Dear Marriage Supporter,

The road to tyranny is paved with incidents like this.

Private Citizen Harassed for Her Political Writings

For Prof. Anne Hendershott, the phone call to her home from the IRS came out of the blue in May 2010:

"The IRS calls my house and says ... 'I just wanted to let you know that we're going to be auditing your business' and I said 'My businesses?' and he said, 'You know the expenses you take off for writing."

Prof. Hendershott is a sociologist and a fierce Catholic critic of what she calls "fake" Catholic, Soros-funded groups supporting pro-abortion Pres. Obama and Obamacare's mandates on Catholic groups.

Prof. Hendershott made very little money publishing a few pieces a year for places ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the Catholic Advocate.

But the IRS demanded she come to New Haven, Connecticut without her husband, met with her, and grilled her about every check she had deposited, demanding to know irrelevant questions like what kind of groups the money came from, etc.

The chilling effect of any abuse of the IRS' power, terrifying to millions of ordinary American taxpayers, is very real. The tactic worked:

"I haven't written for them since the audit, because I was so scared," she said.

This is what tyranny feels like.

NOM's Smoking Gun in IRS-Gate

The National Organization for Marriage has been a prime target of IRS abuse; I began with Prof. Hendershott's story to tell you the enormous consequences to liberty and democracy that will happen if we do not stand up and fight back.

This week we learned we are not alone: what happened to marriage supporters is one part of a larger pattern of abuse of government power to undermine democracy in America.

The latest news: the IRS systematically abuses its power to help one party win an election.

But what the IRS tried to do to you and to every marriage supporter in America through this attack on NOM is a key, and horrific, escalation in the abuse of government power, corrupting democracy and undermining the basic human right to participate in the public square:

In USA Today NOM's Chairman Prof. John Eastman asks the key question: "How did tax returns of a group opposed to gay marriage get leaked to political opponents?

Our case was particularly egregious because the IRS leak of confidential information fed directly into an ongoing political battle. For months before March 2012, the pro-gay marriage HRC had been demanding that my group, NOM, publicly identify its major donors, something that NOM and many other non-profits refuse to do. The reason is simple. In the past, gay marriage advocates have used such information to launch campaigns of intimidation against traditional marriage supporters.

Just as gay marriage proponents were demanding the information, the IRS appears to have illegally given them exactly what they were looking for.

For the IRS to leak any organization's tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony.. .. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama's re-election campaign.

The release of NOM's legally protected tax forms was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent.

When we went to the IRS to complain, we were promised a full investigation. And yet last year the IRS told us the case was "concluded" with no further information given. But then, in response to our latest of three Freedom of Information Act requests, the IRS replied that it could not disclose any information relating to a criminal investigation.
"It's just Orwellian," as Prof. Eastman told The Washington Times.

The story that the IRS leaked confidential info to NOM's political opponents and that Pres. Obama's co-chair then made use of the information, made the top of the Drudge Report, Politico, The Hill, FoxNews, Breitbart.com, and many, many other top news outlets.

Rush Limbaugh also took notice:

I don't quite know how to characterize it. This is Soviet-style banana republic stuff; it's a combo of Soviet-style statism, thuggism, and banana republic. The law doesn't matter — all that matters is advancing the cause and defeating the enemies of the cause, no matter what you have to do. . . . Law says you can't share information, we'll find a way to do it.

Listen to the full Rush segment here.

IRS agents acted like the law doesn't matter. Decency doesn't matter. Diversity doesn't matter. The rights of your fellow citizens, friends, neighbors and family to participate in democracy—even if they disagree with you—doesn't matter. All that matters is getting to your enemies and shutting them down any way.

A piece published this week in the prestigious The Atlantic, coauthored by David Montez of GLAAD (a major gay advocacy organization), openly laid out their goals for America, their vision of America: a place where your views never get heard: "But even today, anti-LGBT activists, who continue to wrongfully state that gay people are unfit to be parents, have a platform in the media to spread their lies. We have a long way to go before groups like the National Organization for Marriage are no longer routinely invited to provide 'balance' on national cable news programs."

(Note how they transform the idea that children ideally need a mom and dad, to the idea that gay people are "unfit" — not what we say of course — but the truth is not relevant to a determined, aggressive campaign designed to silence your opponents and treat them as bigots.)

I want to thank those Democrats in particular, some of whom may even support gay marriage, for standing up for basic decency against the abuse of government power. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, ranking Democrat of the House Oversight Committee, is one such politician who, in talking to the press about the unfolding IRS scandals, called the news "one of the most alarming things that I have ever seen."

"I think laws were probably broken, but at the least there have been some improper actions on the part of the IRS," he said.

At the very least!

How We Fight Back Against Tyranny

Pres. Obama has promised he will get to the bottom of these IRS abuses, but the proof lies in the pudding and at this point we aren't going to sit back and trust, we are going to demand action to protect your right to participate in democracy on an equal basis.

Again, we are not going to take this lying down. WE are not going to lose our democracy—and your rights—without a fight!

First, this week NOM called for Congressional hearings (and launched a brand new online petition where you can join this call.) The IRS not only harassed conservative groups, it went so far as to release confidential and sensitive information to their liberal opponents in a presidential election year.

As I told The Washington Times "Only the unique powers of Congress to subpoena, question and investigate will help us expose the truth about how the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign (HRC) came into possession of a nonpublic tax document that NOM had to file with the IRS."

Second, this week, I announced NOM is filing a lawsuit against the IRS over the illegal theft of NOM's confidential tax return from 2008 and its subsequent leak to the Human Rights Campaign, one of our principal political opponents:

Not only has the IRS retaliated against conservative, small-government and tea party groups as they apply for recognition of tax exemption AND lied about it, but it has criminally released our confidential tax return including the identity of dozens of major donors to a political enemy.

In addition to being our principal combatant in the war on traditional marriage, the HRC's president at the time was serving as a Co-Chair of President Obama's reelection campaign. This is a chilling set of circumstances that should ring alarm bells across the nation.

NOM has retained ActRight Legal Foundation to file the lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia. We encourage any other individuals or nonprofits who experienced similar IRS abuses to contact ActRight Legal Foundation.

"The very core of our ordered society has been shaken by this political roughing-up of nonprofits by the IRS" says NOM's Chairman, Dr. John C. Eastman. "As a constitutional law scholar I can tell you that no nonprofit should ever have to experience this kind of retaliation."

Today the news broke that the IRS demanded in writing, that a prolife group promise not to picket Planned Parenthood, in order to receive tax-exempt status.

This is serious my friends, our democracy is at risk. Unless we stand shoulder-to-shoulder and fight back, the campaign to silence traditional points of view will move on to the next phase—silencing the people who hold these views and pushing them out of the public eye completely, into the shadows.

If you know of a tax exempt organization that has been attacked or harassed by the IRS, please ask them to contact us or ActRight Legal Foundation. Please pray for all those on the front lines fighting for marriage, for democracy, and for what is right.

If you can, consider giving a major gift to NOM as our legal and other expenses mount. $100 each month if you are able; or a one-time gift of $500 or $1,000 if God has blessed you and your family in this great country of ours.

Let me close with two reminders: tomorrow, Friday May 17th at 12PM there will be nationwide rallies to support the Boy Scouts' rights. Find out more from John Stemberger at www.OnMyHonor.net.

Also, if you live near San Diego or can make plans to travel there, please consider attending and supporting the Ruth Institute's first ever Gala and Live Auction on June 2nd—you won't want to miss it!

Thank you again for your courage and your decency. Together we will stand for God's truth about marriage and save our great country.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This has been another big week in the fight to defend marriage, so I'll get right to it!

Movement For, and Against, Marriage

In France, young people are gathering regularly to sing and pray for marriage. In Nantes, they gather at the foot of the Cross of Charette, where a famous French hero was executed in 1796.

In Great Britain, David Cameron's push for gay marriage has left his Conservative party in electoral tatters, as local elections this week proved. (From the Iron Lady to the Rubber Man in just two decades!)

Here in the United States, Delaware and Minnesota both redefined marriage, making a mockery in the latter state of the voters who were told there was no need to pass a marriage amendment because there was no threat to marriage.

Hard losses, yes, but the fight goes on—and not just in Illinois and the vast majority of other states that still protect marriage.

Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island has just published a letter to faithful Rhode Island Catholics, inviting them (and I think all of us) "to a moment of prayer and reflection as we respond to this new challenge of the post-Christian era into which, clearly, we have now entered":

"First, like many others, I am profoundly disappointed that Rhode Island has approved legislation that seeks to legitimize "same-sex marriage." The Catholic Church has fought very hard to oppose this immoral and unnecessary proposition, and we are most grateful to all those who have courageously joined us in this effort. When all is said and done, however, we know that God will be the final judge of our actions."

He asks God's blessing on our brothers and sisters who have same-sex attraction, "that they will enjoy much health, happiness and peace."

But, Bishop Tobin says, "Our respect and pastoral care, however, does not mean that we are free to endorse or ignore immoral or destructive behavior, whenever or however it occurs. Indeed, as St. Paul urges us, we are required to ‘speak the truth in love.'" (Eph 4:15)."

Speak the truth, but speak it in love.

You and I know how hard that can be and yet how necessary. We cannot simply stand bye and do nothing when the government is taking over the very meaning of marriage.

The Government-Sponsored Tyranny of Gay Marriage

British professor John Milbank suggests that in his country this drive for state control over the meaning of marriage and parenthood was the very point:

"There was no demand for "gay marriage" and this has nothing to do with gay rights. Instead, it is a strategic move in the modern state's drive to assume direct control over the reproduction of the population, bypassing our interpersonal encounters. This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution.

Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very "grammar" of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction."

A biopolitical tyranny where marriage and parenthood are up for legal grabs. The replacement of the idea of the natural family with a set of legal fictions.

This is not the America I want for my children or yours.

This is certainly a time of great challenge, as Bishop Tobin told his flock, but he also points out an opportunity "to be steadfast and courageous, and to renew our commitment to Christ and His Church. As our Lord Jesus Christ told us, "In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world." (Jn 16:33)

The fight for marriage brings together an amazing coalition of people of diverse faiths, different races, and backgrounds; I cherish working with and for each one of you. We will never quit, because marriage is a fight for something fundamental, a truth that will not change, however much government attempts to make it so.

Also, some exciting news to conclude with: The USCCB has issued a church bulletin insert for Catholic churches across the country which calls the Supreme Court case the Roe v. Wade for marriage, depending on the outcome. You can read and download it here.

Only seven weeks until the Supreme Court decides on your right to vote for marriage. Keep up the good fight!

Thank you for all you have done and continue to do for marriage.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"Why do you fight so hard?" a gay activist asked me.

They expected us to fold up our tent and go home by now. But instead, thanks to your help, NOM is fighting hard for marriage in difficult territory: Illinois, Delaware, and Minnesota—where one very rich billionaire announced he's putting more money into a coalition to get Republicans to vote for gay marriage.

(Great Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron tried that; remaking the Tories the pro-gay marriage party. He's paying for it by losing local elections, even as I write this, with a new poll showing gay marriage is a big part of the reason.)

They certainly aren't giving up in France. Despite the government's best efforts to tamp down resistance, opposition to gay marriage keeps growing in an amazing grassroots, creative way.

Here's the teaser video for the next big rally in Paris planned in May. Watch it for a lift, so many young people standing up for marriage.

So Why Do We Fight?

As to why we fight these tough blue state battles for marriage, this is a good opportunity for me to answer that question. Why do I fight so hard? Because fighting for the truth about marriage is right. It's real, and it is good.

And because I'm constantly reminded of how grave the loss will be if we permit ourselves to stand down, to meekly acquiesce in the face of this abuse of government power.

Their True Intentions

Two gay marriage advocates, both well-credentialed professional women, came forward to say what you and I know in our hearts: the gay marriage movement is based on lies.

The really Big Lie is that government can change reality: two men are not the same as a husband and wife. No government decree can make it so.

The smaller, endlessly repeated lie is that gay marriage will have no consequences.

Two women who advocate for gay marriage have come forward to at last admit what we know: the gay marriage movement doesn't tell the truth about its own intentions.

I told you about Masha Gessen a few weeks ago, the New York Times blogger Obama appointed to run Radio Liberty in Russia.

It's a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are 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.

An audio of her speech surfaced recently and I wanted to give you the chance to hear it from the source:

Judith Stacey is also not an outlier. She's a well-known sociologist at NYU, who is much sought-after as an expert witness in same-sex marriage and parenting litigation because she has long argued that children don't need mothers or fathers.

The Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson went into the lioness' den, debating Prof. Stacey, and she was very frank about her own views.

Gay marriage is just the beginning for her: there's no reason to think fatherlessness is any big deal, no reason to reserve marriage to only two people, no reason marriage should be monogamous, and no reason it should be a sexual union at all!

Fighting Back In Minnesota

In Minnesota, while the billionaires fund Republican betrayal, many DFLers (as the Democratic party is called in Minnesota) are facing surprisingly powerful objections from their own constituents.

In Brainerd, MN, one such fence-sitter, Rep. John Ward was planning on quietly meeting with 5 or 6 of his constituents who oppose gay marriage. But the venue had to be changed to St. Andrews church when news of the meeting had spread by Facebook and it looked like 65 people wanted to show up. The actual turnout? According to the Brainerd Dispatch, 170 people turned up to make their views known—good, ordinary men and women taking time out from farm and family to stand up for marriage:

"We are moving away from family values," meeting organizer Donna Larson of Merrifield said, noting that about 58 percent of the voters in House District 10A voted yes to change the Minnesota Constitution so it would ban gay marriage. "God has truly blessed me and I stand for one man and one woman (in marriage)."

God bless you Donna, I'm so proud to stand with you and millions of other like you across this great land. This is why we fight. We fight together to make sure what God has created is not redefined by government, without the consent of the people.

If you haven't done so already, you can participate in the fight right now by going to sign our Citizen's Marriage Petition to the Supreme Court. And if you have signed it, please forward it to family and friends to sign.

Stay strong, keep fighting the good fight, and thank you once again for helping us make sure the voices of people like Donna get heard!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The news this week is tough. I'm not going to sugar coat it.

In Rhode Island, all five Republican state senators joined the Democrats in the state senate to pass a same-sex marriage bill. It now goes back to the House which had previously passed a gay marriage bill and the governor has promised to sign it.

The Rhode Island bill does not create a new category of marriage for same-sex couples. Rather, it completely redefines marriage for all people in Rhode Island.

Some religious liberty protections were added for churches. But as Scott Spear, a NOM Rhode Island Advisory Board member, told the press, "It won't be long before gay 'marriage' activists start pressing hard their new found rights on the faithful in Rhode Island. In Vermont, Christian innkeepers were sued. It was Christian florists in Washington state. Elsewhere photographers, bakers, event venue operators, notary publics, justices of the peace and town clerks have all been targeted for punishment if they do not agree to go along with gay 'marriage' in violation of their deeply-held beliefs."

Targeting The Children

All true. But the people I'm most concerned about are the children in Rhode Island, who for the first time will be educated by this new law to believe that the rights of adults to marry any person they love trump a child's right to a loving mom and dad.

Sometimes that education will be direct: In Red Hook, New York, parents last week were outraged to find that 13 and 14 year old girls were asked in their public school to pretend to be lesbian couples and ask each other for kisses in a school anti-bullying assembly. When parents objected, their school told them basically to stuff it!

Same-sex marriage is not just an attempt to help ordinary gay people live their private lives as they choose—it is part of a push for an aggressive new public norm that affects us all.

Continuing The State Fights

For the politicians who refused to let the people of Rhode Island vote on marriage, this is not over!

In Delaware, another blue state, a gay marriage bill passed the house, as expected, although by an unexpectedly tight margin. The fight now goes to the senate to hold the line for marriage.

If you have a moment, please click here to use NOM's Advocacy Center to send messages to your elected officials, letting them know that you support marriage:

We intend to make sure that every Rhode Islander knows how their policymakers voted on this critical issue. We will hold the politicians accountable for their votes.

Republicans, especially, will have to answer for abandoning marriage—a core position of the GOP platform. In New York, when the dust cleared, 3 out of the 4 Republican state senators who betrayed their constituents and voted for gay marriage were no longer in office.

And we should also point out that there were some heroic marriage champions who stood up from the Democratic side of the aisle. In particular, I'd like to thank Senator Harold M. Metts, D-Providence/Slater, who testified:

I am puzzled as to why those who seek tolerance and now acceptance are so intolerant of others' religious beliefs and rights.

I was not intimidated over the years by being called a religious bigot, or some of the phone calls I received this week... the last time I checked, this is America and we are all entitled to our opinions.

Many from my community take exception to the attempts of the gay rights activists to hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement as it pertains to African Americans. I can change my sexual preference tonight if I want to, but I can't change my color.

What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms can never compare to what African Americans went through in slavery... Our people were treated like animals, they were exploited... raped. Families were split up... There [were] lynchings. There [were] castrations. And I could go on and on. Again, for many form my community, there is no grounds for the comparison.

International Organization for Marriage

Meanwhile, despite massive ongoing grassroots protests from the French people, the French parliament voted to redefine marriage. As I told the press "Even though the same-sex marriage policy being foisted on an unwilling public is profoundly unwise and anti-family, no citizen should ever express their disapproval through violent means. We condemn in the strongest possible terms violence by anyone on either side of this debate."

NOM will continue to work with our friends in France to defend marriage.

Specifically, NOM is working with the Collectif Famille Mariage (CFM), a charter member of the International Organization for Marriage (IOM). CFM—along with a wide coalition of pro-marriage organizations—is imploring France's Constitutional Council to carefully study and limit the scope of this law, which has been rushed through the Senate and the National Assembly.

In Brussels, Belgium at a panel discussion about free speech, Archbishop Andre Leonard was abruptly assaulted by four protestors who said his "homophobia" was the reason. They squirted him with water bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary, according to the Global Post.

The story notes: "[T]he archbishop himself remained composed and apparently at prayer throughout."

The picture above shows Archbishop Leonard picking up and kissing one of the bottles following the disruption.

