Category Archives: Media

Soon, for lawyers, "the only opinions allowed will be liberal opinions"

Disturbing news this week of some changes underway in the American Bar Associations's (ABA) "Model Rules of Professional Conduct." The first report came on Monday from Judson Phillips in The Washington Times:

In its recent meeting, the ABA changed part of the model rules regarding attorney conduct. That kind of minutia is guaranteed to generate yawns from 99 percent of Americans. But every American should be alarmed by this because the purpose of these rules is to do nothing less than drive conservatives from the legal profession and ultimately deny conservatives their day in court by denying them legal representation.

The new rule states in part, “(Paragraph G) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.”


The important part is where it says discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical that manifests bias or prejudice toward others. In plain, non-lawyer English, if a lawyer happen to not approve of homosexual behavior, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, Islam or any number of other opinions and comments on them, the lawyer can lose their law license.

This rule is not limited to the courtroom. If a lawyer posts something on social media or offers an opinion that is not an approved opinion, they can and will be disciplined.

The purpose of this model rule is simple. It is to silence conservative lawyers.


Writing two days later in a joint opinion piece entitled "How the lawyers plan to stifle speech and faith," notable legal experts Edwin Meese and Kelly Shackleford echoed the same concerns:

Frighteningly, the ABA leaders’ statements verify that they understand — and intend — the ramifications of [the new rules]. President Paulette Brown advocates that the ABA must prevent “bias” in ways that go far beyond current law. Committee member Drucilla Ramey insists bar authorities go “to the top of the legal profession” to “incentivize” attorneys to change their views and speech on these issues, views and speech often informed by attorneys’ religion. All this, despite committee testimony that such a rule has “little relation to concerns” arising in most lawyers’ offices, could be “used tactically against someone inappropriately,” and will “have a chilling effect on something that has always been in the best traditions of the bar: representing minority views and unpopular positions or clients.”


The ABA’s un-American censorship regime is beyond draconian; it coerces conformity regarding religious and political beliefs on a level unprecedented in American history. It borders on fascism, and must be explicitly repudiated [emphases added].

NOM will keep you apprised of this situation as it develops, and we encourage all our members to remain vigilant about these kinds of encroachments on religious freedom in the name of LGBT "equality."

Evan McMullin: Not a Viable Conservative Alternative

Recently, an independent Presidential candidate touting "conservative" credentials has come onto the political scene posing as an alternative to Donald Trump for those who have not decided to support the Republican nominee.

Recently, though, McMullin gave an interview to Bloomberg Politics where his answers to some questions on same-sex marriage raise concerns about his claims to conservative credibility [emphases added]:


INTERVIEWER: Same-sex marriage.


INTERVIEWER: It's happened very quickly. It's now legal. Are you comfortable with the way it's happened and the current state of the law of the land on same-sex marriage?

MCMULLIN: Well, my position on that is, uh, that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, I believe in traditional marriage, between a man and a woman, but I respect the decision of the Court and I think it's time to move on.

INTERVIEWER: Along those lines, you said you want to push a lot for the Federal level down to the State level.


INTERVIEWER: Is that something you think should be handled by the States and not the Federal government?

MCMULLIN: Ideally, yes, but it's been handled by the Supreme Court, and that's where it is.

INTERVIEWER: But are you saying your personal preference is that marriage should be only legal between a man and a woman, but not just you accept the Court but that you're fine with the change?

MCMULLIN: This, this is a decision of faith for me, it's something of faith for me, but my faith isn't everybody else's faith and I make my decisions for me on those kinds of things--and...

INTERVIEWER: So--so, you're personally opposed to it, but you're--you're comfortable with the law of the land? In other words, you wouldn't--for instance--try to appoint Justices, nominate Justices, who would overturn--the decision?

MCMULLIN: I--I wouldn't on that.

You can view the entire interview here.

Chuck Todd Embodies Rank Media Bias

There should be no doubt who the media wants to pick as the Republican nominee – Marco Rubio.

This morning on the Today Show, NBC’s top political correspondent, Chuck Todd, criticized Sen. Rubio’s debate performance and went so far as to say that had Rubio done better in the debate he would have wrapped up the Republican nomination!

What incredible bias. Marco Rubio is a good man and he’s a strong supporter of marriage and life, but he finished third in Iowa behind Ted Cruz and trails in New Hampshire and in national polls as well.

Despite this, Chuck Todd was shameless in setting Rubio up as the media’s favorite Republican candidate. Todd said that Rubio had an opportunity to “take control of the race” at the debate. But then Todd went so far as to unmask the media bias, saying, “[Rubio] ended up blowing an opportunity that I think could have meant securing the nomination believe it or not.”

