vatican is about to convene a synod on the family that many hope will bring clarity to a culture in confusion," Judy Roberts wrote.  The gathering is expected to reinforce Catholic doctrine on marriage and family.

Catholic experts quoted throughout the article explained the purpose of this synod and how Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage cannot change.

Brown was quoted extensively throughout the article, as was March for Marriage speaker Archbishop Cordileone.

Brown told Legatus that claims that the Catholic Church will change its teaching on marriage are untrue:

“On the issue of marriage as the union of man and woman, Pope Francis has repeatedly been strong.  The synod is an opportunity to reassert the beauty, hope, the love that is the natural family."

Archbishop Cordileone agreed, saying:

"Church teaching can’t change.  Otherwise, we’re into that dictatorship of relativism.”

The article ended with a final quote from Brown:

Regardless of the issues it takes up, NOM’s Brian Brown sees the synod as an opportunity for the Church to make clear the truth about marriage and the great good it does for society.

“To be pastoral is not to go with the times,” he said. “Nothing has changed on that front. It wouldn’t have been right for the Church to embrace what was going on in Rome in the early periods of the Church or any culture that clearly contradicts the truth. It’s a misunderstanding to think that pastoral means to fit in; to be pastoral is to stand up for the truth in and out of season.”

The full article, titled Family Under Fire, is an informative read for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  Marriage defenders, regardless of their faith, will understand and appreciate the truths about marriage that the article conveys--and the importance of defending these truths against an increasingly hostile, secular culture.

Ideal Home for a Child is With His or Her Mother and Father

A photo of two men holding a newborn baby is making its rounds on the internet.  The baby boy was born to an unrelated surrogate mother during Toronto's WorldPride week.  The photo has generated many reactions and garnered the support and praise of many who are supportive of redefining marriage.

Everyone can agree that a defenseless, precious baby deserves love from all of the people in his life.  But many who viewed this photo--or have read stories about same-sex couples adopting, or are curious about what effect the redefinition of marriage has on children--have likely wondered what family structure best benefits children.

Social scientist Mark Regnerus's acclaimed Family Structures Study examined a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.  Those who viewed this viral photo would perhaps be interested in and benefit from reading Regnerus's findings.

Regnerus's extensive study revealed that "children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day."

Family

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18," and although it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior does not necessarily have anything to do with the ability to be good, effective parents, the data suggest "that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number."

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children raised in same-sex households are much more likely to have received welfare growing up, have lower educational attainment, report less safety and security in their family of origin, report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin, are more likely to suffer from depression, and have been arrested more often.

The study also showed that children of lesbian mothers are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance than children raised by their biological parents.  Regnerus's study shows clearly that the ideal home for a child is with his or her mother and father.

Nobody is saying that gays and lesbians don’t love their children and don’t work hard to be good parents. The point that needs to be understood is that this is not about what adults want for themselves, it’s about what is best for children. Adoption exists to serve the needs of children, not the desires of adults.  Adoption places children with the parents they need, not adults with the children they want. The rights at stake here belong to the children – their right to expect to receive the love of their mother and father.

Activist Judge Attempts to Redefine Marriage in Kentucky

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn declared Kentucky's law protecting marriage "void and unenforceable" yesterday but stayed the imposition of same-sex "marriages" pending a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Kentucky-FlagStunningly, a single judge has decided that his opinion can override the votes of 75 percent of Kentuckians, who approved a constitutional amendment protecting marriage in 2004.

According to Heyburn, there is an “utter lack of logical relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriages and any conceivable legitimate state interest.”  Completely ignoring the fact that the state has an interest in protecting children, the wealth of evidence that shows children do best with a married mother and father in a stable relationship, and the basic truth that marriage connects children to their biological parents, Heyburn subverted the will of the people of Kentucky with this decision.

Kentucky Governor Steve Breshear said the state will appeal.

Heyburn's assertion that the Kentucky law excludes some people from “the status and dignity of marriage” begs the question: what is marriage?  Heyburn's decision/ruling implies that same-sex unions are the same as marriages, when by their very nature, they are not.