So Much For Tolerance

Our friends at FRC released video footage of domestic terrorist Floyd Corkins' FBI interview, where he acknowledges that he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's "anti-gay hate list" to target his intended victims.

SPLC still has the target list up, as I write this, despite its use to target decent, loving, law-abiding Americans who work in mainstream organizations.

Still Not "Inevitable"

Meanwhile in Illinois, gay marriage advocates are still scrambling to find the last few votes to ram a gay marriage bill through that blue state legislature.

Opposition from downstate Illinois Democrats is one reason. But the biggest obstacle? As a NBC Chicago columnist puts it, "The toughest votes? Black lawmakers who are under pressure from the African-American Clergy Coalition to vote no. . . .a black legislator trying to move up to alderman, county board, state senate or Congress would be denied a Sunday appearance at a conservative black church. That's a valuable endorsement in the black community, so that may be enough to make a politician hesitate before pressing 'yes.'"

And in Minnesota, polls are showing the public is rather shocked to find a gay marriage bill being pushed through the state legislature... apparently they believed the ads opponents to the state marriage amendment ran suggesting a constitutional amendment was not necessary!

A Star Tribune poll in February found just 38 percent of Minnesotans support the gay marriage bill. And as our friends at Minnesota for Marriage pointed out, the further one moves away from Minneapolis, the more the support drops.

While 57 percent of people in Hennepin and Ramsey counties support same-sex marriage, only 19 percent of those in what they call "outstate" Minnesota do.

Greater Minnesota is "very, very much opposed to the metro area's attempt to force gay marriage on the rest of the state," Autumn Leva of Minnesotans for Marriage told the press.

I promise you one thing: we here at NOM will never stop fighting for marriage, working with good people of all races, creeds and colors in every state of these wonderful United States.

In the tough times the sunshine patriots run. But you can count on us standing up to the forces seeking to undermine marriage everywhere across this great land! And now as part of a new international movement for marriage!

Together we are making a difference!

One final request for this week: I'd like to ask for your prayers for Pastor Jim Garlow of San Diego's Skyline Church whose beloved wife Carol passed away this week after battling cancer bravely for many years.

In lieu of flowers the family has asked that donations be made to the Carol Garlow Memorial Fund which supports a transitional home to help troubled adults become godly men and women.

Jim is a friend of mine and a hero of mine for standing up for marriage in the great Prop 8 battle. Carol was a great woman, a loving and much loved, wife, mother, Christian prayer warrior, and benefactor to her congregation and community. She will be greatly missed by all who knew her.

Jim, old friend, my heart goes out to you. May God comfort you and your family in this season of loss.

Thank you for standing for marriage. And thank you for your prayers for me and my family and for all those on the front lines of this great and noble fight for God's first institution.

What He has created, we will not abandon.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Just about 75 days until the Supreme Court rules on the fate of marriage for a generation. Now is the time for you to act!

If you've signed the petition to the Supreme Court, thank you.

Can you ask 3 friends today to sign the petition as well?

If you haven't yet signed—go right now, and make your voice heard!

More "Inevitable" State Battles...

Deep in blue states, gay marriage advocates are pushing hard to get another victory, to feed their narrative of "inevitability" in the weeks before the Supreme Court decides the fate of marriage for a generation.

Right now the battle for marriage is engaged in Rhode Island, Illinois, and Delaware. Gay marriage advocates expected these battles in deep blue states to be slam-dunks.

But thanks to the generous donations of thousands of Americans who give to NOM's general treasury and trust us to be at the forefront of the most important fights for marriage—the good people in these states are not fighting alone.

The "slam dunk" in Illinois, which was supposed to showcase turncoat Republicans' embrace of gay marriage, is turning into a big problem, as black pastors in Chicago have made it clear they expect their elected representatives to represent them, not the DNC or George Soros, or the mainstream media.

In Rhode Island, what ought to be another "slam dunk" is turning into a real dog fight. NOM's Chris Plante is helping lead the fight.

We expect more battles to emerge across the country, especially after the Supreme Court ruling re-ignites the fight!

New Matching Gift Campaign

And thankfully an amazingly generous donor has stepped forward to help you make a difference for marriage:

Between now and the Supreme Court ruling, this donor has agreed to match every donation—dollar-for-dollar!—that you or a friend make for marriage.

That's right—your gift of $33 becomes $66 in the fight for marriage;

A gift of $100 will become $200; $500 becomes $1,000;

And, if God has blessed you with the means, $5,000 becomes $10,000!

And all of it, every precious penny you worked so hard to earn and save, will be carefully stewarded, gratefully treasured and put to the best possible use in fighting for marriage.

Time, treasure, talent, that's what the Lord asks of all of us. If you cannot be with the good people fighting for marriage, on the steps of the Supreme Court and beyond, you can help NOM amplify their voices, to make your own voice for marriage heard in the halls of power across this great and blessed country of ours!

The Intolerance of the "Tolerant"

Let me share with you the story of what people on the front lines face at this point. And what great people are at the forefront of that fight.

My friend Peter Wolfgang of the amazing Connecticut Family Institute received death threats for opposing homosexual marriage. This week the man who sent those threats was sentenced to five year probation by a federal judge.

Assistant Federal Defender Gary D. Weinberger said he "was touched" by the letter sent to the judge by Lawrence Taffner, who is operations director for the Connecticut Family Institute which spoke of the need to temper justice with mercy and prayers.

My friend, the one whose life and family was threatened, said he agreed with "every word."

"I do forgive [the man who made the death threats]" Peter said. But he also asked us all to be aware of a "a growing campaign of intimidation with respect to those of us who advocate traditional values, in an effort to silence us. And we will not be silenced."

Wolfgang said he learned of [the man's] intention to plead guilty to mailing the threats on the same day last August that Floyd Lee Corkins II was charged in the non-fatal shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

(If you'd like to donate to the Connecticut Family Institute you can do so by clicking here.)

Peter is right this is not an isolated case. Most gay people, I like to remind myself and you, are law-abiding people, our neighbors and fellow citizens whom we can respect even while we profoundly disagree with them on marriage. But what may be an organized minority are issuing increasingly ugly complaints and threats against their fellow citizens who stand up for marriage. Their goal? To silence dissent.

Just a few days ago we received a letter from a 17 year old, who posted a petition supporting marriage on Facebook. What happened next has been the experience of too many good people:

I got a slew of nasty and threatening comments. I was called many things and one even implied that I believed in slavery since I did not support gay marriage. But the one that took the cake was when one of them said that 'I hope a gay guy rapes you so you understand that they can't do anything to you, except rape you. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, it doesn't hurt anyone but butt hurt civil war jerk offs.' I simple wanted to tell my story in hopes that others learn that they are not alone in this.

What kind of advocate hopes a 17 year boy is raped?

We cannot let the ugly threats of a tiny minority prevent us from standing up for what is true and good and right about marriage.

What's Coming Next?

What's next if we don't stand?

This week the polygamists and the polyamorists came out of the closet to stake their claim to undefining marriage.

The Economist bold headline said it all "Gay Marriage: And Now On to Polygamy!"

The writer finally admitted what so many gay marriage advocates deny and suppress—changing the definition of marriage is a big deal:

Obviously the legalization of same-sex marriage represents a major change in the institution and in the meaning of the word, much as the meaning of phrases like 'all men are created equal' changed significantly when they began to be understood to include, say, women. For people who have a strongly gendered understanding of their own marriage, this is a paradigm shift. The government is now saying it understands marriage as a long-term legal commitment between two people who are assumed to have a sexually attached relationship to each other. Gender is irrelevant; marriage is simply a paired relationship. It's a big deal when social institutions change this way, and if conservative heterosexuals feel their marriages are affected, they're right, even when the way they phrase their complaints is wrong.

"But 'why only two?' isn't a ridiculous question," The Economist acknowledges. "Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?" they ask, describing an unwillingness to consider recognizing polygamy as mere "cultural prejudice."

(As one young supporter of marriage asked me "Is it still a slippery slope if your opponents start calling for it?")

That same week, Slate weighed in with an essay headlined "Legalize Polygamy!" She actually writes, "marriage is plastic."

Marriage is plastic, in their view. Marriage is just a word for government politicians to take over and define and redefine and undefine in response to aggressive claims of folks who don't want to marry, and they want the government's help in forcing all of us to view their relationships as marriage.

Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let's fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let's keep fighting. We're not done yet.

The Illinois Family Institute published a transcript from a radio interview with lesbian journalist Masha Gessen:

It's a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. ... [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are 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.

Two gay marriage advocates in one week admitting gay marriage will change marriage—wow the truth will come out, won't it?

She goes on to say:

I don't like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That's sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. 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 met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby's biological father is my brother, and my daughter's biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three... And really, 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.

You may not have heard of Ms. Gessen, but she is not some outlier. She was appointed by the Obama administration in 2012 to head up Radio Liberty's Russian service and she blogs at the New York Times Latitude blog.

The Economist admits gay marriage fundamentally changes marriage. A New York Times blogger says she's tired of lying about what gay marriage means for marriage; what the future she is trying to build holds.

Superlawyers Stumped

Truth is breaking out all over!

Ed Whelan points out that the renewed interest in the consequences of "marriage equality" for polygamous marriage was actually spurred in part by the oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ted Olson:

Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked — and — and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

Alleged superlawyer Olson's response is lame to say the least: "If a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status." Marrying one man is status, marrying two women is conduct.

What's left?

Youth On The March For Marriage

Enjoy this photo of one of our youngest next gen leaders in Minnesota, protesting the gay marriage bill which as the Minnesota Family Council points out "quite literally would remove the terms 'husband,' 'wife,' 'bride,' and 'groom' from our state's policies, and also redefine 'mother' and 'father' as gender-neutral terms."

Talk about speaking truth to power!

Part of the good news I see emerging is a new generation of young leaders for marriage.

Here in America the Baptist Press reports on the brave young Americans who refuse to be silenced. "They exist: Millennials opposed to gay marriage" as the headline says, and the Baptist Press story notes that it was NOM's March for Marriage that brought a number of these young leaders out of the closet.

"Called to speak at the March 26 marriage rally in Washington, D.C., Alison Howard ran to the stage's microphone in an adrenaline-fueled burst. The 24-year-old graduate of Liberty University said she wanted to 'talk to the grown-ups" supporting traditional marriage at the event on the National Mall.

"Do not give up on us young people," said the communications director for Concerned Women for America. "The media will tell you that I don't exist. Well, I'll be the unicorn. I do exist, and I believe in the marriage between a man and a woman."

It would be easy to dismiss Howard's plea as a voice crying in the wilderness. A recent Pew survey found that 70 percent of those in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 33) favor same-sex marriage. But the same poll shows that 65 percent of young evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage. And a number of them, like Howard, are willing to face scorn by taking very public stands against the redefinition of society's most basic institution.

Many of them did not grow up expecting to stand on the front lines of the marriage debate. "Everyone I know who is working on this issue would rather be doing something else," said Ryan Anderson, 31, who co-authored the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. "But we feel like we have an obligation to be doing this."

The Baptist Press reported on several other next gen leaders who Marched for Marriage with us.

Hours before Anderson's televised showdown, Owen Strachan had positioned himself for his own marriage clash. The 31-year-old father of two had flown into Washington the day before the rally from Louisville, KY, where he is a professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College. He maneuvered his way to the second row of marchers headed past the U.S. Capitol toward the Supreme Court. Hispanics, Asians and African Americans strode alongside him.

'This reflects the diversity of the body of Christ,' he thought.

When they turned onto the street that runs past the court, they ran into a blockade of gay marriage supporters trying to halt the march. The counter-protestors refused to move. A man in fishnet stockings, devil horns, and a rainbow-colored tutu danced and taunted the marchers. In the midst of the chaos, Strachan and the others offered a unified response: They knelt where they stood and prayed aloud.

Some truths will not be suppressed! Some truths are too important to let die. And in the end I believe—I know—truth spoken in love will prevail.

Expect The Unexpected

A tiny sign of the times took place lack week at Princeton University, where a friend of NOM wrote to tell us that the distinguished debating society Whig-Clio sponsored a student debate on gay marriage. The vote at Princeton on marriage? 43 in favor—41 against. Among America's best and brightest, new concerns for what gay marriage will mean for marriage—for them, their children and their children's children, are brewing.

One thing I know from my 6 years at the forefront of this fight, thanks to your help and support for the National Organization for Marriage:

Expect the unexpected!

More Young People "Causing Problems"

In France spontaneous peaceful demonstrations by young people protesting their government's determination to ignore the voice of the people is causing headaches across the country:

"Since last Friday, public demonstrations against same-sex "marriage" and adoption in France have been escalating, not only in Paris but also in remote provincial towns and even abroad among French expatriates," reports Lifesite News. "The Senate's approval of the gay marriage bill (known as the 'loi Taubira,' after the Justice Minister that proposed the text to the legislature) has sparked off a wave of anger, and groups of determined young people all over the country have decided to make their presence felt."

For the government, this is becoming a major headache:

There is no centralized organization behind the rallies to look to for information about the next action, no unified group to follow, no 'youths' who are 'well known by the police,' as is the case when ethnic riots burst out in Paris. The demonstrators are law-abiding citizens who have no wish to steal, vandalize or hurt the law enforcement officers. They are massively answering calls to join spur-of-the-moment demonstrations via their cell phones and social media. They are in the streets to stop a law that they believe would badly hurt the common good, and they are prepared to give their time, efforts and even a few hours in custody to put a stop to the redefinition of marriage.

(If you want to follow these underreported events in France you can see photos and videos by "Salon Beige" a newsblog here.)

These young people are making sure government officials' support for gay marriage is not forgotten.

Each time a member of government visits a provincial town dozens of young and less young people bearing flags of the 'Manif pour tous' are on the spot to greet the official party; several visits have been cancelled. The Interior minister Manuel Valls' visit to a concert on Sunday evening in Paris was protected by 30 police vans and several people who joined the protests were arrested. Passers-by who had no idea of what was going on were also arrested in the melee. A growing number of police and 'gendarmes' are voicing their irritation about orders coming from the government to repress the movement with exceptional severity.

Violence did break out but not from the pro-marriage protestors.

In the small hours of Saturday, a leading member of the 'Manif pour tous,' Samuel Lafont, was knifed several times in the center of Paris after pro-gay 'marriage' activists had called for violence against him on Twitter. While his alleged aggressors are apparently not linked to the pro-gay movement in any way – they are Brazilians who were arrested on Sunday afternoon – outrageous remarks from the pro-gay 'marriage' lobby hoping he would die triggered a new series of demonstrations in the center of Paris on Sunday.

Courage, gaiety, light-heartedness and youth: these are the marks of a gallant French resistance that is vexing the powers that be, baffling the police and surprising the world. Something has changed deeply in France since nearly 40 years ago when the legalization of abortion was met with much less opposition and amidst near silence from the Catholic Church. Now many bishops are speaking out — and the communications revolution has given new power to ordinary citizens.

Change is coming, something new is stirring. The truth will win out.

Thank you again from the bottom of my heart for all or your support, your prayers, your notes of encouragement, your willingness to take action (like signing the petition) through the years.

You are such a blessing to me, to NOM, to this great country of ours.

It is an honor to serve with you in this great and noble fight for marriage.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You and I have been through thick and thin in this fight for marriage. We know how important truth is to this fight, and how so many of our opponents recoil from the very idea of truth.

There is no better example than the news this week that Washington's Attorney General Bob Ferguson is using taxpayer funding to bring a lawsuit against a small Washington state florist named Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts. Stutzman's crime? Refusing to sell flowers for a gay wedding.

For this 'thought crime' against gay marriage, her whole livelihood is now put at the stake.

It was only a few months ago, before the November elections, when gay marriage advocates were sanctimoniously getting on television and reassuring voters that our claims of the religious persecution that comes hand in hand with redefining marriage were unfounded. Made up. Untrue.

They knew at the time they were not telling the truth. Because now, just a few months later, the ACLU and a State Attorney General are the ones at the forefront of making sure that Christians who disagree with gay marriage pay a price for acting on their convictions.

Failure to tell the truth—call it a lie—arises from the fundamental lie: same-sex unions are not marriages because they cannot ever, under any circumstances, do the fundamental, key, and irreplaceable work that marriages do: bringing together under one home, in one family, the two great halves of humanity, male and female—to create homes in which children are known and loved by their own mother and father.

Not every marriage succeeds in creating the full range of goods that marriage aims at. But when marriages succeed in doing so, it's because they combine elements and circumstances that no same-sex couple can.

Suppressing the truth is what same-sex marriage advocates have to do to "win" the debate (temporarily, anyway).

How Truth is Suppressed

That's why, when a distinguished social scientist does an ordinary act like publishing his research in a major peer-reviewed journal—all pandemonium must break loose to discredit him. Not just disagree with him. Not just contextualize or re-contextualize his data—that would be normal scientific debate. But to smear him as a non-scientist and to ignore his work.

That's the crucible University of Texas Prof. Mark Regnerus has been going through and still is going through.

C-FAM's Austin Ruse recently pointed this out in his piece on Regnerus: "Science Study Still Spooking Gay Advocates."

Ruse points to Dr. Susan Yoshihara, research director of C-FAM, who used the Regnerus study before the legislature in Rhode Island. So-called "fact-checkers" claimed her testimony was false:

Politifact, a self-styled watchdog of political truth, branded Yoshihara's claim as false. Yoshihara, however, says the Politifact piece itself backed up her claim when they quoted a "prudent scholar" who said the issue is not settled in the scientific literature, which was Yoshihara's claim in the first place.

Ruse also cites the recent claim by former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, who said that "The study was pretty well demolished by peers."

But for me the worst was a claim in the LA Times that the Supreme Court was just silly to entertain the idea children do best with a mom and dad. Justice Scalia had made the assertion that "there's considerable disagreement" about whether "raising a child in a single-sex family is harmful or not," an assertion no doubt based in part on Regnerus's research.