What an outrageous and, frankly, idiotic comment. Keep in mind, this guy is the moderator of NBC’s Meet The Press show and also has just moderated a debate among the Democratic candidates for president!

Note how Todd attempts to ignore Sen. Ted Cruz who actually won the Iowa caucuses and is polling second in both New Hampshire and nationally. For that matter, he also apparently dismisses Donald Trump who came in second in Iowa and leads the polls in New Hampshire and nationally. Only one state has voted and the race has not even begun in key regions of the country.

The amazing thing is that Todd no doubt thinks he can get away with declaring Rubio to be on the threshold of securing the Republican nomination because the media has picked the last several Republican nominees. This is at the heart of the grassroots revolt occurring now in the Republican party. They want candidates to stand for true conservative principles and demonstrate the willingness to back them up with action.

This is why NOM endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz. He is not only right on the issues, he’s signed our pledge committing himself to take specific actions in support of marriage and religious liberty – and Cruz has already led by sponsoring the marriage amendment to restore the right of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We’re not going to let liberal media elites like Chuck Todd declare who will be the Republican nominee for president. We trust that voters won’t, either.

New York Times Notes NOM Endorsement

NOM's endorsement of Sen. Ted Cruz in the race for president was widely covered by the media, including by the New York Times. The Times noted that NOM is "central in legal fights against same-sex marriage" and mentioned that Sen. Cruz had signed NOM's Presidential Marriage Pledge. The newspaper observed that Sen. Cruz's team is "hoping that assembling a unified group of important endorsers" like NOM "will prove particularly potent in this cycle." The newspaper noted that Sen. Cruz had pledged to work to overturn the US Supreme Court's ruling making same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

You can read the full story here.

YouTube Names NOM Video Among Best for "Fair Use"

The YouTube website has named a video produced by NOM, "No Offense," as among four of the best examples of creators applying the "Fair Use" doctrine. "Fair Use" affords content creators the ability to use short segments of copyrighted material without permission for purposes of commentary, criticism, parody and news reporting, among other uses.

NOM produced the "No Offense" video in 2009 to highlight the outrageous treatment given to Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean. Prejean was asked by gay blogger Perez Hilton about gay 'marriage.' She responded that, 'no offense to anyone' but she believed marriage was between one man and one woman. Perez went on to ridicule her with vulgar insults and highly offensive language. The video served to educate people about the attempts by gay activists to silence supporters of marriage.

Until now, YouTube has operated a highly criticized approach to copyright claims, essentially taking down videos whenever a claim of copyright violation is made. Thus, copyright claims become a weapon in public debate where these claims prevent the public from seeing videos that discuss critical issues. In contrast, commercial advertising stations rarely take down material employing a "fair use" of copyrighted material, and certainly never without giving the creator an opportunity for input.

YouTube has now pledged to help video creators defend against improper take down demands when the creator has properly applied the "Fair Use" doctrine in the use of copyrighted material. Our video is an example to creators of how to fairly use copyrighted material.

This situation with YouTube is but one example of how hard NOM has to fight to get our position on marriage out into the public domain. Opponents of marriage continue to wish to silence us and other believers in the truth of marriage. We are pleased that YouTube has recognized our work as among the best to utilize copyrighted material in commentary and criticism.

The Pope Is At Odds With Liberals, Too – Just Don’t Expect The Media To Report It

Pope Francis makes a historic visit to the United States this week, with stops in Washington DC, New York and Philadelphia on the schedule. His whirlwind schedule has him giving a reported 16 public speeches while he’s here. The liberal mainstream media is abuzz at the prospects of him advancing positions embraced by the left – including climate change and how he sees global capitalism negatively impacting the poor.

But Pope Francis also has many positions that will make the left squirm, including his staunch opposition to abortion and same-sex ‘marriage.’ As this article from The Daily Signal makes clear, the difference is the media will heavily report the Pope’s comments on climate change and other leftist perspectives, but are likely not to report his comments about abortion and marriage. NOM will work to make sure the Pope’s pro-family message is heard.

From The Daily Signal:

Image via CTVNews/AP/Andrew Medichini

Image via CTVNews/AP/Andrew Medichini

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., made headlines for his decision to avoid Francis’ address to Congress because, “if the Pope plans to spend the majority of his time advocating for flawed climate change policies, then I will not attend,” as he wrote for Townhall.

But Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid might also find Francis’ speech uncomfortable.

That’s because even if the focus of Francis’ speech is on climate change, he doesn’t talk about climate change the same way President Barack Obama or other liberal politicians might. In his encyclical on the environment released earlier this year, “Laudato Si,” Francis connected concerns about creation to concerns about the value of human life.

. . .

Francis has also consistently upheld traditional marriage. In a radio address in 2014, Francis said, “[T]he complementarity of man and woman … is at the root of marriage and family.”

“One day after the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges—the outcome of which may dictate the future of same-sex marriage in the United States—Pope Francis on Wednesday publicly affirmed his stance on so-called traditional marriage between men and women,” reported Newsweek in April.

Image via STLToday/Mark Jelavich

Image via STLToday/Mark Jelavich

“Jesus teaches us that the masterpiece of society is the family: a man and a woman who love each other! This is the masterpiece!” Francis said in St. Peter’s Square at the time.

He has since spoken numerous times on the family, regularly preaching on marriage and children, and he has often referred to marriage as being between a man and a woman.

In fact, in a speech last week, Francis, while warning about the temptation to place profits ahead of morality, stressed the fact that marriage was between a man and a woman (emphasis the Vatican’s):

The current transition in civilization seems to be marked by the long-lasting effects of a society governed by economic technocracy. This subordination of ethics to the logic of profit commands substantial resources and the widespread support of the media. In this context, a new covenant between man and woman has become not only necessary, but crucial for emancipating humanity from the colonization of money. This covenant should once again guide politics, the economy and civil coexistence! It decides the habitability of the earth, the transmission of love for life, the bonds of memory and hope.

In this covenant, the familial-conjugal union of man and woman is the generative grammar, the “golden knot,” we might say. The faith draws it from the wisdom of the creation of God, who has entrusted to the family, not the care of intimacy as an end in itself, but rather the exciting project of making the world “domestic.” At the beginning there was the family, at the root of this world culture that saves us … saves us from many, many attacks, from so much destruction, from so many “colonizations,” like that of money or of the ideologies that threaten so much of the world. The family is the basis of our defense!

Despite what the media may report, Pope Francis defends the unborn's right to life, and the true definition of marriage: the exclusive union between one man and one woman.

In Our Wildest Dreams, We Yearn for Masculine & Feminine Love

Robert Oscar Lopez was raised by two lesbians and has since become an outspoken advocate for the rights of children to be loved by both a mother and a father. He not only opposes same-sex ‘marriage’ but he has become a leading spokesperson against surrogacy, which he believes amounts to trafficking in women, treating them as a commodity in order to fulfill the market demands of gay men who wish to father children. He writes provocatively about our natural yearning for masculine and feminine love – the love of a father and a mother – and uses the popularity of Taylor Swift’s new music video “Wildest Dreams” as a device to make the point.

Swift casts herself in the video as a woman from the 1940s, vaguely reminiscent of a Lauren Bacall, who projects traditional beauty and femininity. Dr. Lopez writes, “We have had enough. By “we” I mean everyone on Earth. We are sick of hearing about men who don’t love women, women who hate men, women who use men, men who use women, women who want babies without being impregnated by a man, men who want babies without impregnating a woman, men who want to be women, women who want to be men…We want John and Abigail Adams—a man and woman to change the world by truly working together and siring children through love, then raising and educating them. We can’t get back to the eighteenth century, so the closest we have is the late 1940s. Ergo, Taylor Swift’s wildest dreams.”

The Federalist has the piece:

Image Via

Image via

In light of all the debates about transgenderism, gay marriage, abortion, “war on women” memes, third-party reproduction, and whether it’s okay to call Rosie O’Donnell a fat slob, allow me to hazard a guess as to why Swift seems to be emerging as the true voice of the next generation (pace Lena Dunham).

It’s not just Kim Davis. We have had enough. By “we” I mean everyone on Earth. We are sick of hearing about men who don’t love women, women who hate men, women who use men, men who use women, women who want babies without being impregnated by a man, men who want babies without impregnating a woman, men who want to be women, women who want to be men, women who want to kill the babies they conceived with men, and men who want women to kill their babies and sell them to man-hating abortion conglomerates who then resell them to organ-trafficking firms headed by lesbians who then resell them to universities that spend lavish federal funding on women’s studies and gender-studies programs that fill millions of college students with more of these self-destructive absurd theories about manhood and womanhood.

. . .