Heyburn also wrote that marriage denies the "intangible and emotional benefits of civil marriage" to same-sex couples.  But marriage is not purely an emotional union--it is the only union that comprehensibly unites the sexes toward bringing children into the world and ensures children benefit from growing up with both a mother and a father.

Heyburn's ruling is a dangerous example of judicial activism gone wild in the United States.  Renegade judge after renegade judge has worked to throw out the votes of the American people who have voted to protect marriage.  Heyburn's blatant disregard for the will of Kentucky voters and lack of understanding of the intrinsic nature of marriage and what sets it apart from other unions is alarming.

However, there is hope in this case.  Honorably, Gov. Breshear is doing his duty by defending the law and the democratic process.  And, noting Justice Kennedy's opinion in United States v. Windsor, Heyburn also did not claim that same-sex couples have a “fundamental right” to marry.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is expected to rule on this in early August.  Until then, the redefinition of marriage is on hold in Kentucky.  Let's pray that reason, truth, and justice prevail.

Five Questions for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates

Caitlin Bootsma of Human Life International's Truth and Charity Forum has a list of questions she would like to ask advocates of same-sex marriage.  It has become difficult to debate marriage, she wrote at Aleteia, because those on both sides of the issue frequently are not talking about the same issues.  It is also difficult to have a rational discussion because supporters of redefining marriage call those who disagree with them bigots or intolerant without engaging in any debate.

Bootsma quoted some of Archbishop Cordileone's remarks at the March for Marriage and then wrote:

Whether we think that marriage is being further eroded in our country or whether we feel that we or someone we know “deserves the right” to be married to someone of the same-sex, this is not an exercise in debate club, but an issue of momentous significance to our nation. It is for this reason that I rarely, if ever, have had the opportunity ask sincere questions of same-sex marriage advocates.

Here is Bootsma's list of questions she would like to ask advocates of redefining marriage:

Questions1. Rights. Advocates discuss the right to get married a lot. What is not discussed much at all is the rights of children involved. While not every same-sex couple will use sperm or egg donation to have children, many will. When a life is created in this way, a child is being purposefully deprived of their biological father or mother. This is different than adoption, when adoptive parents choose to adopt a child who is already parentless. How do you see a child’s rights in circumstances such as these? Do you see any worth in a child growing up with his or her biological parents?

Equality. Same-sex marriage is often called the new Civil Rights movement. In the Civil Rights movement, people were fighting against laws that denied certain privileges to people because of some aspect of their identities (their skin color). Yet, marriage is not being denied to anyone. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and this institution is open to those of consenting age, etc. Could you explain to me how this is a fight for equality, rather than a fight for the redefinition of marriage?

3. What is a marriage, anyway? One thing I don’t understand is, if marriage is not between only a man and a woman, how it is any different from another long lasting relationship? Heterosexual spouses not only make a life-long commitment, but they unite sexually in a way unique to heterosexual couples, with the potential to have children. I truly am not being sarcastic when I ask: if we are going to expand the definition of marriage, why shouldn’t non-sexually involved friends get married, or even siblings? What makes marriage unique?

4. Love is love? If there is any slogan I don’t understand, it is this one. In my experience, love is different depending on the circumstances. I love my mother in a different way than I love my husband, just as I love my friends in a different way than I love my children. Just because there is love between two people does not necessarily make it spousal love, does it?

5. Can we talk? Since this debate ramped up several years, I have seen any number of personal insults hurled from both sides. “Deviant,” “bigoted,” “perverted,” “intolerant,” to name just a few. This does not get us anywhere. Would you agree that we should put the name-calling aside and discuss actual issues in the public square?

Read the full article here.

Why It's Wrong to Redefine Marriage Under the 14th Amendment

Over at The Daily Signal, our friend Ryan Anderson has analyzed what's wrong with the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeal's recent ruling on Utah's marriage amendment.  The circuit court ruled that Utah’s marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  This was the first time a circuit court ruled on marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last year.  In his article, Anderson explained why this case is significant.Ryan Anderson

Anderson wrote that the ruling over marriage, and the larger, related debate about marriage, points to the fundamental question: what is marriage?