"Those comments startled child development experts as well as advocates of gay marriage, because there is considerable research showing children of gay parents do not have more problems than others," the LA Times went on to report with a straight face…. '"There is a fundamental, scholarly consensus that children raised by same-sex couples do just fine,' said Stanford sociologist Michael J. Rosenfeld."

Yet I know of—and I'm no sociologist—at least 5 studies published in peer-reviewed journals whose results contest the "no difference claim": Mark Regnerus (2012), Loren Marks (2102), Douglas Allen (2012), Daniel Potter (2012), and Theresa Sirota (2009).

Listen, social science is not a "hard science," and I don't need to know from merely scientific evidence what I know in my heart from my own experience and the experience of so many children raised in fragmented families: children long for and need their mother and their father. But simply as a statement about the scientific literature, the claim there is now a "consensus" is untrue. The claim can be made only by ignoring the reputable scientists whose works disagree with that claim.

Truth matters to us, but it's not clear it matters to gay marriage advocates.

If you doubt me, listen to the voice of the extraordinary British writer Brendan O'Neill—a one-time Marxist, a man of the Left, who has spoken out repeatedly against the use of elite power to shut down the debate over same-sex marriage across the pond:

I have been doing or writing about political stuff for 20 years, since I was 18 years old, during which time I have got behind some pretty unpopular campaigns and kicked against some stifling consensuses. But I have never encountered an issue like gay marriage, an issue in which the space for dissent has shrunk so rapidly, and in which the consensus is not only stifling but choking. This is the only issue for which he has been not only booed but threatened with death.

"Is it a good thing, evidence that we had a heated debate on a new civil right and the civil rights side won?" O'Neill asks. And then he answers his own question:

I don't think so. I don't think we can even call this a 'consensus', since that would imply the voluntaristic coming together of different elements in concord. It's better described as conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: gay marriage. Indeed, the gay-marriage campaign provides a case study in conformism, a searing insight into how soft authoritarianism and peer pressure are applied in the modern age to sideline and eventually do away with any view considered overly judgmental, outdated, discriminatory, 'phobic', or otherwise beyond the pale.

"Gay marriage," he writes, "brilliantly shows how political narratives are forged these days, and how people are made to accept them."

Narrative is the relevant word here. Not hard truths uncovered, but stories created to whose allegiance people are held by threats, by bribes, and by conformist pressures.

The editor of First Things, Rusty Reno, has a similar set of concerns for what all this means for our democratic society. "If government can reshape marriage, it can reshape everything," his article explains:

Tyranny isn't just a situation in which the government is telling you what to do at every moment. It's also a society in which government says that, if necessary, it can. In this respect gay marriage reflects a dramatic enlargement of government. If legislatures and courts can redefine marriage, what can't it intervene to reshape and re-purpose?

The tyranny of the conformists, backed by government's coercive power, were on display in Washington State when the ACLU decided independently to sue the same florist the Attorney General is pursuing.

But first they sent this poor woman a letter:

Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed's lawyers, working with the legal powerhouse at the ACLU of Washington, sent a letter today to Arlene's Flowers owner Baronelle Stutzman saying she has two options: (1) She can vow to never again discriminate in her services for gay people, write an apology letter to be published in the Tri-City Herald, and contribute $5,000 to a local LGBT youth center, or (2) she can get sued for violating the Washington State Civil Rights Act.

Conform to our falsehood. Pretend you believe things you do not. Or face the consequences.
George Orwell, call your office.

But here's the good news in all this: It's going to get bad, we already know this. But in the end truth has a power that no narrative, no story can compete with.

Our job is to remain firmly fixed on the truth about marriage, to speak up for it with love in in our heart, and with the courage to never bow before the false gods, the untruths, the made-up stories offered to us in place of reality.

I am so honored to be fighting shoulder to shoulder with you for God's truth about marriage.
Thank you for making this enormous megaphone possible.

I treasure your friendship, your prayers, your words of encouragements, your sacrifices of time and treasure on behalf of this great cause.

Bless you!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Here are the faces of the people the mainstream media want to persuade you do not exist:

Cliff Kincaid, Director of the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism, accurately notes how dishonestly our movement has been covered by the mainstream media:

Significant news came out of last Tuesday's March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn't make "news" in the major media.

As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

[...] J.C. Derrick [of WORLD magazine] has a good analysis of how the major media, led by The Washington Post, virtually ignored the March for Marriage. But unless you actually see what happened on the ground, as the thousands of traditional marriage supporters held their demonstration, you would miss the true significance of how dishonest the media's coverage of this issue has become.

It took a major British newspaper to notice and cover the extraordinary outpouring from people of all races, creeds and colors to defend marriage: "[T]he ideological confrontation on Tuesday was genuine. Both sides of the debate were out in force, with Christian opponents easily outnumbering advocates for gay marriage" [emphasis added].

(Most of our opponents on the other side were respectful and decent as we marched past them in front of the Supreme Court. But the U.K. Daily Mail did note at least one punch thrown by one over-zealous demonstrator from the other side, as well as the man dressed in a pink fishnet devil costume, dancing with a less colorful fellow protestor, holding a sign that said, "I bet Hell is fabulous!" I pray that he never finds out—and I truly mean that!)

Confronting That Biased Media Head-on

If you didn't catch it, here I am on Easter Sunday's Meet the Press:

"The truth is the truth," I said.

The truth is marriage is based upon the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. . . . apart from all this inevitability talk, 31 states have voted to say that is the truth, they've embedded it in their state constitutions, only 4 have voted against it. There's a myth that somehow this is inevitable, look, North Carolina passed its constitutional amendment 8 months ago by 61%.

The truth about marriage is something the trendy media doesn't usually cover fairly. Witness marriage hero Doug Mainwaring, a brave gay man who is being denounced by The Daily Kos as a hatemonger at a "hate rally" for standing up for marriage! You can see video of Doug's remarkable testimony here:

Please pray for Doug and for all those who face this unjust discrimination in the media and culture simply for speaking out on behalf of marriage.

The Emerging "Next Gen" Leaders For Marriage

And speaking of those who speak out on behalf of marriage: here's what I really want to do this week. Thanks to the March and the coverage, I can introduce you this week to some extraordinary people the MSM never want you to meet, so you can see for yourself: the able, intelligent, and extraordinary Next Gen leaders for marriage that are now emerging in this fight:

Meet the young heroes facing down the Goliath forces opposing us!

You know of course our own able and extraordinary Thomas Peters, NOM's communication director.

He went on MSNBC and fought and held his own in the lion's den (with God's help I take it!):

... [C]urrently gay marriage activists are claiming that they are politically powerless and that's why we have to strike down laws defending marriage like the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. Whereas what the Chief Justice is saying is that actually gays and lesbians are very politically powerful—the President supports them, the Democratic party platform supports them—and so the idea that we need to strike down laws protecting marriage is absurd.

[...] What we need to uphold is that people have the ultimate right to decide marriage laws. The states, the democratic process is working, and we hope the Supreme Court will acknowledge the votes of over 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

But Thomas is no longer alone!

Meet Gia Coluccio, a beautiful and brilliant young staffer at the American Principles Project, explaining why she chose to March for Marriage:

A version of her speech was published in The Blaze:

I marched for marriage and I spoke for marriage because I wanted to speak for millions of other young people around the country who believe that marriage should be defined by the law as a union between one man and one woman. Young people like me may have been quiet in the past, but we are here, and we are not giving up on marriage.

Ryan Anderson is one of the co-authors (alongside Professor Robby George and Sherif Gergis) of the brilliant new book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

You may have seen the amazing denigration he endured on CNN last week at the hands of Piers Morgan and Suze Orman, who called this Phi Beta Kappa Princeton grad (who is a PhD candidate at Notre Dame) ignorant(!) and "uneducated"(!!!) about marriage.

Set up, excluded from an equal place on the stage, under great and condescending provocation, Ryan remained himself: gracious and intelligent and calm under fire, the very model of a young Christian gentleman, as well as a fiercely competent public intellectual.

Undaunted, this week Ryan took on a whole panel of young libertarians—including S. E. Cupp (who recently and without much explanation switched her views and now favors gay marriage)—to explain to these confused young people why DOMA and Prop 8 are defensible: because marriage is not just a plaything of government, something legislators or judges get to dream up new meaning for. Marriage has a history, a purpose, and deep roots in human nature as well as in God's law.

Here again see this Next Gen leader for marriage at work:

Many things happened at the March for Marriage but one of the things I want to make sure you know about is an announcement by Eric Teetsel—the able young Next Gen leader who heads up the Manhattan Declaration project.

Eric's big announcement: Along with Chris Marlink, Andrew Walker, and Prof. Owen Strachen, Eric is launching a new initiative—Marriage Generation—to be the voice for marriage as a lifelong, life-giving union to next generation Christians and others of good will.

The initiative's webpage describes its identity this way:

We are millennials who understand that marriage is a lasting promise between one woman and one man. It is the unique human relationship where bodily, emotional and spiritual differences converge to form something new, often leading to the creation of life itself.

Let me give the last word this week to Gia Coluccio. The 22-year-old reminds us:

My generation has a choice—we can either recognize the truth of the importance of our classic understanding of marriage or we can deny it. We can either protect marriage and fight for it, or we can hand it away to people who want to redefine it—to undefine it, to separate it from its deep roots in human nature. But when we see hard evidence that traditional marriage is better for children and better for society than a new definition of marriage, why would we do anything other than protect and defend marriage?

Why indeed?

Thank you for all you have done to make this March and this movement possible. Keep up your prayers, your letters, your suggestions; keep up your keenness and your kindness and above all your spirits!

Some things are more important than politics. Some ideas are deeper and richer than the narrow postmodern mind can comprehend. Some things are worth defending.

I will never stop thanking God for the honor of being your voice for His values!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

They're here. They support God's design for marriage. They are not going away or giving up. And the New York Times has finally noticed!

"Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead," the headline shouts — and for once the New York Times tells the truth.

A cadre of next generation heroes for marriage are arising and were interviewed by the New York Times on the verge of the first annual March for Marriage (which the Times called "The highest-profile effort" currently underway to defend marriage!). One among these young marriage heroes featured was our own undaunted Thomas Peters! Here's a glimpse of what some of the others had to say:

• "'It's really a broader defense of marriage and a stronger marriage culture,' said Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society."

• "'Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film,' said Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration…. 'I think it's really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we're going to win a lot of those folks back.'"

• "Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage, Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.

• "'When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,' said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network…."

• "'If you take the longer view of history — I'm not talking just 15 years, I'm talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can't help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,' said Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation."

These young people are evidence that support for marriage and the belief that kids do best with a mom and a dad is growing rather than waning. And there's plenty more evidence in other recent news:

At last week's CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Senator Marco Rubio bravely and forcefully reaffirmed his support for marriage and the rights of states, saying in part: "Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot."

I want to thank Senator Rubio for his courage to speak up at this crucial time, exemplifying the kind of conservative leadership our nation needs right now. And I want you to thank him too. Please click here to send a thank you message to Senator Rubio commending him for his courage to speak up for marriage as the unique union of one man and one woman, an institution vital to the well-being of men, women, children, and society as a whole.

Rallying the Troops to March for Marriage

History is going to be made on the steps of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and as the momentum for the March for Marriage builds, the heroes are gathering.

Former Sen. Jim DeMint is a hero to a lot of people, especially in the Tea Party movement. He's also the new president of the Heritage Foundation.

At CPAC, Sen. De Mint gave a lucid, brilliant argument for why social conservatism and economic conservatism are linked—by the institution of marriage.

Here is the crux of what the new president of Heritage said at CPAC that you and I know in our hearts:

We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America's cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people's democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.

In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.

We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.

Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand.

But Senator DeMint has gone even further. He has endorsed the March for Marriage — and here you can see him say why it's so important to turn out on March 26:

Archbishop Cordileone, another hero for marriage, will be speaking at the March. The Archbishop's initiative at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's just released "Five Reasons to Participate in the March for Marriage." I won't spoil it for you, but here is the first reason:

When Pope Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires, he encouraged the Catholic faithful to march for marriage. The year was 2010 and the Argentinean legislature was debating whether or not to redefine marriage. According to Zenit news, then-Cardinal Bergoglio "appealed to parish priests, rectors and chaplains of churches to facilitate the participation of the faithful" in a planned march and demonstration against redefining marriage. The marchers united under the motto "We want a mommy and daddy for our children"….

So many other heroes will be there: the bravest Democrat in America, Rev. Senator Ruben Diaz; Peggy Nance; Gary Bauer; Pastor Jim Garlow; Bob Van der Plaatz; Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse; Professor Robert P. George; Professor Robert Oscar Lopez; and more!

Come, join us, and make your own voice heard!

Illinois's Black Pastors Band Together to Defend Marriage

In Chicago, a new coalition of black Church leaders, Democrats almost all, have formed an African American Clergy Coalition to make their voices heard! The press is taking notice. The Southern Illinoisan reported it this way: "Some Chicago-area clergy are getting vocal about same-sex marriage — including through radio ads opposing pending legislation to legalize the practice in Illinois."

The Illinoisan says that the 60-second radio spots began airing on Tuesday, and that a "street campaign" and robo-calls are also a planned part of the Coalition's overall efforts.

The robo-calls feature former state Sen. James Meeks, who is also senior pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church. God bless these pastors for their brave and exemplary leadership!

Four Days Until the March!

In the Bible, the rainbow is the symbol of hope, a promise that God's words will be kept. On Tuesday, a truly rainbow coalition — people of all races, creeds, and colors — will gather in our nation's capital to March for Marriage. I truly hope you will join us!

Let me close with a few words from Focus on the Family's President, Jim Daly:

Jim proudly notes that Focus on the Family (along with CitzenLink) is a "proud cosponsor" of the March for Marriage. "The fact that so many have gathered in response to these critical court cases should give everyone hope as we find our way forward," he says.

You and I know we are standing on firm ground. God's design for marriage has always been about bringing together the two distinct, but complementary expressions created in His image: male and female. Two people coming together in oneness capable of bringing forth new life. Marriage is an example of God's common grace… given for the benefit of all humanity.

Yes, this view of marriage is becoming "countercultural" in some circles, Daly acknowledges; but all that means is that we must lovingly, and with grace and courage, "lift up and celebrate God's magnificent design for this unique and irreplaceable relationship between a man and a woman!"

I couldn't help but be moved by his final call:

"Every generation has its moment: this is ours."

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Here I am on C-Span's prestigious Washington Journal, talking about the March 26 March for Marriage, taking our case to the very steps of the Supreme Court!

On the 26th, as we are marching outside the Court, demanding justice for marriage and for democracy, inside the Justices of our highest court will hear jousting from lawyers on both sides.

Myriad Defenses for Marriage at the Court

Ryan Anderson over at the Heritage Foundation has done a good job highlighting and providing links to the more than 50 amicus briefs for marriage now before the Court.

A sampling from Ryan's roundup:

Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese argues that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are not similarly situated:

Given the near-universal view, across different societies and different times, that a principal, if not the principal, purpose of marriage is the channeling of the unique procreative abilities of opposite-sex relationships into a societally beneficial institution, it is clear that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that fundamental purpose.

A group of international jurists and academics points out that "same-sex marriage is not required by international human rights norms."

The Attorneys General for 20 states filed a joint brief defending the rational basis of their states' marriage laws.

A group of historians and other professors explain: "While the procedures and incidents of marriage have varied over time and across cultures, its primary form and legal meaning have remained remarkably constant. ... Marriage as an opposite-sex institution is a universal phenomenon."

A team of social science professors (including Mark Regnerus, the researcher behind the now-famous New Family Structures Study) present the compelling scientific data on family structure and child wellbeing.

Indeed, the only studies that were based on large, random, representative samples tended to reveal ... significant differences in the outcomes of children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship and those raised by a married biological mother and father. What is clear is that much more study must be done on these questions. But there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children. And it is reasonable to conclude that a mother and father function as a complementary parenting unit and that each tends to contribute something unique and beneficial to child development.

Two other briefs were filed by gay or same-sex attracted Americans, asking the Court to uphold Prop 8, while The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argues that when courts create rights to same-sex marriage they create new hazards for religious liberty.

Our own brief from the National Organization for Marriage in the Proposition 8 case was filed by our Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance (and we filed a separate brief in the DOMA case as well!). The Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance brief urges the court not to contribute to a climate of intimidation by falsely and wrongly labeling good people irrational, bigots, or worse:

Despite the chilling effect of political reprisals and other acts of hostility, many people in this country continue to demonstrate great civic courage in endeavoring to preserve marriage as a vital social institution that promotes the public interest in strengthening the unique relationship between mothers, fathers, and children. This perseverance, often in the face of great hostility, testifies to their good will and honest belief that society benefits from strengthening marriage rather than redefining it in a way that would divorce it from its roots in human biology and the needs of children. Those views are worthy of reflection and the people who hold them are worthy of respect.

.... [T]he Court should reject any argument made in this case that support for marriage as one man and one woman is irrational, bigoted, or worse.

Redefining Marriage 12 Votes Short in Illinois

In Illinois, they expected gay marriage to pass this week. Instead, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan had to go the press and confess the bill is "12 votes short of passage," which the Chicago Tribune described as "a signal that same-sex marriage could face a tough road to approval this spring."

This is nothing short of miraculous, given Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanual's deep connections to the White House. But Black pastors in Chicago are speaking up for God's word and demanding that politicians who represent them respect their voices and values.

One pastor spoke at a news conference of a new coalition of Black Illinois pastors.

His words (starting around the 5:00 mark) were ringing:

As a coalition, we say enough is enough. We say marriage is between a man and a woman and we also say it is that it is not the government's responsibility, it is not the state's responsibility and it is not the mayor's responsibility to try and redefine what marriage really is....

We want to make sure we send a message to our elected officials, that as a collective community, if you want to shove this legislation down our throats as your constituents, then we will not allow you to speak in our churches, you will not be invited to our churches [...] when you are running for office, because we as a community are incensed that you would allow the dollars from special interests groups to sway your opinion and go against the very core of our families.

Notably, he responded squarely to a criticism people often make: "People always say the problems in the African American community is their families... their husbands and fathers are not there."