We want to go back to a time when men needed women and women needed men. By this, I mean a time when the question wasn’t whether men wanted women or women wanted men, but rather their mutual necessity. Wanting is a frivolous act that comes and goes with the wind. (Exhibit X: suddenly Tatum O’Neal has abandoned men and become Rosie O’Donnell’s troubled brood’s next notorious stepmom.) Needing is an innate human inclination that bestows dignity on another person. If someone wants me, I am an object. If someone needs me, I am dignified; I hold something irreplaceable.

Women hate it when they aren’t needed. Men hate it, too. Perhaps we are learning now, the hard way, that they need their sexes to be needed in addition to their individual personalities. The irreplaceability of our gender turns out to be something that humans cannot surrender lightly. Hence, people are rebelling.

. . .

Swift isn’t the first sexy pop diva to break open a bottle of mid-century nostalgia on us. Remember Fergie’s homage to the Prohibition era in “Glamorous,” Katy Perry’s “Roar,” and Christina Aguilera’s hailing of the Veronica Lake aesthetic in “Candyman”? But there’s something different this time. Fergie interspersed her gangster footage with images of post-Cold War urban partying. Perry shows no interest in “Roar” in falling in love with a man, choosing rather to stuff her bust into a jungle bikini top and act weird. Aguilera in “Candyman” dances and gyrates for crowds of uniformed servicemen, but doesn’t connect with any one.

All three of these backward glances were narcissistic exercises of consumption, designed to feed the modern egos of hyper-sexualized women. None of them shows, as Swift’s video does, a sincere desire to embody a lost world of femininity and masculinity.

Expect more of Swift’s kind of nostalgia. The world hungers for it.

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.

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.

Must Watch: Brian Brown's Lively Debate on Indiana Religious Liberty Restoration Act

News Channel 8 featured NOM's own Brian Brown today, debating Rev. Graylan Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, on the hot topic of Indiana’s religious freedom bill. You won't want to miss this one:

Mark Your Calendars for the 2015 March for Marriage!

"This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it." - G.K. Chesterton

2015 March for Marriage

When: Saturday, April 25, 2015, at Noon ET

Where: Union Square, South of Capitol Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC


Who: Marriage defenders, champions, and leaders from across the nation join together to defend marriage, family, and American liberties!

Why: To defend marriage as the unique union between 1 man and 1 woman; to protect the family as the building block of society; to ensure that our children will have a future where basic American rights and liberties are honored, preserved, and protected.

Stayed tuned for more information to come!

ICYMI: Making Marriage Meaningless (VIDEO)

Here's a terrific new video with a clear, concise message about the meaning of marriage and why it is best for both children and society to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

NOM in the News: Brian Brown Discusses Implications of Supreme Court Decision on C-SPAN

via C-SPAN:

Brian Brown and Evan Wolfson talked about legal and political developments in the debate over same-sex marriage, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny appeals from five states seeking to retain their bans on same-sex marriage, and a ruling overturning some bans in Western states. They also spoke about the politics and public opinions surrounding the issue. Evan Wolfson participated by video link from New York City.

ICYMI: Recent State Department Honoree an Open Advocate for the Abolition of Marriage

Last month, on the same day as the historic March for Marriage, the State Department hosted its now-annual Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Pride Day.


One of the honorees was radical, far-left activist and LGBT journalist Masha Gessen, who has admitted that she does not think the institution of marriage should exist.  Gessen has also previously said that she doesn't see why children "shouldn't have five parents legally."

It is a sobering reminded of the present administration's aggressive radicalism with regard to marriage to recall how Secretary of State John Kerry introduced Gessen, gushing, "she is a wonderful person – a mother, a journalist, an extraordinary human rights defender – and we are honored by her presence here."

Photo Credit: SNOB Magazine

Of course, as Breitbart News noted, Kerry did not mention Gessen's previous calls for the destruction of marriage altogether--something she says is the true intention of many of the elites behind the push to redefine marriage.

Here's Gessen in her own words:

“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.” [SOURCE]

Gessen also opines, "I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality [of her children having "more or less" five parents] and I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage."

Well, at least on that much we can agree: having "more or less five parents" is not compatible with the institution of marriage. But whether it will finally be judged incompatible with the distorted and redefined version of marriage sweeping across civilization--marriage as a pact of convenience, a genderless institution, and one no longer inherently bound up with the bearing and rearing of children--remains to be seen.

Fox and Friends: Brian Brown, NOM, and the IRS

Did you catch NOM president Brian Brown on Fox and Friends this morning?

Here's his interview regarding NOM's successful suit against the IRS for their illegal release of our confidential tax return and donor information:

Please share with your friends!