Of course the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry—but the Supreme Court decisions that established a fundamental right to marry understood marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In issuing today’s ruling, the court implicitly supplied its own, new answer to the central question in this debate: what is marriage?

The only way the 10th Circuit could reach its decision today was to smuggle in a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution and then declare that the Constitution requires that the States (re)define marriage in such a way.

Anderson blasted judicial activism, writing:

Of course the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry—but the Supreme Court decisions that established a fundamental right to marry understood marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In issuing today’s ruling, the court implicitly supplied its own, new answer to the central question in this debate: what is marriage?

The only way the 10th Circuit could reach its decision today was to smuggle in a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution and then declare that the Constitution requires that the States (re)define marriage in such a way.

Judge Paul Kelly, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Utah case, quoted Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, explaining:

“‘Same-sex marriage presents a highly emotional and important question of public policy—but not a difficult question of constitutional law,’ at least when it comes to the States’ right to enact laws preserving or altering the traditional composition of marriage.”

People and their elected officials, not judges, should be making decisions about marriage policy, Anderson wrote:

In citing Justice Alito, Judge Kelly hit on an important point—that there are competing policy arguments on the definition of marriage and that in a system of limited constitutional self-government, the people and their elected representatives should be making these decisions.

[...]

We must rally in support of our constitutional authority to pass laws defining marriage. We must make clear that court-imposed same-sex marriage via a Roe v. Wade-style decision will not settle the marriage debate any better than it has settled the abortion debate.

Read the rest of Anderson's article here.

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Federal Court Decisions Invalidating Marriage in Utah and Indiana

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 25, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following should be attributed to Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

"Today's split decision of a panel of judges in the 10th Circuit is not surprising given that this Circuit refused to even order a stay of the district court decision when it came down during the Christmas holidays. While we strongly disagree with the two judges in the majority, we are encouraged by the strong defense of marriage articulated by Justice Paul Kelly in his dissent, and especially his defense of the sovereign right of the people of Utah to decide this issue for themselves. This principled recognition by a federal judge considering the marriage issue underscores that the people of a state are entitled to respect and deference in their desire to promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, the US Supreme Court decided in the Windsor case that the federal government must respect the right of states to define marriage. The majority in the Utah case engage in sophistry to attempt to argue their way around the Supreme Court's ruling that it is up to the states to define marriage. As Justice Kelly noted in his dissent, ‘If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.'"

Mr. Brown also commented on the decision of a federal judge in Indiana to strike down that state's laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"The elected representatives of the people of Indiana have decided, for good and proper reasons, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is judicial activism for a single judge to substitute his own views on marriage for the considered opinion of the people’s representatives. This is just the latest example of activism from the federal bench, but we fully expect this decision to eventually be reversed when the US Supreme Court upholds the right of states to define marriage as a man and a woman. We call on Governor Mike Pence to immediately appeal this decision and to seek a stay of the ruling. In the meantime, it is also imperative that the state legislature move forward a state constitutional amendment preserving marriage so that the people always remain in control of the definition of marriage in Indiana."

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

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

Without the Media Filter: Marriage Marchers Speak Out

The liberal media and advocates of redefining marriage are desperate to paint supporters of marriage as "hateful" or "bigots."  The media barely makes an effort anymore to veil its support of redefining marriage.

When it comes to the definition of marriage that has been the foundation of civilizations throughout time, the media's strategy is typically:

a.) ignore support for marriage,

b.) promote the redefinition of marriage,

c.) lazily distort and misrepresent the debate surrounding the nature of marriage, or

d.) all of the above.

Media coverage of the March for Marriage was no exception.

But, in their own words, marriage marchers explained why they support marriage--and their reasons aren't ones that the liberal media typically shows.  They emphasized that they are for love and don't hate anyone, and that support for marriage does not mean hatred for certain people:

The marchers also challenged the media's bias against marriage and its supporters:

Marriage Debate Far From Over

Kenneth D. Whitehead recently wrote in Crisis Magazine that the marriage debate is far from over.  A court-imposed redefinition of marriage will not settle the debate, he wrote, nor will government coercion of bakers, photographers, or florists who refuse to participate in same-sex "weddings."