In answer, he said: "Then help us first get our first work right. Help us first with all your resources and the billions being spent in order to promote the same-sex marriage agenda and use it to help us correct our communities. Take that money and help us to correct our social ill. But don't take money from those trying to categorically undo the Bible and then shove it down our throats as a civil rights violation, because it is not."

The conclusion is ringing:

So we want for our elected officials going from the top of this nation all the way down to our local legislative bodies to realize that we do have a backbone, we do have a voice, we do have an opinion and we do have a God. We will serve that God until the day we die, we will preserve the sanctity of marriage and we will also preserve the truths of His word until the day that we die."

God bless him and his fellow men of the cloth for their courage. These are strong Democrats standing up to the Chicago machine politics, on behalf of God's truth about marriage.

Another Example of What the Reality of Marriage Redefinition Looks Like

The voices of some young dissenters are beginning to creep into the public debate; sometimes you have to read them sideways.

Janis Hetherington was one of the first British lesbian mothers to be artificially inseminated. You can read her story and see her photo here.

According to The Independent, "[Janis' story] is a story of courage, custody battles—and refusal to conform."

But real life is messier than that. After giving birth to a boy named Nick, Ms. Hetherington lost her partner to an early death, and then decided to battle her partner's family for custody of Lisa, her partner's daughter from a previous relationship.

The reporter is not very interested in how that felt for the children, but she does note that Lisa is not speaking to Janis or to the other woman (named Barbara) who helped raise her from the age of 5 or 6.

Nick, Janis's son, is writing a movie based on his mom's life which started out when she was 15 with a lesbian relationship with a 25 year old woman (what we would now call pedophilia); included time spent in a brothel; until finally Janis 'reincarnated' herself to the point that the reporter (not me) says, "she resembles a country gent about to go hunting."

Nick says about his life with his mom and her partner from the age of 2: "It doesn't matter what sort of environment you grow up in, straight, bi- or transgender, but that family has to be strong and if it's not strong it will be sh*** and, certainly growing up, ours was not strong."

Despite those early hurdles, Nick says they are now close. "I now have that unity [with my mother] and my sister has found that unity with her own family."

Not every family is perfect. Even children blessed with a married mom and dad experience hardship and heartache. Forgiveness is the heart of family life. But oh what a tangled web we weave when we pretend the ideal does not exist or is not important!

Some New Pro-Marriage Voices on the Scene

Here is an 11-year-old(!), Gracie Evans, testifying before the Minnesota state legislature against same sex marriage. She had a question for the legislators: "I want to ask you this question: which parent do I not need: my Mom or my Dad?" [emphasis added].

She asks the question twice and looks around the room in vain for an answer. Out of the mouths of babes, my friends, out of the mouths of babes!

For those of us who are Catholic, and for many others as well, this week was exciting for another reason. For the first time in modern history a non-European will sit in St. Peter's chair as bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church.

Many of you are writing to ask me if the new Pope had expressed any views on marriage. The answer is yes: as Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he said this about treating same-sex unions as marriages on June 22, 2010:

I write this letter to each one of you in the four Monasteries of Buenos Aires.... The identity of the family, and its survival, are in jeopardy here: father, mother, and children. The life of so many children who will be discriminated beforehand due to the lack of human maturity that God willed them to have with a father and a mother is in jeopardy. A clear rejection of the law of God, engraved in our hearts, is in jeopardy.

He ends by urging those in the monasteries, "Let us recall what God himself told his people in a time of great anguish: 'this war is not yours, but God's', that [these words] may succour, defend, and accompany us in this war...."

What can I say to that but, Amen!

God bless you and thank you. The fights thicken, and it is your courage, your prayers, and your contributions in a hundred thousand ways that keep me going.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Greetings from the state of Minnesota, where good people marched for marriage!

Hundreds of good people of every race, creed and color showed up to make it clear: Marriage is the union of husband and wife, not to be redefined by politicians.

I spoke on your behalf and on behalf of God's vision of marriage. WCCO-4 in Saint Paul, MN reported my speech this way:

"Proponents of same-sex marriage want us to believe that this is inevitable, this is going to come no matter what we do, so we might as well pack up and go back to our homes and stop fighting. We will never stop fighting for the truth," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage.

Senate Minority Leader David Hann (R-Eden Prairie,) also spoke up for marriage on Thursday: "We believe that marriage is not something that legislatures created or government created. We believe that marriage is something that God created and reflects an order that God created and it is the thing that unites children with their parents."

You'll recall that opponents of the 2012 Minnesota Marriage Amendment had promised voters the amendment was unnecessary—that you could vote "no" and nothing would change in the law on marriage. That proved about as true as promises in so many other states that civil unions and gay marriage bills would not compromise religious liberty.

Well, there is hope that Minnesotans are beginning to see through the other side's duplicity: a StarTribune poll released this week found Minnesotans oppose gay marriage 53 percent to 38 percent.

March for Marriage Update: Momentum Continues to Grow!

The March for Marriage in our nation's capital takes place on March 26—if you plan to attend, you can RSVP on Facebook by clicking here.

I was excited by the news recently reported by EWTN: "Leaders within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are encouraging their brother bishops to support the upcoming March for Marriage."

"We are grateful for this opportunity to express support for the Marriage for March and to encourage participation in this event," said Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades and Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone in a letter to their fellow bishops.

"The march will be a significant opportunity to promote and defend marriage and the good of our nation, to pray for our Supreme Court justices, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will," their letter went on to say.

NOM Leaders Remind Us What We're Fighting For

We will be on the steps of the Supreme Court as the Justices take up oral arguments on the case that could ban Prop 8 and bring gay marriage to every state in the union, including yours. I hope that you can join us and stand alongside us as we demand justice for children and respect for our Constitutional right to speak, to donate, to organize, and yes to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.

NOM's Chairman of the Board, the distinguished law professor and litigator John Eastman, recently took our case to the media, smacking down the legal arguments for gay marriage in U.S. News and World Report. There is no civil right to same-sex marriage, he points out, because "the Supreme Court's recognition of marriage as a fundamental right has always been grounded on what makes marriage a unique relationship." He explains:

In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court defined marriage as a "fundamental" right because it is one of the "'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival," a point which is only true because the institution is rooted in the biological complementarity of the sexes, the formal recognition of the unique union through which children are produced. [...] [The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause] requires that individuals who are similarly situated must be treated similarly. It should be obvious, but as long as procreation is an important part of why society lends its weight to the institution of marriage, same sex and opposite sex relationships are simply not similarly situated with respect to that important aspect of marriage.

Here's the bottom line, according to Professor Eastman: "Laws that foster the one relationship because of its unique ability to further the public good serve legitimate, even compelling governmental interests, and should be upheld."

Also recently, NOM's Communications Director, the dynamic young Thomas Peters, was on CNN, arguing the Supreme Court must respect our rights and the rights of 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8. I really enjoyed watching him smack down the absurd meme that gay marriage is somehow important for economic growth (some people will say anything!):

Another member of NOM's family, Christopher Plante (NOM's Northeastern Regional Coordinator), was recently featured as a 'Rhode Island Power Player' in the local press, described as a person having a "large impact" on the state. As Chris told the media, "We've been told time and time again that same-sex marriage was inevitable and time and time again that has proven false. Of particular importance to us is working closely with our grassroots supporters, having them call, email, and visit their Senators, because it's the people who will ultimately hold these elected officials accountable."

They also asked him what his advice would be for the next Christopher Plante: "Have a thick skin and good sense of humor!"

Heightened Points of Interest in the SCOTUS Marriage Cases

President Obama, who has written movingly of his own longing for his absent father's love as a boy, is now in Court sadly arguing there's no evidence children need either a mother or a father.

Obama's Justice Department filed a brief "rebutting" the arguments made by supporters of Prop 8 that the ideal for a child is a mom and dad. "The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: 'the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,'" said the administration's brief, submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

"As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing," the Obama administration told the court. "To the contrary,... children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

There are a lot of objections you and I could make to irresponsible statements like these. But I like the response raised by a reporter who covered this story very well for CNSnews, Terence Jeffrey:

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

In other SCOTUS news, Justice Anthony Kennedy—the swing vote who will likely determine whether our rights to fight for marriage in a democratic fashion will be respected and upheld, or whether our beloved Constitution will be misused as a weapon to strike down the definition of marriage in all 50 states and make gay marriage a part of our Constitution—had some interesting things to say recently.

Now, Kennedy has proved very sympathetic to various gay rights arguments and many people fear he will find a right to gay marriage in our Constitution. Of course, we won't know for sure until he actually issues a decision.

But for us, there was some hopeful news this week, when Justice Kennedy returned to Sacramento on the occasion of the opening of a federal courthouse library named for him. According to the Associated Press:

Justice Anthony Kennedy says he is concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly the venue for deciding politically charged issues such as gay marriage, health care and immigration.

The 76-year-old associate justice said Wednesday that major policies in a democracy should not depend 'on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.'

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Ted Olsen and David Boies must be shaking in their boots as they read those words.

Do not believe the falsehood that gay marriage is inevitable. Join us on March 26 and speak truth to power; stand up for God's vision of marriage.

Speaking of which — here are some brave military chaplains doing just that — standing up for marriage and speaking truth to power. If you haven't seen it yet, please check out our brand-new MarriageADA video released yesterday about the perilous threat to our military chaplains posed by efforts to redefine marriage. And please send these brave men a note of support for standing up and lending their voice to bring attention to this important cause!

I look forward to standing with you myself in our nation's capital later this month! With your help and God's help, we will not only stand for marriage—we will march!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Before I get into this week's news, I want to share with your our brand new website for the upcoming March for Marriage, scheduled for March 26 in Washington, DC. Please check out the new site today, and share this link with your pro-marriage friends and families. On the site, you'll find information about how the attend the March, and also get to see some of the great speakers we've already got lined up for the rally!

Money Sometimes Doesn't Just Talk — It Lies

With the cash of GOP mega-millionaires like Ken Mehlman and Paul Singer, a carefully crafted campaign to get Republicans to abandon marriage has been nurtured and launched.

Last week HRC tried to enlist Laura Bush in its campaign to prove Republicans support for overturning the views and the votes of millions of California voters.

This week the New York Times is singing about a small group of "prominent" Republicans like Jon Huntsman who signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to override the voters of California and impose gay marriage on all 50 states.

These pro-gay marriage Republicans mostly share one important characteristic: they are no longer in office, nor seeking office. (All of former Gov. Jon Huntsman's millions could not get him better than a third place finish in New Hampshire, remember.)

After helping to falsely manufacture Laura Bush's support for court-ordered gay marriage, the New York Times has now had to apologize for an even more embarrassing blooper: falsely reporting that Federal Marriage Amendment sponsor Marilyn Musgrave, the former Colorado Congresswoman, signed the brief urging the Court to overturn Prop 8. FOX31 in Denver reported the error:

[New York Times reporter] Stolberg told FOX31 that Musgrave's name was actually on the brief she was shown for the story.

"I got my information from those collecting the signatures," she told FOX31 Denver.

Stolberg told FOX31 that she called Musgrave to personally apologize for the error.

Well, we're calling out HRC and the New York Times and others for trying to push this figment of a groundswell of GOP support for gay marriage. As I pointed out in a NOM press release earlier this week, "If Republicans actually supported gay marriage — an absurd claim — the Human Rights Campaign would not have to spend millions of dollars claiming they do and the New York Times would not have to falsely claim the support of stalwart pro-marriage Republican figures such as Marilyn Musgrave."

After conducting an independent analysis of gay marriage votes in 8 states, the Associated Press concluded the obvious: "Gay Marriage Support Has Risks for GOP Lawmakers."

The piece points out, "Of the 47 Republican legislators nationwide who voted yes starting in 2009, only 21 are in office today."

The story continues:

In New York, only one of four Republican senators who supported gay marriage is still in the Legislature. One lost a primary, one retired and one lost the general election after narrowly winning a bitter primary. A New Hampshire Republican representative lost a primary after her 2009 vote for gay marriage, and in Maryland the former Senate Republican leader relinquished his leadership post when he started working with Democrats on a gay marriage bill that passed last year.

We are facing tough, close votes in blue states across America. Republicans are being groomed and encouraged by the media to ignore the wishes of their own constituents; to join the crowd denouncing our traditional understanding of marriage as hatred, the moral equivalence of racism.

So, we have announced once again our intention to stand by those who stand by their own voters, and to hold to the fire the feet of those who run away from their own constituents' voices and values — regardless of party. As I said on Monday. "Marriage is not a partisan issue, and NOM does not hesitate to oppose weak Republicans and support strong Democrats."

Media of course is treating our pledge like a crime or a threat. It's not a threat: it's a promise.

We are telling elected officials: we will stand by your voters and our shared values for marriage — against the media, against Hollywood, against the mega-billionaires. If you didn't come out for gay marriage before the last election, you have no business betraying voters' trust now and expecting no-one to notice.

Dispelling the Myths of the Pundits

Still the GOP's recent electoral losses are being blamed on the lack of support for gay marriage.

Take for example the interview given to the Associated Press by Cheryl Pflug, a Washington state Republican who voted for gay marriage and is no longer in office:

Pflug argued that the party's rigid stance on the issue is costing it votes from young people, suburban women and other demographics.

"I think a lot of conservative elected Republicans are going to go down with the ship on this one," Pflug said. "I think the Republican Party is at a crossroads."

Well, I can't blame Ms. Pflug for parroting the punditry. Yet, consider how wrong that consultant's alleged wisdom is: It's pretty intellectually absurd, given that the most popular governor in America right now is New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie, who actually vetoed a gay marriage bill. 74 percent of blue-state New Jerseyans approve of him!

Whatever explains the GOP's problems and its failure to connect with voters in the last election cycle, blaming their lack of support for gay marriage is not just wrong — it's stupid.

The conventional wisdom — "run away from all social issues" — lost badly in the last election cycle; but that doesn't seem to stop political elites from prescribing more of the same medicine that didn't work.

If you doubt me, just look across the pond: the Tories' embrace of gay marriage is earning the party no credit from liberal voters, but is tearing the base of the party apart. According to the Christian Institute's Mike Judge:

Party activists are leaving in their droves. Membership has plummeted by more than half since [Cameron] became leader, and over 70 percent of remaining members believe the issue of gay marriage is tearing the party apart…. Ultimately, [Tory PM David Cameron] is hoping that his disco-dad moves are a vote-winner. It's not working, according to polling which shows gay marriage could cost him 1.1 million votes and up to 30 parliamentary seats [emphases added].

Voters can respect political leaders who stand by their principles, even if they disagree. Chucking core principles for political expedience only persuades voters that you have no integrity.

Our Fight Continues

I promise you one thing: we at NOM will never stop fighting for your rights, to be the national voice for your values to the high and mighty — in the media and in the halls of power.

Decent, loving, law-abiding men and women of integrity are everywhere coming together to speak God's truth about marriage — even where it requires courage.

Let me leave with this feel-good story you might have missed. A young husband and wife team who run a bakery "Sweet Cakes" in Oregon:

Now notice: this young couple isn't refusing to serve gay customers. They aren't trying to deny delicious cupcakes to gay people. They simply cannot, in good conscience, facilitate a homosexual wedding, which they see as a wrong, a violation of God's will for marriage.

The lesbian couple has filed a discrimination complaint and gay rights groups are protesting on the sidewalk in front of "Sweet Cakes" in Gresham.

But a funny thing happened on the way to this mean-spirited attempt by gay rights activists to take away this young couple's entire livelihood, to damage the small business they built together: the community came together to buy cupcakes to support freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience! It's a Chick-fil-A moment all over again.

Amazing things can happen when we come together in love and trust to God's providence.

We've seen that again and again in this fight for marriage, haven't we?

Bless you for all your help — your prayer, your words of encouragement, your sacrifices of time and treasure.

We are not going to win every battle. But we are going to make it clear that we will not surrender and lay down God's own vision of marriage.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In just a few weeks, the Supreme Court will consider whether or not to impose gay marriage on the entire country. That's right — marriage in all 50 states hangs in the balance!

Nine Justices will soon rule on whether or not our core civil right to vote for God's vision of marriage will be upheld — and, in California, restored.

On March 26, the nine Justices meet to consider oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, as well as the Federal DOMA law. The bottom line issue for the Court is: do the voters of California (or nationwide) have the right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife? Or, will we be stripped of that right, and this time-tested, cross-cultural, common-sense and — yes, also Biblical — vision of marriage be redefined as just rank and ugly discrimination?

No Surprise: HRC Playing Dirty Tricks

This week, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) launched a multi-million dollar push, taking out full-page print media ads and buying up television time, trying to persuade Republicans (and the Republican-appointed Justices on the Court) that gay marriage is the new bi-partisan normal, featuring some Republican figures supposedly supporting same-sex marriage, including Laura Bush.

Her spokeswoman, however, just announced that Laura Bush "did not approve of her inclusion in this advertisement nor is she associated with the group that made the ad in any way. When [Mrs. Bush] became aware of the advertisement last night, we requested that the group remove her from it."

So, if you look up HRC's ads online now, you'll notice that the former First Lady's image has been removed. But they are still using another image you'll recognize: NOM's logo! — well, sort of — they have created a logo to look like NOM's well-recognized conjoined blue and red rings.

Because I designed NOM's logo personally, I find this to be an insulting mockery, as well as very ironic: you see, I created this image to reflect the difference between men and women symbolically. The red ring represents men and the blue represents, women. The intertwining of the rings is meant to show that marriage is the unique union of both a woman and a man coming together in committed love.

As for what it means for HRC, though, I can't imagine. Maybe, as with the former First Lady's views on marriage, HRC simply didn't bother looking into the background and meaning of an image before appropriating it as part of their latest misinformation campaign.

Isn't it amazing how images and and beauty often reveal the truth of things better than we can represent with our words alone?

Colorado Senator To Marriage Supporters: "Get Out Of Society"

Meanwhile in Colorado, Sen. Pat Steadman has done us a favor: he's ripped off the mask of tolerance and revealed the profound hatred for traditional religious believers that motivates too many in the gay marriage movement.