GavelComparing the current marriage debate to the debate over abortion before Roe v. Wade, Whitehead argued:

The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which was supposed to have “settled” the equally contentious abortion issue, instead succeeded only in bringing about some 40-plus years of continual agitation and strife, which still goes on today. The legalization of gay marriage is going to produce the same kind of result.

Whitehead blasted the Supreme Court's lack of logic in its Windsor decision last summer:

But Justice Kennedy...blandly declared instead that unnatural same-sex relationships which are necessarily sterile were nevertheless indeed marriages, offering no sort of reason or argument for this novel, indeed revolutionary, conclusion. Even while ignoring and leaving aside essential elements of marriage (sexual complementarity, ability to conceive new life), he nevertheless effectively did redefine marriage as far as the law is concerned.

And this is the redefinition that is henceforth likely to be enshrined in our law and practice generally—at least until enough Americans wake up to what is being perversely wrought here and find the courage to work to reverse it (as the former unwise constitutional amendment that once banned alcoholic beverages eventually got reversed).

The fight to protect marriage has only just begun.  On marriage, Whitehead urged readers, "don't count it out!"  There are certainly challenges when it comes to defending marriage, particularly challenges posed by cultural elites and activist judges, but that does not mean defenders of marriage have lost our will to fight.  We are in this to win and protect marriage because we know that children do best when raised by a married mother and father!

The second annual March for Marriage is the perfect time for us to rally with other marriage supporters and show that we are in this for the long run!

Defending Marriage Tops Agenda on First Day of US Bishops Spring Meeting

At their spring meeting, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have already begun focusing on the defense of marriage.

Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage and speaker at the March for Marriage, said that an anti-marriage decision from the Supreme Court "would undoubtedly have a profound impact on the nation."

LifeSiteNews reported:

BishopsMuch of the opening day of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 2014 Spring General Assembly on Wednesday was devoted to the defense and promotion of marriage.

Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, led the charge by telling his brother bishops: “We are at a critical point in this country as it comes to defense of marriage in the law.

Archbishop Cordileone outlined the grave situation for the defense of traditional marriage and resulting threats to religious freedom.

During a presentation about the upcoming World Meeting of Families, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput noted that this meeting "comes at a time when,” there is a great “confusion about the nature of marriage and the family.”

Echoing Pope Francis, Archbishop Lori, the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, recently said the family is "under attack."  He also said (emphasis added):

Let’s understand that challenges to religious freedom are parallel to challenges to life and family. What is called for is not just a short-term effort, but a movement that brings together life, marriage, service to the needy and religious freedom.

We have to take the long view, as the pro-life movement did in 1973, and ask for God’s grace to keep going. We are talking about the creation of a true civilization of love that is pre-eminently a work of faith.

Marriage Champion Needs Your Encouragement

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last Friday, Theresa Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphans' Court of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, filed paperwork to intervene in the case that overturned Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act. She is seeking a stay of Judge Jones' May 20th ruling and the right to appeal in the case.

Please take a moment right now to send her an encouraging note so she knows that she is not alone. Just click here to send your message.

In filing her motions for a stay and to intervene, Mrs. Gaffney, a county official, is showing great courage — courage that others failed to muster. She understands, like you do, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that children deserve both a mother and a father. Thank God she is taking a stand.

As you can imagine, Mrs. Gaffney has now been receiving vicious hate-filled messages from same-sex marriage supporters, mostly from well outside Schuylkill County and Pennsylvania. This is how gay-marriage advocates will seek to stop her (and all marriage champions across the country): bullying and intimidation.

Would you please keep Mrs. Gaffney in your prayers, that she may be blessed in her courage, strengthened and protected?

And would you also take time to let her know of your support and prayers by sending her an email today? Just click here to send an email today.

As all of us who fight these battles know, there's nothing quite like a personal note of thanks and encouragement when times get tough.

Thank you.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

P.S. Please take the time to email Mrs. Gaffney with a message thanking her for her courage in standing up for marriage. She needs to know that her actions are greatly appreciated by people across Pennsylvania, and that her courage is not in vain.