Watch this video. Hear in his voice how much tolerance you and your kids and grandkids can expect, if we fall silent and let gay marriage advocates reign unopposed:

"You can have all the free exercise there that you want. Exercise it as you see fit. But, don't let your free exercise run my life. Don't claim religion as a reason the law should discriminate," Steadman says.

His rant goes on: "So, what to say to those who claim that religion requires them to discriminate? I'll tell you what I'd say: ‘Get thee to a nunnery!' And live there then. Go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you can't see as equals to yourself."

Marriage Is On The March!

Steadman's rant is chilling to watch, but I'm happy this week to announce good news: Marriage supporters are not taking this lying down. Marriage is on the march!

More and more people and organizations are recognizing: now is the time to speak or be forever forced to hold your peace!

My profound gratitude goes towards the new members of the March for Marriage coalition: Family Research Council; Human Life International; the 500,000 strong Manhattan Declaration; CatholicVote; the American Principles Project; ActRight; Concerned Women for America; C-FAM; as well as The Ruth Institute and NOM-Rhode Island.

Just last week in Puerto Rico, ordinary citizens came together to stand together and strong for marriage:

Next month, it's our time to march, in our nation's capital.

No one has ever organized a national march for marriage before in this country.

The first March for Life was founded by Nellie Gray and held on January 22, 1974, on the steps of the Capitol, after the Supreme Court overturned the law protecting unborn life, stripped voters of their rights to pass such laws, and unilaterally imposed abortion on all 50 states.

Nellie Grey began small, with an estimated 20,000 supporters in attendance — but the March for Life has grown to hundreds of thousands of people each year, for every year that it is necessary to stand for life.

We are especially grateful to Human Life International for recognizing that pro-marriage is prolife. A government whose courts trample on the rights of citizens to stand up for the institution of marriage and the family is trampling on our most sacred rights.

This year, you have a chance to be part of history — because we are not waiting for the Supreme Court to trample on marriage or our rights to vote for marriage before taking action!

Now is our time to make history happen!

The March For Marriage

On March 26th, the March for Marriage day will begin at 8:30am, when you and I will gather on the National Mall, together with thousands of other decent, loving, law-abiding citizens who care about marriage.

At 9:30am, together we will link arms and march to the Supreme Court before returning to the National Mall for our program.

From 11:00am — 1:00pm, the March for Marriage Rally will be held at our gathering space on the Mall.

Confirmed speakers so far (besides me!) include: Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop George McKinney of the Church of God in Christ, Jennifer Roback Morse, Rev. Bill Owens Sr. — but more great pro-marriage voices will be coming on board. It will be a great program!

We are constantly updating the exciting turns of this new March for Marriage. The best way you can follow these updates as they unfold is on our March Facebook page!

Talking Points	Flier	Map and Schedule

Please consider downloading and sharing this route map and updated schedule of events for the day; our talking points which you can share with fellow marchers, as well as with state and local pro-family organizations; and our our one-page flier explaining the urgency of the March for Marriage and highlighting our cosponsors, which you can download, print out, and share with friends, family, your pastor or other clergy, and other congregants and parishioners.

Also, If you'd like to learn more about the march, become a leader or a group of fellow pro-marriage citizens to come to D.C. for the day's events, or volunteer to help out in any way you can, please contact our March team right away at: marriagemarch@nationformarriage.org.

I can't wait to hear from you!

The Marriage Pledge

Finally, I am pleased to announce that, through a generous pro-marriage donor, we have a $500K matching challenge to help prepare for the March for Marriage and our various other efforts to protect marriage.

If you cannot be at the March for Marriage this March 26th — or if you can, you want to do even more for marriage — you can help by financing a fellow-marcher in the March for Marriage (along with NOM's other work):

$10 today could make a difference for the rest of U.S. history! Through the magic of matching, your $10 will become $20 for marriage. If God has blessed you and in your prayers you've become persuaded that He wants you to do more at this crucial moment in history, $100 becomes $200, and $500 becomes $1000 for marriage!

That's not really my final request, of course. Because there is one crucial thing you can do right now, regardless of your means: you can pray for me, personally, and for my family. You can pray for Tony Perkins and other leaders of the marriage movement. You can pray that God will un-harden the hearts of the Supreme Court this March 26th and 27th as they listen to the argument on marriage.

You can pray for all the brave people — black, white, Asian and Hispanic, young and old, male and female — coming to D.C. this March to change history and March for Marriage!

And please, please pray for Prof. Robert Lopez, who just travelled to the Minnesota legislature to testify to his own experience of what it was like to grow up fatherless, after his father left and his mother partnered with another lesbian.

He loved both his mothers: "I considered my mother's partner a true mother to me. She was kind and forgiving to me. . . .there's a tension because one of the parents is the biological parent and the other is the legal parent, it's confusing for the child, and it's not a small confusion, it's actually very difficult. . . . . I'm grateful for what I got from being raised in such a colorful home. But I could not be true to myself. . . if I did anything to encourage other children to be placed in such homes. . . our house was full of unclosed scars. I had no father and this crushed my soul."

You can watch his testimony here.

Bless you for all the amazing things you've made possible. Together, let's pray that this country, under God, will have a new birth in freedom, a re-dedication to the American principles that made this the greatest and most God-blessed country on this earth.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It could have been me or my staff. That crossed my mind when I learned the deeply disturbing breaking news:

The Family Research Council shooter told the FBI he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate group" designation on their website to ID and target his victims for a would-be mass murder rampage.

According to the Associated Press, the shooter "also planned to target other organizations that oppose gay marriage if he wasn't stopped. [...] In his pants pocket, police found a handwritten list of groups that also oppose gay marriage."

The brave security guard, Leo Johnson, a real hero, jumped the gunman after being shot, and saved the lives of countless decent, loving law-abiding Americans... but to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Leo's a hater in a hate group.

The SPLC, once a respected civil rights organization that targeted racist skinhead hate groups bent on dehumanizing their fellow Americans, has decided that it can use the same tactics against mainstream Christian conservative organizations.

So far, according to the Associated Press, the SPLC has refused to comment on what it now knows about the damage its hate list caused.

An innocent man was shot because a killer openly and admittedly used the SPLC's list to pick out and target his victims — and SPLC has no comment?

No comment on the chilling revelation that this disturbed man, inspired by the SPLC's hate group list, walked into FRC with 50 rounds of ammo and Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he intended to smear on the mouth of each of his victims!

SPLC and the Media Must be Held Accountable

Now, you know that NOM has not (yet) been designated a "hate group" by the SPLC, despite vast reporting to the contrary. But let me tell you that today that doesn't matter: today, we are standing with Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council demanding justice from the media and accountability from the Southern Poverty Law Center for their reckless disregard of truth and decency.

I know the SPLC will say it does not support using its hate group list for political assassination. But that's not good enough. The reason this disturbed shooter could use this list in this way is that the groups SPLC is targeting are not quasi-violent extremists wandering around in the woods with guns — but mainstream Americans with known offices in convenient locations, working democratically to support their views.

Let me make something clear here: I do not blame gay people for this shooting. Most homosexual people are law-abiding fellow citizens, equally appalled by violence.

I do blame the Southern Poverty Law Center for taking organizations of other decent, law-abiding fellow-citizens, and lumping them in with neo-Nazis, labeling them "hate groups," as part of a deliberate strategy to marginalize, stigmatize, and repress the speech and democratic rights of conservative Christians.

And I blame the media — for refusing to admit that SPLC's reckless rhetoric damages the moral credibility of the SPLC, and for continuing to take the organization's "hate group" designation seriously. Where there should be editorials denouncing this illegitimate tactic, instead we get articles that blindly repeat the "hate group" mantra.

That's why, yesterday, I called on the media to act responsibly:

For far too long, media outlets and reporters have allowed activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to label opponents of same-sex ‘marriage' as ‘hate groups' and regularly describe organizations that hold traditional Judeo-Christian views of sexual morality as ‘anti-gay.' But words have consequences, and we know that allowing such inflammatory terms to be used in media reports describing those who object to redefining marriage can lead to harassment and even violence against members of those organizations.

We know of people who have had their jobs threatened or their families reviled by anonymous bloggers simply for posting words in opposition to gay marriage. The attempt to turn good people who support marriage as the union of husband and wife into pariahs, the target of hatred and harassment must end today!

We will not stop standing up for marriage, or working tirelessly to protect your rights to participate freely in our democratic process. An America where people have to be afraid to say what Genesis teaches — that marriage is the union of a man and woman ordained by God and oriented towards the next generation¬ — is not recognizably the America we cherish and love.

We will not give up until we see justice done: not just in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion.

Tony Perkins deserves great credit for standing bravely against this onslaught. I will stand with him, for God's truth, against all the lies and the hatred and the intimidation that they can send our way.

You Spoke, and the Boy Scouts of America Heard You!

Another piece of breaking news: The Board of the Boy Scouts of America has decided to delay its decision on whether to admit openly homosexual scoutmasters and scouts until May. Thanks to each of you who responded to our call to let the Board know that you do not want them to let money interests trump values.

The Human Rights Campaign's corporate network is now being deployed not to help gay people in the workplace, but to insist that this Judeo-Christian-based youth organization embrace homosexuality or else face financial punishment.

That's the world we live in: the world we must not take into our hearts, or respond to with hatred, but in which we must bravely, nobly, fiercely, and intelligently fight for what is right and true and good.

We may not win every battle, but we know Who wins in the end, don't we?

NOM's Peters on Crosstalk: Marriage is a "Life Saving Message" for the Next Generation

Let me end by giving you a glimpse of a next generation leader you ought to know and love: NOM's own Thomas Peters.

Here he is, the voice a new next generation of leaders who will not be silenced or intimidated, whose voice must and will be heard:

I'm so grateful to you for making NOM's work possible.

Stay strong, pray for Tony and all the staff at FRC — and pray that the hard hearts at SPLC and in the media will be melted.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

They expected you and me to fold after the election — you know that, right?

But let me promise you something: when the going gets tough, NOM gets going!

NOM is on the march for marriage!

The Supreme Court is holding oral arguments on March 26-27. The future of marriage hangs in the balance.

With DOMA, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not Congress has the power to define marriage for the federal government, or whether a minority of states can force all U.S. taxpayers to treat gay unions as marriages.

With the Prop 8 case, the judges are being asked to decide whether the people of this great nation have the right to define marriage as one man and one woman — or whether our right to vote is going to be stripped away, the guarantees of democracy made meaningless, gay marriage inserted into our Constitution and a distorted view of marriage imposed on this great nation.

Now is the time to step up to fight for marriage!

Earlier this week, we announced a rally we're planning in our nation's capital on March 26th, 2013: www.MarriageMarch.org.

And already you've responded!

On the March for Marriage page on Facebook, pro-marriage supporters around the country are sharing their plans to attend.

One person said: "Marriage March is on a TUESDAY. How PRO-marriage are you? Are you willing to rearrange your schedule to attend this event? Would you choose to drive or fly? Would you spend the night or pop in, pop out? I attended Glenn Beck's 'Restore Honor' Rally a few years ago, my first time to ever visit our nation's capital. It was an experience I'll never forget. Married 36 years in July, perhaps we'll take an early anniversary trip to DC!"

A second said: "Lord willing count [us] in. We can definitely do that."

A third: "Looking at the calendar here and going to re-arrange to BE THERE!!"

A fourth: "This is Holy Week, still Lent. I don't like to travel, but I'm willing to do this as part of my Lenten Sacrifice, if I can find others to go with me. I'll start looking right away."

A fifth: "COUNT ME IN!"

Count me in, too!

MarriageADA Defending Marriage in Law & Society

NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation League filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of you and me to work to defend what we hold dear in the democratic arena our forefathers gave us. I'll send along that brief for you to read as soon as it's posted on the SCOTUS's website.

Also this week, MADA released a video from Canada, explaining why we fight so hard and refuse to give up: our own rights are at stake, as this Canadian father, Dr. Steve Tourloukis, found out.

The biggest of the big lies in the marriage debate is that this will not affect you, your children, or your grandchildren! MADA will continue to expose that lie — with your help! Please share this important video with your family and friends.

Marriage Fights Continue Around The Nation

NOM is on the march, including deep in the bluest of blue states, to be your voice for our shared values.

We have tough fights going on right now, and once again we are not backing down, we are not giving up!

In Rhode Island, the battle shifts to the Senate, where the fate of marriage sits on a knife's edge. Even the Providence Journal ran the headline, "Senate Appears Divided on Same-Sex Marriage Bill." Eleven senators have co-signed a bill to redefine marriage, while eleven others have signed a resolution to send the question to the people.

Click here to fight back in Rhode Island.

In Illinois, just three weeks ago, your phone calls and emails shook the political world, blocking what many considered an "inevitable" bill from passing same-sex marriage in the lame duck session.

It was a tremendous victory, but our work is far from over...

When the newly elected legislature took office on January 10th, Democrats increased their majorities in both houses, and immediately introduced a new same-sex marriage bill.

Click here to fight back in Illinois!

In Indiana, gay marriage lobbyists and their allies in the media are once again ramping up their campaigns of disinformation by attempting to persuade House and Senate leadership to postpone a vote for a state marriage amendment.

The amendment stands a very good chance of passing if brought to a vote, but legislators like Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R-Fort Wayne) aren't being clear about whether they will bring the issue up for a vote.

Click here to let your Indiana legislators know: you want the right to vote for marriage!

And in Wyoming, you already helped win an amazing victory for marriage!

THANK YOU to our supporters in Wyoming who took action last week and thereby helped defeat a bill to redefine marriage by a close 5-4 vote in committee.

The media has been attempting to divert attention away from this victory for marriage supporters and instead focus on a domestic partnership bill in the Wyoming House.

But guess what? This morning we learned they failed. The House voted 35-24 against the domestic partnership bill.

NOM is on the march for marriage!

Finally, a France update: As you know, the French people turned out in a massive rally of protest just two weeks ago. The police's early estimates were 340,000 — but the photos clearly show the actual turnout was closer to a million.

Meanwhile the pro-gay marriage forces in France held their own rally on Sunday. The police said just 125,000 turned out. Just one-third the size, even by the police's account, of the huge pro-marriage rallies, as Agence France Presse honestly reported (and American media just ignored):

"Police estimated that about 125,000 people had turned out for Sunday's rally, while organisers put the figure at 400,000. The turnout was higher than at previous marches but still lower than the number of people who protested against same-sex marriage on January 13."

Something is stirring in the hearts of brave men and women all over the world.

Thank you for being a part of a great movement for the rights of children, for common sense, and for the courage to stand against the winds of fashion.

I'm so proud to know you and to stand with you for God's truth about marriage.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Monday, President Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.

An inauguration is always an historic occasion, a moment when the American people come together to celebrate the democracy we share.

It was on the day that we as a nation gather to celebrate Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that President Obama decided to divide the country and to demean the views of millions of fellow Americans, by trying to make support for gay marriage part of the national creed:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

"Our journey is not complete," Obama went on, "until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — [applause] — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

Even many of his strongest supporters on the Mall (and I do understand why so many African-Americans in particular celebrate and support this president, even as they disagree with his views on marriage), admitted they disagree with the president:

Over at HuffPo, Irene Monroe — who describes herself as "a nationally renowned African-American lesbian activist, scholar and public theologian" — admitted many Black Americans found the President's rhetoric divisive: her piece is called "Obama Linking Selma to Stonewall Divides the Black Community."

Monroe writes that she personally "felt affirmed" and "applauded the president's courageous pronouncement."

"However," she continued, "some African Americans felt ‘dissed' by the president's speech. The linkage of their civil rights struggle with that of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) Americans did nothing to quell their dislike of the comparison. For them, the fact that it was spoken by this president made it sting more."

This President has apparently concluded that gay marriage is the civil rights battle of our time and has prioritized it in spite of the views of many other members of his coalition.

Our Strongest Case Yet

This week, two brilliant lawyers filed briefs to the Supreme Court in the two marriage cases presently on the docket: Paul Clement filed for the House of Representatives on the constitutionality of DOMA, and Ted Olson's chief nemesis Chuck Cooper filed his brief in defense of the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8.

As you read the briefs and applaud, save a little applause for House majority leader John Boehner. He has his critics, but you have to give him credit for pursuing this case all the way to the Supreme Court in spite of media and RINO pressure to give up.

Even 60 Minutes legal analyst Andrew Cohen had to admit in the Atlantic, "At Supreme Court, Gay Marriage Foes Make Their Strongest Case Yet."

These brilliant legal minds make a particularly strong case against President Obama's divisive claim that support for our traditional understanding of marriage is like support for racism.

You can read both the DOMA brief and the Prop 8 brief at Prop8Case.com which we've re-launched to keep track of this most important legal fight. Check in frequently for important updates!

In Paul Clement's DOMA brief, the impressive case against President Obama's framing begins on page 49.

"Gays and Lesbians are far from politically powerless," the brief points out. (You and I, who are in the midst of these political battles, know that all too well.)

Indeed, the brief continues, "the decision of the President and Attorney General to stop defending and start attacking DOMA itself demonstrates the remarkable political clout of the same-sex marriage movement. As the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit remarked to the Department's representative at oral argument, ‘your presence here is like an argument against your argument.'"

"Characterizing such a group as politically powerless would be wholly inconsistent with this Court's admonition that a class should not be regarded as suspect when the group has some ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers," Clement argues.

Then, on page 56, Clement takes on the Selma analogy directly... and demolishes it. Yes, I would agree, people with same-sex attraction have suffered harms and exclusions. But the comparison between California today and Selma reveals either an impoverished moral imagination or an intellectual insincerity.

I particularly love how Clement uses their own witnesses against them:

Finally, each of the recognized suspect and quasi-suspect classes — racial minorities, aliens, women, and those born out of wedlock — have suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded. In contrast, as this Court noted in Lawrence, "there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter... Indeed, "the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century." Id. As Ms. Windsor's own expert, Dr. George Chauncey, has written, although "antigay discrimination is popularly thought to have ancient roots, in fact it is a unique and relatively short-lived product of the twentieth century."

But more importantly, "unlike racial minorities and women, homosexuals as a class have never been politically disenfranchised — the kind of pervasive official discrimination that most clearly supports suspect class treatment by the courts."

In sum, the traditional factors this Court has assessed in determining whether to recognize a new quasi-suspect or suspect class are absent when it comes to gays and lesbians. Perhaps most critically, gays and lesbians have substantial political power, and that power is growing. Victories at the ballot box that would have been unthinkable a decade ago have become routine. To be sure, those victories have not been uniform and have come first in "blue" states rather than "red" ones, but that is the nature of the political process. There is absolutely no reason to think that gays and lesbians are shut out of the political process to a degree that would justify judicial intervention on an issue as divisive and fast-moving as same-sex marriage. As Judge Straub observed, the definition of marriage is "an issue for the American people and their elected representatives to settle through the democratic process."

The Democratic process "require[s] participants on both sides to persuade those who disagree, rather than labeling them irrational or bigoted." By contrast, courts "can intervene in this robust debate only to cut it short" [emphasis added].

Equality... For Our Children

San Francisco Archbishop Cordileone, the "godfather of Prop 8" and head of the USCCB's Defense of Marriage subcommittee, issued this pointed and poignant statement in response to Pres. Obama's remarks:

"I honor the president's concern for the equal dignity of every human being, including those who experience same-sex attraction, who, like everyone else, must be protected against any and all violence and hatred," wrote Archbishop Cordileone in an email to the National Catholic Register.

(Yes, it's good to be reminded our fellow citizens who are gay still sometimes experience awful and unjust attacks that we must all unite to oppose).

But, as the Archbishop continued:

[T]he marriage debate is not about equality under the law, but, rather, the very meaning of marriage. Marriage is the only institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers... Protecting this understanding of marriage is not discrimination, nor is it some kind of pronouncement on how adults live out their intimate relationships; it is standing for the common good.

Then he went on to say something I don't hear very often: our love of equality should demand that we support marriage, which represents "the equal right of all children to grow up knowing and being loved by their mother and father."

Same-Sex Marriage Is Not A Civil Right

In an interview I gave to NBC News recently, I told them point blank: "Same-sex marriage is not a civil right. To try and compare in any way the attempt to redefine marriage with the Civil Rights movement is simply false. I think that the president's forgetting about the most important group affected by this and their civil rights, and that's children having the civil right to have both a mom and a dad."

The fight continues. Let us continue to stand together in defense of timeless truths, truths we know from both Nature and Nature's God. Justice for children is the great cause for which we strive.

As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday we celebrate said, "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

Thank you for all that you have done for me, in particular and for this great cause. I'm so proud to stand together with you in this fight.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Over a million people protesting in the streets of Paris for marriage. In Great Britain, a million leaflets opposing gay marriage are being distributed in swing districts.

Here I am in Paris, giving you a front-row seat to see what happened:

Here at home, a thousand people thronged the steps of Rhode Island's capitol building, led by black and Hispanic pastors:

As the fight for marriage gears up again in Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois, Washington D.C., and elsewhere, I will go to the battle with French words ringing in my ears.

Frigide Barjot, the organizer of the Paris rally for marriage, gave the speech of a lifetime.

"You, President of the Republic," Barjot proclaimed, "cannot remain unmoved before the growing uneasiness of the French people who now are finding out what is really behind the so-called "marriage for all."

She went on:

The 'marriage for all' is a juridical denial of the most elementary reality of humanity, constituted as it is "man and woman", the only union naturally capable of siring new life.

You, President of the Republic — Will you be the one to float a travesty — that a human being can be born of two men or of two women? "Marriage for all" inscribes fundamental discrimination into our law among children, an inequality between children who will be born of a mother and a father, and children who will be born of two fathers, and children who will be born of two mothers.

You, President of the Republic — Will you be the one to abolish the basic equality of birth among children?

She makes a magnificent point we pro-marriage fighters in the United States have not paid enough attention to: marriage as equality between men and women.

Marriage embodies the equal dignity of men and women in the creation and care of the next generation. Marriage expresses children's equal right to the love and care of both their mother and father.

We cannot, and will not, surrender to the winds of fashion something so true, so good, and so beautiful. We will continue to stand united in this fight, both here and abroad — because unity is what marriage is all about.

This is the point that NOM's Chairman of the Board, Prof. John Eastman, made in a recent press interview regarding the National Cathedral's sad decision to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in its hallowed halls. Same-sex marriage is not a value that unites us, as its advocates claim: instead, it is deeply divisive, as the Episcopal Church is finding out all too painfully right now:

And so we, the defenders of marriage, continue to stand in unity, as Americans and with all marriage supporters worldwide!

Pray for the people of France and Great Britain who are fighting back against the elites.

And pray for all of us standing on the front lines for marriage.

The fight continues!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

A massive rebellion against gay marriage is brewing in France. I'm here now, and I'll report to you first hand from the rally planned for Sunday.

To read the news accounts in the U.S., you would think gay marriage is inevitable here. Like everywhere.

That's what they always say, right? Recognize that argument for what it is: a tactic to make you feel helpless and impotent and therefore submissive. To get you to give up and just submit to whatever they have planned.

There are only two things we know for sure about the future: it hasn't happened yet. And for those of us who are people of faith—we know that God is in charge.

But to be here is to recognize something extraordinary is happening, something totally unpredicted when French President Francois Hollande set out to pass gay marriage: a massive popular rebellion.

The Sights To Be Seen

I just witnessed something I never expected to happen: a Communist party member (yes!?) here in France who is going to vote "no" on gay marriage. (Stay tuned for more!)

I witnessed something I expected but still never hoped to see: government officials threatening Catholics schools if they try to teach against gay marriage.

The new elected ruler of France has no plans to marry his current partner. After all, he never married, in thirty years, the mother of his four children, with whom he split up recently. His current partner is legally married to another man.

Perhaps you can't expect a man with those views and values to understand that marriage is, for so many, a sacred value (even for many without explicit religious belief); to understand that marriage is society's way of expressing not just a personal relationship but an intergenerational compact: the need to bring together male and female so that children can know the love of their mother and father.

But these truths, written on the human heart by Nature and Nature's God, are not so easily obliterated from the face of this Earth.

The Voices To Be Heard

The New York Times likes to portray this as a purely religious debate; France, though secular, is still Catholic, the New York Times headline brays.

I wish.

The truth is more complicated and interesting. Yes, Christian and Catholic leaders have taken strong stands opposing the legal deconstruction of marriage. Yes, Muslims leaders—a fairly large minority in France—are raising their voices. Yes, the Chief Rabbi of France has written eloquently (as Pope Benedict himself noticed) about the moral issues raised by gay marriage in France and elsewhere.

But some of the most fascinating and powerful critiques of gay marriage are coming from French gay men.

The French website is homovox.com. We first noticed them from unofficial translation published by a Professor Robert Oscar Lopez at the American Thinker.

We are now in the process of bringing translations of these videos to you. Keep checking the NOM blog!

Here, for example, is Jean Pier: a 49-year-old self-described homosexual filmmaker, explaining why he opposes gay marriage in France:

I am a documentary author for TV and I'm homosexual.

I have to wonder, "who's this law for?" I say to myself, "Is it made for homosexuals?" I live in Provence and I work in Paris. I know very few homosexuals who wish to marry beyond the PACS (civil unions) they already have. In fact, the number of people in PACS unions in France, couples of the same sex, is minimal. Therefore, who's this law for? If it's for the 5,000 people who live in the district of Le Marrais, then it's just a militant act. But behind it all, it must be a question of the child.

I've had this business of freedom and equality. Then I pose this question: What of the freedom and equality of the child? The child won't have its equality vis-a-vis its friends in school. Its peers may have divorced and blended families, but they have, at least, a father and mother.

He concludes, "Finally, when I look at this proposed law, I conclude that it's a law for gays, but not for homosexuals. I do not want to support it."

Here is the voice of another gay man sticking up for French marriage, Phillipe Arino.

Phillipe has some interesting insights on gay marriage and how it relates to issues of 'equality': "There are bad/wrong equalities. We call that conformism, uniformity. A lack of recognition to the realities of people. The gay activists who treat equality as sacred do not differentiate between equal rights and the equality of identity. Equality of the law, and equality of self-respect or dignity."

Meanwhile, Stateside

In Illinois, where gay marriage advocates tried and failed to quickly shove through a gay marriage bill in the lame duck session, a rebellion of another kind is brewing: against GOP turncoat Pat Brady, head of the Illinois Republican party, who unilaterally gave cover to liberal Democrats by endorsing gay marriage and accusing his own party of bigotry and discrimination!

NOM took the leadership on holding him accountable for his betrayal, calling for his resignation, and promising a quarter of a million dollar against any Republican who votes for gay marriage.

Brady is doubling down now with ever more hateful rhetoric directed against his voters:

"If people want to throw me out because I took a stand on an issue of discrimination [as] the chairman of the Republican Party, the party founded by Abraham Lincoln, then that's — that's up to them and they're free to do it," Brady said. "But I'm not backing down."

Thanks to your support of NOM, we're keeping up the pressure — and Brady's betrayal is not passing unnoticed.

WBEZ reports, "Facing Rebellion, state Chair rejects calls to resign over gay marriage support":

State GOP Chairman Pat Brady faces growing calls for his resignation… Conservative groups and activists pounced on Brady shortly after he released a statement last week offering his "full support" of a bill before the General Assembly that would legalize same-sex marriage. But now the public demands for his ouster are coming from party leaders themselves.

"Pat Brady is a total disgrace," said Bobbie Peterson, a Republican state central committeewoman from Beecher, Ill.

"He's a pretty face for TV. He can speak well. Period," Peterson said. "But what's coming out of his mouth is not what the Illinois Republican party is about."

Four committeemen told the news organization they have asked Brady to resign, representing nearly half of the votes needed to boot him out.

State Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, who sits on the Republican State Central Committee, criticized Brady for dividing the party just when it was trying to focus on resolving the state's serious fiscal issues: "His role as chairman should be to concentrate on uniting the party, and not dividing the party," Syverson said.

A party official that decides he hates the party's most loyal supporters, and is willing to stand with those who drive Christian charities out of the public square and excludes Christian views from public respect… such a public official won't be long with his party.

America's Church?

Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., more evidence of that exclusion of Christians looms. Washington National Cathedral is a private church and they are free to do gay marriages if they want. But as this historic cathedral in our nation's Capital repudiates historic Christianity, the full reach and impact of gay marriage is becoming increasingly clear.

President Obama accepted the withdrawal of Pastor Louie Giglio from Obama's inauguration ceremonies, after the gay lobby insisted he either repudiate a sermon he preached in the 1990s or withdraw.

They called on him to repudiate, according to leftist Think Progress, particularly this statement in the sermon: homosexuality "is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin in the word of God."

Now, I know many good people who oppose gay marriage who do not believe this. (I doubt Phillipe Arino does!) If you oppose gay marriage for nonreligious reasons—welcome to our coalition! Whether you are homosexual or straight, you are not alone!

Of course, we must never forget the basic dignity of all human beings, including gay people, even as we fight against wrongs such as same-sex marriage.

Nonetheless, Pastor Giglio's view is the standard view of sexual morality in orthodox Christianity (and Judaism, and Hinduism, and Islam, and Buddhism) for thousands of years.

His withdrawal under political pressure demonstrates the New World Order at the White House: traditional Christianity must be excluded; the wrath of gay advocates is more important than national unity or the principle of tolerance and inclusiveness.

The White House announcement was made quietly. The mainstream news is not going to let you know this stuff.

But—thanks to your help and all you've done—we're able to get the word out!

And thank you as well for another, tremendous victory—also totally unreported by the news media!

The Center for Military Readiness reports Congress took steps on significant new religious liberty protections for military chaplains. (President Obama also opposed these new protections incidentally, saying they were not necessary. And we know this fight isn't over—not by a long shot.)

Still, we've won a victory for now. We let you know about these proposed protections, and you stepped up to the plate—in a big way! After we asked you, on Dec. 6, to write to Congress and insist on religious liberty protection for chaplains in the National Defense Authorization Act, you sent than 12,500 letters as a response to this call! And guess what? Congress noticed!

Power to the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth! Not if you and I have anything to say about it—and this proves once again that we do!

The hour is late. The battles are tough—you and I both know this.

Now is the time for the tough to stand tall and proud and fearless for the good of marriage.

I am personally so grateful to you for the fellowship we share.

Please pray for the Center for Military Readiness, which took great leadership in this victory, for the Family Research Council—and for all those at the front lines of this marriage fight.

United we stand with justice on our side, for the deepest and most important truths about human nature.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"Not Enough Votes!"

Too. Close. To. Call.

That's what the liberal Chicago Defender just called the vote—"Too close to call."

Not. Enough. Votes. That's what a spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton told The Associated Press late Thursday: "There aren't currently enough votes to pass it on the floor."

What a difference 48 hours makes!

Not 'Inevitable' After All

Listen, we always knew this January would be full of tough, tough battles, with gay marriage advocates pushing gay marriage legislation deep in one-party blue states, like Illinois.

Just a few weeks ago, after the November elections, Equality Illinois was promising to "ride this momentum [for gay marriage] to its inevitable victory in Illinois."

But a funny thing happened on the way to "inevitability"—YOU!

You—and thousands of other decent, loving, law-abiding Americans—spoke up for God's truth about marriage! And yesterday the Illinois Senate adjourned without a vote on the gay marriage bill. The state senate was expected to meet on Friday to vote for gay marriage; but instead, they've unexpectedly cancelled Friday's session and adjourned for the weekend.

"The fate of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage has been called into question," the Windy City Media group reports. "Repeated foibles have raised serious question about whether the vote can pass by January 9."

The AP reports: "Expectations were high that Cullerton's Democrats would approve a gay marriage bill. A committee OK'd the measure Thursday, but backers are uncertain when they'll call it for a floor vote after the proposal hit several unexpected snags."

Heather Steans, the sponsor of the gay marriage bill, told the gay publication The Chicago Phoenix late Thursday that she plans to move the bill on Tuesday... if she can "account for the 30 'yes' votes necessary to pass the bill."

"Right now, we are missing some of our 'yes' votes as I think some of you know," Steans told the Pheonix. "So I think we are likely to be back down here again. Things are very fluid down here as you know."

'Very fluid'... let me translate: she doesn't yet have the votes.

We've Been Here Before

This is no time to give up on your phone calls and emails.

A poll of Illinois voters by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling late last year found only a minority of Illinois voters support gay marriage (47 percent). A poll in September by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, which offered voters the option of civil unions, found just 43.6 percent of Illinois residents approve of gay marriage, with 31.8 percent preferring the current law of civil unions and 20.2 percent saying there should be no legal recognition of such unions.

But despite ongoing public opposition, Pat Brady—chairman of the Illinois Republican Party—on Wednesday threw his "full support" behind the gay marriage bill, calling it "the best conservative principles."

He also claimed religious freedom would be protected.

Right, we heard those promises about Illinois' civil unions bill!

The civil unions bill (passed just 18 months ago) also had the Orwellian title, "The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act." Equality Illinois promised that the bill would protect religious liberty. In fact, they promised that "[the] act would... not impact faith-based adoption agencies or adoption procedures" [emphasis added].

The bill's sponsor, State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), also promised on the floor that the bill would not affect Christian adoption agencies. But before the ink was dry, homosexual activists were charging Catholic Charities, Evangelical Child and Family Services and other Christian adoption agencies with "discrimination"—and they succeeded in shutting down these caring Christian services for abused and abandoned children.

Here's the eyewitness testimony of three families who adopted children through Evangelical Children and Family Services, one of the adoption agencies driven from the public square because they honor traditional Christian views on marriage and family:

Is this what Pat Brady considers a 'conservative value'?

Like you, I was appalled.

So on Thursday NOM, with your help, threw down the gauntlet: We called for turncoat Pat Brady's resignation. We pledged $250,000 to help Illinois voters who care about marriage "retire" any Republican who votes for gay marriage.

Pat Brady's move is not just wrong; it's stupid.

David Cameron tried it in Great Britain: by pushing gay marriage, he's instigated what one newspaper called the "biggest rebellion" against his so-called Conservative party in a generation.

Four Republicans in the New York state senate also tried it and cast their votes for gay marriage.

The whole political establishment showered these turncoats with cash and lionized their "courage" for betraying the values of the people who put them in office. But with your help, NOM made sure at election time voters knew about this betrayal of their constituents' core values, and in the end the voters had the last word.

Even the New York Times eventually had to concede, "As four Republican state senators, one by one, agreed to break with their party and cast a politically risky vote to legalize same-sex marriage last year, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and gay-rights advocates vowed to do everything in their power to protect them against political retribution. But when the Legislature returns to Albany next month, only one of those four senators will be among those sworn into office."

Coalition Continues To Build In Illinois

Gay marriage was supposed to be a done deal in the Land of Lincoln. But then you and thousands of Illinoisans swung into action. Thank you!

Of course, NOM is only one part of a broad coalition that continues to grow. We are so grateful to the Illinois Family Institute, among many others.

After NOM took the lead, more Illinois conservative voices are standing up to Pat Brady's betrayal, conservative leaders in Illinois have begun speaking up against Pat Brady's betrayal of the Illinois Replublicans.

McLean County GOP chairman John Parrot is quoted by the Illinois Review stating his strong opinion on this matter: "You can put me on the record that I want Pat Brady to step down due to his actions of supporting Gay Marriage, which is against the Illinois Republican Party Platform."

Karen Hayes, another platform committee member, said it more strongly still: "Pat Brady needs to step down now. Sadly, he has embarrassed himself and the Illinois Republican Party."

Republican Party figures in the state are planning a press conference on the steps of the capitol to fight back against Brady's mischaracterization of gay marriage as a "conservative value."

Meanwhile, the voices of more than 1,700 faith communities from all different religious traditions—from Missouri-Synod Lutherans to Mormons to Muslims—swelled into a chorus in a recent joint statement, urging: don't do this; don't redefine marriage. Marriage, these religious leaders wrote, "is the natural order embracing the complementary physical, emotional and spiritual design of men and women."

Cardinal George and the other Illinois Catholic bishops sent a powerful letter to priests urging them to urge their flock to call legislators: "Civil laws that establish 'same-sex marriage' create a legal fiction," George and the bishops contended. "The state has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible."

Meanwhile, late in the week, NBC Chicago's blog was reminiscing about the so-called "first same-sex wedding in Illinois" which took place on Dec. 12, 1995, in the small town of Lanford, which lies between Rockford and Elgin:

Leon Carp, the co-owner of a diner called the Lanford Lunchbox, married his boyfriend Scott at the Lanford Women's Club, in a ceremony that featured Judy Garland impersonators, male strippers, Michelangelo's David wearing a pink feather boa, and a red heart reading GAY LOVE, GAY POWER.

It was a Hollywood fiction, an episode of the comedy show Roseanne. Hollywood came back to Illinois this week, full circle, when the star of TV's Modern Family, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, appeared to lobby legislators. He sported a special custom bow tie that he is selling to raise money for gay marriage—not a feather boa, but the message that Hollywood supports gay marriage was unmistakably clear.

Hollywood will not have the last word, though, I promise you.

Finally, I owe a word of thanks to Bishop Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, who sent his own letter to be read in parishes this Sunday. He writes powerfully:

Our state's elected lawmakers will soon consider a bill called "The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act." A more fraudulent title for this dangerous measure could not be imagined. The proposed law is, in truth, a grave assault on both religious liberty and marriage. [...]

[N]either two men nor two women can possibly form a marriage. Our law would be lying if it said that they could. The basic structure of marriage as the exclusive and lasting relationship of a man and a woman, committed to a life which is fulfilled by having children, is given to us in human nature, and thus by nature's God. [...]

This so-called "religious freedom" bill would not stop the state from obligating the Knights of Columbus to make their halls available for same-sex "weddings". It would not stop the state from requiring Catholic grade schools to hire teachers who are legally "married" to someone of the same sex. Nor would it protect me, the Bishop of Springfield, if I refused to employ someone in a same-sex "marriage." [...]

Why should we expect it to be otherwise? After all, we would be people who, according to the thinking behind the bill, hold onto an "unfair" view of marriage. The state would have equated our view with bigotry—which it uses the law to marginalize in every way short of criminal punishment."

He ends by calling all people of good will, but especially the faithful Catholics under his care, to "defeat this perilous proposal."

Amen!

Nature and nature's God both teach us that marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason.

Listen: these are hard tough, fights; I am not going to lie to you. Nothing is certain—except this: we will be there standing as your voice for your values; they knock us down, we get back up, and we will continue to fight for what is right and true and good about marriage.

And, with your help, we are making a huge difference!

Thank you, and God bless you!

Until next week, stay strong.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"It's time for the Supreme Court to correct some wrongs!"

That's what I told Fox News in the wake of the Supreme Court's surprise decision last Friday to take up the Prop 8 case, as well as the DOMA cases:

There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage. Our Founding Fathers didn't see it that way, and the last Supreme Court decision, Baker v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court said there was no federal question here; so this is essentially making the law up as you go along, it is reading into the Constitution something that is not there.

And I reiterated this on Tuesday, as I told Newsmax.TV, "We are ecstatic that the court granted cert and took the case. Folks may not remember this, but the lawyers for those that wanted to overturn Proposition 8...actually argued and asked the Supreme Court to not take the case. [...] There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage and the Court's going to find that."

Predictions of a Marriage Victory in Court

NOM's Chairman of the Board, the distinguished law professor and litigator Prof. John Eastman, just published a column in USA Today that says it all: "Federal Government Can Define Marriage, Too."

"The most likely outcome," Prof. Eastman boldly predicts, "is the court will uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and DOMA."

On Proposition 8, Prof. Eastman goes on to say that the gamble of "the Hollywood funders of the Perry lawsuit...will go bust when the court rules that more than 7 million Californians were perfectly within their rights to define marriage in the traditional way, just as citizens in virtually every nation since the dawn of time have done."

As for DOMA? Eastman concludes: "If states have the right to define marriage, doesn't the federal government have that same right? It's the constitutional duty of our elected officials to decide what burden taxpayers bear in dealing with same-sex couples."

Professor Jason Mazzone of Brooklyn Law School, writing at the Balkinization blog, agrees that making a federal case of DOMA may backfire: "Beware of liberals making federalism arguments," he wrote on Sunday. "It is understandable why New York, Massachusetts and other states where same-sex marriage is lawful would want all of their married couples to receive the same federal benefits. But state power to define marriage is not undermined just because the federal government follows a standard, for federal purposes, that does not track that of particular states."

You and I and the millions of other Americans who gave our time, treasure, and voices—who worked hard entering the arena of democracy, trusting our fellow citizen's judgment—we have rights too...rights that the 9th Circuit took away from us when it overturned Prop 8.

Look, we lost four heartbreaking, very close fights on marriage this November at the ballot box.

But notice: we are not in court seeking to overturn their democratic victories with the swipe of a judge's pen!

Here's the irony I suspect will be hard for the Supreme Court to miss: The same folks arguing on "conservative" and "federalist" grounds for overturning DOMA (i.e., that the federal government is obligated to respect states' rights to define marriage differently) will also be urging the Court to impose a single gay marriage standard on all 50 states!

It's going to be hard for the Justices to miss that...

We're Not the Only Ones Anticipating Victory For Our Side

Trust me: gay marriage advocates are worried—very worried—that they are about to lose.

I've been reading the responses carefully. Here's just a sampling of pro-gay marriage worries:

• E.J Graff wrote just two weeks ago, "If the court does take up Perry, be afraid, be very afraid. Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution?"

• Linda Hirschman, author of the triumphalist book on gay rights "Victory," worries at The New Republic that the Olson and Boies strategy "may backfire":

  The closest case to the Boies-Olson litigation in the women's movement—Roe v. Wade—triggered a four decade backlash. Once before the gay movement overplayed its hand ever so slightly with the Court and got a terrible decision upholding the criminal sodomy laws. Gays almost won the first sodomy case; the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was only 5-4, so it was hardly a foolhardy risk. And yet, it does make you shiver."

• Adam Serwer at Mother Jones called the risks of loss "very great," saying Roberts and Kennedy (the two swing justices) are likely to decide that "finding a right of same-sex couples to be free of discrimination amounts to 'forcing' same-sex marriage on everyone else."

• Billy Hallowell with the Associated Press penned a story this Wednesday confessing, "gay marriage supporters see 41 reasons to fret over the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case of California's ban on same-sex unions." [Sic.—there is no ban, but never mind.] "While nine states allow same-sex partners to marry, or will soon, 41 states do not. Of those, 30 have written gay marriage bans into their state constitutions." Hallowell quoted Mary Bonauto, Director of the Civil Rights Project at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, admitting, "'I can't help but be concerned.'"

• Ruth Marcus, on December 11 at The Washington Post, called the Court's move "unsettling, even scary, because it's far easier to count five votes for 'no' than for 'yes.'" "Waiting is hard," Marcus writes, "Losing is worse."

• "I'm not thrilled," Columbia Law Prof. Katherine Franke told a HuffPo reporter. "I would have preferred they took the Windsor [DOMA] case alone."

• Adam Nagourney's New York Times headline declared "Worry Tempers Joy Over Gay Marriage's Moment in Court." Nagourney quotes our old buddy Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California saying "'There is no question that it is a risk. If they nationalize it and reject it, that's going to take decades to come back to the court.'" "'I'm very nervous and unnerved'" chimes in Don Romesburg, an associate professor of women and gender studies at Sonoma State University (who married his same-sex partner in California).

• And finally, from Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA who writes on HuffPo's "Gay Voices" page: "The California case, brought by Supreme Court superstars Ted Olson and David Boies, was designed from the beginning to obtain a bold, revolutionary ruling by the justices declaring gay marriage a constitutional right. [...] It's more likely that Olson and Boies' blockbuster will end with a whimper [emphasis added]."

Not with a pro-gay marriage bang, in other words, but a lot of whimpering.

Publicly, the so-called 'superlawyer" Ted Olson is dismissive of all these worries: "We have never agreed with those concerns," he proclaims.

Uh, hey Ted...then why, exactly, were you in court arguing that the Supremes should not take the Prop 8 case and just let the 9th Circuit's decision stand?

Look, I'll be the first to admit: Nobody knows what the Court will do. Depending on Justice Kennedy's vote is a dicey proposition, I grant you. But we do know that if the Court had refused to take the case, the 9th Circuit ruling—taking away your vote and mine for Prop 8—this ruling would have become the new law of the land.

Now the ball is in the hands of the Justices to do justice to marriage—and to democracy.

PRAY—and pass the intellectual ammunition!

New Pro-Marriage Book Hot Off the Presses

NOM founding Chairman of the Board, Princeton Prof. Robert George has just published a new book, along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson. It's called What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

I'm reading it right now, and let me tell you—it's a rare combination: short, easy to understand, and hands-down, off-the-charts brilliant!

Professor George and his colleagues compare and contrast the "conjugal" nature of marriage with the radical revisionist view, and show how weak the arguments for gay marriage actually are.

And the book contains a whole chapter answering, in simple easy to understand language, "What's the harm?"

An unsound law of marriage will breed mistaken views--not just of marriage but of parenting, common moral and religious beliefs even friendship.

Redefining marriage would change its meaning for everyone. Legally wedded opposite-sex couples would increasingly be defined by what they had in common with same-sex relationships. . . Marriage itself, the human good, would be harder to achieve. For you can realize marriage only by choosing it; and you can choose it only if you have at least a rough, intuitive idea of what it really is.

I hope you get a chance to read this great work.

The case for marriage is timeless. We aren't going to give up defending foundational truths in court and out.

Justice For Julea Ward

Let me end with the encouraging news about a stunning victory in court:

Julea Ward, you may recall, is the Counseling graduate student who was kicked out of Eastern Michigan University after she politely asked the Counseling Department to refer a gay couple struggling with relationship issues to a more appropriate counselor, given her religious beliefs. Such referrals are common practice in counseling for a variety of reasons.

The University responded by requiring Ms. Ward to go to a re-education camp or be kicked out of school! When Julea refused to have her religious beliefs remade, the University—a public school—kicked her out.

A lower court sided with EMU at first; but when the case got to the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals last January, the University got a whupping:

In a strongly worded opinion in Ward v. Wilbanks, the 6th Circuit sent the case back for trial, saying, "a reasonable jury could conclude that Ward's professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith. [...] A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree."

"Tolerance," the 6th Circuit declared, "is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination."

Words to relish. A victory to cherish.

Congratulations to Ms. Ward, to ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco who argued before the court in October of last year, and to all our friends at ADF for a great, great victory.

As a great man once said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice."

Stay strong.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last May, the first same-sex marriage ceremony ever held on a U.S. Military installation was performed at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Although it wasn't legally valid, it created quite an uproar . . . and violated federal law.

In response, the House of Representatives passed the following language as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

A military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of, the Department of Defense, may not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.

Senators Roger Wicker and James Inhofe have introduced these provisions in the Senate as a stand-alone bill, the "Military Religious Freedom Act of 2012," but the Senate leadership has blocked their efforts every step of the way.

But even if the Senate never votes on the Wicker/Inhofe bill, we can still protect the Defense of Marriage Act and the religious liberty of our military chaplains, who could otherwise be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies as part of their official duties.

We have one chance, but we need to take action immediately.

The NDAA is headed to a House/Senate conference committee to iron out the differences between the bills passed by the two bodies. Because the House version already contains the provision protecting marriage, we need to urge the members of the conference committee to protect the religious liberty language, ensuring that it is retained in the final version.

Please click here to contact your senators and representative today! A copy of your letter will also be sent to House Speaker John Boehner, and Senator John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Nevada Judge Upholds Democratic Process for Marriage

There was a great victory for marriage last Friday in Nevada—and I'm betting you did not hear of it— when a federal judge ruled that the voters of Nevada have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their state constitution!

Judge Robert Jones wrote, in upholding that state's marriage amendment:

It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of... recent democratic victories [in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington], that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate. [...]

Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman. The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail.

The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman.

Even the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which originally opposed the marriage amendment, pointed out the importance of respecting the rights of voters:

Thomas Jefferson specifically warned that if the states ever became subsidiary jurisdictions of a uniform central authority, like the "Departments" of France, America would degenerate into a Bonapartist tyranny.

If planks of a constitution enacted by voters can be tossed out willy-nilly by a court determined to enforce what it thinks the law ought to be, then the people have a right to ask whether we have passed from a republic with government powers limited by being divided among the three branches and the several levels, into a dictatorship of the unelected bench.

Lambda Legal (who brought the lawsuit against the State of Nevada to challenge the amendment) of course has no respect for the rights of voters: they have vowed to appeal the case to the super-liberal Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals (which already struck down California's similar amendment, Proposition 8, but on "narrow" grounds that would not necessarily apply to Nevada).

Legal Defense of Marriage Making National News

William Duncan, writing in NRO, points out the importance of the Nevada case as part of a growing legal precedent for the upholding of state marriage amendments: "With this decision, there are now six federal courts that have rejected equal-protection arguments for redefining marriage: the District of Nevada, District of Hawaii, Middle District of Florida, Western District of Washington (Bankruptcy), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court in a summary decision issued in 1972."

Nevada marriage amendment supporters are now hoping that the Supreme Court will take the case directly, bypassing the Ninth Circuit, and consider it alongside the Prop 8 case and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act cases (which the High Court will likely decide on Friday whether or not to hear).

Here's our own Thomas Peters on TV discussing the court cases now before the Supreme Court:

As Thomas says, "We think that when all is said and done marriage will have a good day at the Supreme Court and that's why we're looking forward to the court taking up both of these cases."

Of course, we'll be watching the news coming from the Supreme Court's conference tomorrow very closely, and we'll let you know as soon as we have word on whether a decision to hear these cases has been made.

Important New Study Finds ‘Natural Family' Advantageous to Kids

More recent good news you probably have not heard a word about from the main-stream media: a brand new scientific study shows that not all family forms are equally good for children.

Google the name of this study—published in a major social science journal, Demography—and you'll find almost nothing. A mention on NRO. A mention on the First Things blog. But from the mainstream media? Nada.

By contrast, just a few weeks ago, the media shouted out headlines on the ‘good news' from the latest installment of a longitudinal study of lesbian mothers, whose principal investigator is Prof. Nanette Gartrell.

You may not read Gawker.com, but millions of young people do—here is how they reported Gartrell's study: "Let's Ask Lesbians to Raise All the Children: A Study Shows They Raise Smarter, Stronger Kids."

Gartrell's study has no control group, and is not nationally representative: it's a self-selected group of lesbian moms who've been interviewed and re-interviewed over the years and always say the same thing: my kids are doing fine.

Their kids are doing so fine that it turns out (according to studies by Gartrell and colleagues, that is), that even when lesbian parents split up… it doesn't affect kids. Even when the kids are bullied…it doesn't affect them. No matter what...children raised by lesbian moms do fine. More than fine. They are doing the best of all possible kids: so the headlines shout.

Well, last week, a major social science journal, Demography, published a new study based on Census data that shows the exact opposite: children who live with same-sex couples are doing worse in school than children in intact married households.

The study is called "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld" and the lead author is Professor Douglas Allen. You can read it here.

Along with two colleagues, Prof. Allen reanalyzed the conclusions of Michael Rosenfeld's 2010 study (also published in Demography) which had concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between children's school progress in families headed by same-sex couples and those in traditional families.

But Rosenfeld's earlier study had eliminated from the dataset every family that had moved in the previous 5 years, as well as every family whose child was not biologically related to the household head (that eliminates a lot of same-sex families!).

Allen's study uses Census data—that is, nationally representative, not self-selected data—and it found that children living with same-sex couples were 35 percent less likely to be making normal progress in school than children with married, opposite-sex parents.

This criterion is the only measure of child well-being in the Census data; but nevertheless the new study shows formidably once again that the ‘natural family' has powerful advantages for children.

Even a Great Dad Can't Be a Mom

Listen, I want to say that we all know there are good, hardworking parents raising children in a variety of family forms. I have no doubt there are lesbian mothers who are committed, loving mothers, doing their very best to raise children—and some are succeeding.

We can—we must—talk about ways to support children, regardless of their parents' marital status. But, at the same time, we cannot afford to lie to ourselves, to each other, or to our children about what the ideal is.

And same-sex marriage is, ultimately, a lie: a lie our culture tells about the inherent equality of all relationships, the irrelevance of gender, of our bodies, and what it all means to our children. Moms and dads each contribute in unique ways to the well-being of their children and to the health of family life. Even the very best mom cannot be a dad; even a stellar dad cannot provide what only a mom can.

We live in a time when the culture increasingly teaches us to raise our own self, our own desires, our own satisfactions, and our own needs to the highest priority—and not just a practical priority (which used to be known as selfishness!), but a moral priority.

Anything that stands in the way of satisfaction of our deepest desires must be knocked down as wrong, wicked, and an impediment to progress.

What drops out in that way of thinking, ironically, is what actually satisfies our deepest desire: to know that the Universe is founded on love and that we are capable of participating in that love, reflecting it to each other, mirroring it for our children and for other people's children.

Pastor Rick Warren Defends Marriage

Last week, as Rev. Rick Warren headed out on a TV tour to promote the tenth anniversary of A Purpose-Driven Life, the topic of marriage came up.

"I am in favor of not redefining marriage," he said on Tuesday's edition of CBS This Morning. "It's not illegal to have a gay relationship in America. And so, it's not a big issue to me."

Co-host Charlie Rose replied, "You have to be tolerant of other people's views."

"The problem is that ‘tolerant' has changed its meaning," Warren said. "Tolerant used to mean, I may disagree with you completely, but I'm going to treat you with respect. That's what tolerant means."

"Today, to some people, ‘tolerant' means you must approve of everything I do," he continued. "That's not tolerance. That's approval."

If it's not true, we cannot approve.

Staying the Course

My friend, thank you so much for your confidence and your fellowship as we continue the difficult next phase in this fight.

They will tell you to give up, but you and I know that giving up on truth is the one thing we must not do.

The True, the Good and the Beautiful--marriage unites these three things and forms the basis on which the next generation is capable of glimpsing them as well.

That it takes courage to speak truth to power is something we are all learning.

But never forget that we know—we KNOW—Who wins this battle in the end.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The results of the 2012 Election were extremely disappointing on many levels, not least because of the voter approval of same-sex marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington, and the voter rejection of a proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Going into Election Day, the polls showed our side surging, and we hoped to pull out victories in all these states. Regrettably, this did not materialize. While each of these races were close, they all went against us.

The election results naturally beg several questions that I would like to address:

1. Is supporting true, natural marriage a winning issue?

2. Do the results signal a change in the mood of the country on same-sex marriage?

3. What is required to regain victory?

Is Marriage a Winning Issue?

The narrow losses that marriage endured occurred in deeply blue, very liberal states. Imagine if we had contested marriage in four deeply red, conservative states and had won narrowly. Would advocates of same-sex marriage be told to abandon the battle because they lost in those states? Of course not, and neither should our side entertain such suggestions. These were difficult states in which to fight. We were badly outspent. And yet we very nearly won in all four states.

To understand if marriage is a winning issue, let’s compare how we performed compared to the Republican ticket in these four states:

• In Maine, our campaign captured 47.4% of the vote, while Governor Romney received 41.2%. We lost by 36,000 votes out of over 700,000 votes that were cast. If 18,000 people had voted differently, we would have won.

• In Minnesota, our campaign got 48.1% of the vote while Governor Romney received 45.0%. We lost by 106,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast.

• In Maryland, our campaign captured 48.1% of the vote while Governor Romney captured 36.4%. We lost by 94,000 votes out of more than 2.4 million cast.

• The ballots are still being counted in Washington state (which is an all-mail ballot state) but we presently have 48.0% of the vote. Governor Romney received 42.7% of the vote. We trail by 83,000 votes out of the more than 2.1 million counted thus far.

On average, marriage out-polled the Republican ticket by 6.6%. Based on the popular vote in the presidential contest, had this been a national election on marriage we would have won such an election with 55% of the vote.

Not only is supporting true marriage a winning issue nationally, but a strong case can be made that candidates who embrace same-sex marriage are vulnerable to defeat. This is evidenced in the New York state senate elections. In 2011, seven state Senators changed their votes and abandoned their constituents to vote in favor of gay marriage.

Five of those Senators are no longer in office due in large part to election efforts mounted by NOM. We replaced the disgraced Carl Kruger (removed from office in a corruption scandal) with a pro-marriage candidate. We forced Senator James Alesi to retire, and helped elect a pro-marriage replacement. We defeated Democratic Senator Shirley Huntley and elected a pro-marriage replacement. We defeated Senator Roy McDonald and elected a pro-marriage replacement, Kathy Marchione. And we defeated thirty-year incumbent Senator Stephen Saland, an accomplishment the political class felt was impossible.

In their "winners and losers" issue, Crains NY said:

The historic 2011 legalization of gay marriage in New York ended up having major consequences for three of the four state Senate Republicans who crossed the aisle and backed the bill. One retired under major political pressure (James Alesi), one lost in a primary (Roy McDonald) and one appears to have lost in the general election (Stephen Saland). More broadly, the GOP allowed a vote on the bill, but could potentially lose its majority because of the loss of two of those seats to Democrats. Gay marriage is on the books to stay here in New York, and several states passed referendums Tuesday approving same-sex weddings. But what kind of precedent does New York’s local election set for other legislatures wrestling with the issue?

Do the results signal a change in the mood of the country on same-sex marriage?
In a word, no.

As shown above, the evidence suggests that had marriage been on the ballot nationally, it would have captured 55% of the popular vote, 6.6% more than the Republican ticket captured.

Moreover, a national post-election survey conducted on election day by Kellyanne Conway’s respected firm "the polling company, inc." showed that 60% of American voters agree that "marriage is between one man and one woman," while only 34% disagree. This finding is consistent with a national voter survey conducted by ‘the polling company, inc.’ in September 2012 that found that 57% of Americans support "defining marriage only as a union of one man and one woman," while just 37% oppose such a definition of marriage.

This polling data, including data captured from actual voters on Election Day itself, shows that there has been no drop in support for true marriage among voters. The results of the marriage election in these four states are reflective of the very difficult political environment in those particular states and do not portend any shift in national public opinion.

What is Required to Regain Victory?

In a word, money. Despite the fact that NOM very significantly out-performed commitments, contributing $5.5 million to the state campaigns, each of the state marriage campaigns was significantly outspent by their opponents.

While final campaign fundraising reports have not yet been filed, we were outspent by over three-to-one thus far, and by nearly five-to-one in Washington:

• We were outspent by $6.6 million in Minnesota ($11.2 million to $4.6 million)

• We were outspent by over $3.6 million in Maine ($5.0 million to $1.4 million)

• We were outspent by $2.8 million in Maryland ($4.5 million to $1.7 million)

• We were outspent by over $9.5 million in Washington ($12.2 million to $2.7 million)

When Frank Schubert put the campaign budgets together, he said we needed a minimum of $20 million to win. Unfortunately, campaign reports filed to date show we raised only half of that amount—$10,330,474—and we narrowly lost. The most recent campaign reports show that our opponents raised $33,006,904 and prevailed.

If marriage is worth defending, then people of faith are going to need to step up and help fund the cause. This year, in these states, it was those who wish to impose genderless marriage on America who stepped up, and they won four narrow victories.

The results of this election show that we cannot spot our opponents a $20 million advantage in very liberal states and pull out a victory, though we nearly did so.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It was a very tough election for marriage. On Wednesday, the day after, Maggie Gallagher was at church, and she emailed me to let me know about what the readings at Mass that day had to say. She said she thought that the reading from Paul's letter to the Philippians seemed to be speaking very clearly to all of us who are in the fight to defend marriage:

My beloved, obedient as you have always been,
not only when I am present but all the more now when I am
absent, work out your salvation
with fear and trembling.
For God is the one who, for his good purpose,
works in you both to desire and to work.

Let's take a step back and assess what happened.

Crunching the Numbers

We narrowly lost in four deep blue states, after being badly outspent. Even though NOM contributed a record amount to help these state races—$5.5 million—our opponents were able to amass vast amounts of cash to drive their campaigns. They outspent us by $20 million, and that money helped them win narrow victories.

How close did we come? In Maine, we would have won if 18,000 voters had gone the other way. In Maryland, we lost by 94,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast. In Minnesota, about 100,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast. And in Washington, we lost by 83,000 votes out of 2.1 million ballots counted so far (final results there won't be known for days).

We always knew it would be a tough fight. These states are so liberal that they were never contested at the presidential level, except very late in Minnesota, resulting in blowout wins for Obama in each of the four states.

It's funny how the left and the media work. Can you imagine if marriage elections were held in Texas, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina and gay marriage advocates had narrowly lost those fights after being outspent by $20 million? Do you think the media and the left would suggest that homosexual marriage advocates cut and run and give up the fight because they lost in those states? Of course not! If anything, they'd be congratulating them on a great showing.

Yet some advocates on the left and in the media are saying we've lost. It's preposterous!

One of the PR spins that our opponents are pushing is that somehow these votes signal that the country has changed their views about same-sex marriage. That is preposterous as well.

Bottom Line: Marriage Still a Winning Proposition

NOM is today releasing the results of a nationwide survey conducted on Election Day of actual voters. The poll was conducted by Kellyanne Conway's highly regarded firm, 'the polling company, inc.' This latest survey shows that fully 60% of voters believe marriage is one man and one woman, which is consistent with the 57% result they found in September.

And here's another point the media should consider: despite narrowly losing, the pro-marriage position out-performed the Republican ticket by an average of 6.6 points in these four states. This confirms that had marriage been put to a national vote, our side would likely have captured at least 55% of the popular vote this past Tuesday. The GOP ticket captured 48.4% of the popular vote nationwide. Marriage outperformed the GOP ticket by an average of 6.6 points. The facts show that it is wrong to contend that preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman is anything but a winning issue in America.

But coming back to the elections, even though we fought valiantly, none of us accept losing. I promise you we will be chewing through the data, re-evaluating what worked and what didn't, and figuring out and sharing with you how to forge new pathways to new victories.

Forging New Pathways for the Fights Ahead

It's clear that we need to forge new partnerships with so-called 'economic conservatives'—the people who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates and Super PACs to run ads about the economy. We need to show them how supporting marriage will help conservative candidates, and that it is in their own interests to ensure that marriage campaigns are well-funded.

It's also clear that we need to create structures that will allow deeper engagement within the evangelical, orthodox and other supportive religious communities, and translate the conceptual support we enjoy into creating tens of thousands of grassroots activists to help us do the hard work of walking precincts, phoning voters and organizing at the grassroots levels.

We have work to do to deepen our relationships with the minority community, who are being challenged by President Obama and the NAACP to ignore the word of God and instead cast a political vote to redefine marriage.

And we have work to do with the GOP to remind them that marriage is a winning issue and that it is a mistake for republican candidates to be quiet on their support for maintaining natural marriage.

But most of all, it's clear that we need to develop new channels of financial support. As hard as we worked and as much as we produced, it wasn't enough. We simply cannot spot our opponents a $20 million funding advantage—especially in very liberal states—and expect to pull off a miracle (although we nearly did).

As Paul spoke to me the other day, I want to thank each and every one of you who stands up for God’s truth about marriage:

But, even if I am poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with all of you.

In the same way you also should rejoice and share your joy with me.

Those of you who are not Christians, thank you most warmly for standing up on marriage! I treasure your fellowship and your courage.

While pouring over accounts of the national election results I came, via National Review's The Corner, this striking insight from Joel Kotkin:

[President Obama] held his own in the cash race by assembling a new, competing coalition of wealthy backers, from the 'new hierarchies of technical elites' that Daniel Bell predicted in 1976 in The Coming Of Post-Industrial Society. For that group, Bell wrote, nature and human nature ceased to be central, as 'fewer now handle artifacts or things' so that 'reality is primarily the social world'—which, he warned, 'gives rise to a new Utopianism' that mistakenly treats human nature as something that can be engineered and corrected by instruction from their enlightened betters.

To them, reality is some sort of construct, but of course human nature is real. Cultural constructs by technocratic elites, like same-sex marriage, take enormous amount of energy to sustain, to defend, because they are not rooted in what is Real.

We are born male and female and called to come together in love to make and raise the next generation. That's not a construct, that's Reality.

While I am disappointed today, I am not defeated. We are fighting a true and just cause—and a popular one to boot with voters across America. We've suffered a setback, to be sure, but we will rebound stronger, smarter and more successful than ever before.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last week, I told you about the odds we face in the four battleground states—outspent, scorned in the media, with gay marriage advocates confidently predicting victory.

But thanks to millions of Americans who've sacrificed their time and treasure to stand up for God's visions of marriage, pro-marriage messages are finally getting out: through churches and synagogues, through personal conversations, through social media, through letters to the editor—and through the ads crafted by NOM's own brilliant Frank Schubert. Now I'm here to tell you...

Our Ads Are Working!

Remember last week that I told you about the sudden turnaround in polling in Washington. Polls had gay marriage winning by as much as fourteen points, but after just one week of television ads the polls suddenly tightened, showing us within the margin of error and gay marriage advocates under 50 percent!

This week, more good news: in Maryland, the miracle continues!

Don't take my word for it, here's how the never-friendly MSM Los Angeles Times reported the breaking news:

Maryland, which just a month ago appeared poised to become the first state in the country to back gay marriage by popular vote, is now reported to be deadlocked on the issue, in part because of a drop in support from religious blacks.

Only a few weeks ago, polls were suggesting that Marylanders were leaning toward supporting gay marriage, but as November approached, the numbers tightened.

The change appears to be partly driven by black pastors in Maryland urging their congregations to vote against the measure.

A late September Baltimore Sun poll showed gay marriage ahead by ten percentage points, and had African-Americans supporting the idea 2 to 1.

Since then, voters in Maryland have been exposed to a media blitz, with both sides airing TV ads in an effort to swing undecided voters their way. The latest polling for the Sun, conducted Oct. 20-23 by the Annapolis, Md., firm OpinionWorks, now shows 50% of black voters against same-sex marriage, with 42% supporting the idea.

Funny—even though the LA Times can't help but report the swing, it really doesn't tell you how good the news is by focusing on just the black vote. So, let me put it simply:

Just a few weeks ago, the Baltimore Sun had gay marriage leading by ten points (49 percent to 39 percent); and now opposition to gay marriage has closed that gap to lead by one percentage point. Amazing!

The LA Times goes on to point to our secret weapon for marriage:

There is one man who gives supporters good reason to worry. Frank Schubert, the political strategist who helped engineer the defeat of same-sex marriage measures in California in 2008, Maine in 2009 and North Carolina in 2012, is leading the charge in Maryland as well.

"32-0 is a pretty good record," Schubert said, referring to the 32 states that have defeated ballot measures to legalize same-sex marriage. He also criticized what he calls "a concerted effort to convince black voters that as Democrats they should support Question 6" on the Maryland ballot out of loyalty to the party."

You and I know that something as fundamental and as sacred as marriage should not be reduced to partisan politics.

But do you want to know what's even worse? When partisan politicians try to get between a pastor and his people!

SSM Bullies Striking the Shepherd to Scatter the Flock

Amazingly, this is exactly what's happening in Maryland right now. Pro-gay marriage donors are mostly white and mostly socially liberal—some of them Republicans (like Ken Mehlman and Paul Singer); some of them incredibly rich (like New York City's Mayor Bloomberg); some of them incredibly Hollywood (like Brad Pitt, who just dissed his pro-marriage mom by donating $100,000 to push gay marriage). And these are the types that are now spending tons of money to run a radio ad urging black Christians to ignore their pastors—and using President Obama's voice to persuade them.

Spending white people's money to urge black Christians to ignore their pastors, and to put their faith in princes instead!

The Black Church has always been the conscience, not just of African-Americans, but of all Americans. Listen, then, to the incredibly offensive tactic used in this ad and tell me: doesn't it make your blood boil?

2012: The Marriage Election

Meanwhile, gay marriage activists are trying to attack Mitt Romney by circulating this video of him from 2004, saying he stood up against an effort to take "mom and dad" off Massachusetts birth certificates, affirming every child deserves a mom and dad if possible.

The miracles unfolding for marriage may well end up boosting Governor Romney in this election, just as we saw President Obama's pro-gay marriage position cost him support in North Carolina.

Take Minnesota.

No Republican candidate for President has won Minnesota since Richard Nixon's 49-state landslide against George McGovern in 1972.

And yet, a startling new Star Tribune poll released Sunday shows Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat with President Obama—with the president under 50 percent!

National Review's Robert Costa notes that the marriage amendment battle in Minnesota is likely one reason for the momentum.

Democrats are nervous. For months, their electoral calculus has categorized Minnesota as reliably blue. This week, the Washington Post and ABC News reclassified it from "safely" Democrat to "lean Obama." To stanch the bleeding, Democrats are spending more, and sending in former president Bill Clinton, who will stump near the Twin Cities.

Obama adviser Jim Messina is pushing back; he told reporters on Monday that the idea Romney could win Minnesota is "wishful thinking." But Republicans' rising expectations are grounded in more than poll numbers. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey reports, there are "two key referendums on the ballot," and they are dominating the debate and stoking participation.

One measure would amend the state constitution to require photo identification for voting, and the other would constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman. Outside groups on both sides have poured in money. These referendums, more than Republican Kurt Bills's underfunded challenge to Senator Amy Klobuchar, have Republicans enthused [emphases added].

Our own Frank Schubert just published a Halloween op-ed in The Hill urging Team Romney to capitalize on this momentum: "In the final stretch, social issues can help Romney," he writes. "With polls showing the presidential race to be dead even, Mitt Romney would do well to remind voters in key swing states of his position on social issues like marriage, life and religious liberty. They could tip the scale in this election."

[Of course, I know many of our fellow marriage champions in state battles will vote for Pres. Obama while voting against gay marriage. I want to say welcome and thank you! Marriage transcends partisan politics (or should!) and brings together an amazing coalition of people of all races, creeds, and even political parties to defend ultimate values.]

But here's the point Frank is making that I want to underline: Republicans should recognize that standing up for traditional values is an electoral asset, not a problem, an opportunity we can't afford to let slip!

As Frank puts it: "The Karl Rove wing of the GOP and the Republican elite have succeeded in keeping social issues off the table in this general election, deeming them to be ‘divisive.' They've understandably focused their campaign on the Obama record, especially as it relates to the economy. But Obama also has a record on social issues, and that record puts him at odds with a large majority of voters in key swing states. Unfortunately, voters in those states haven't heard much about the Obama record on marriage, life and religious liberty."

Other Major Voices Speaking Up On Marriage

Syndicated radio host Dennis Prager is a marriage champion, part of the amazing coalition across creeds for marriage. When Maggie Gallagher went on his show, he asked that she would make sure NOM passed along to you the chance to read his new column on marriage.

Let me tell you a little about Dennis. He's one smart dude, fluent in Russian and Hebrew; he has taught at Brooklyn College, was a Fellow at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, and worked as a media fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

In his recent piece on marriage, he writes eloquently about what history teaches us on marriage:

The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls "Stage One Thinking." […]

By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren… so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren—gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences.

It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.

Let me close by sharing another miraculous blessing: The great Rev. Billy Graham is still with us, and his voice—one of America's great moral voices—is ringing still, and most recently ringing with God's truth about marriage!

Dr. Graham, America's pastor, this week endorsed Mitt Romney for President, and urged Americans to vote for Biblical values in November:

On November 6, the day before my 94th birthday, our nation will hold one of the most critical elections in my lifetime. We are at a crossroads and there are profound moral issues at stake. I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman, protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms. The Bible speaks clearly on these crucial issues. Please join me in praying for America, that we will turn our hearts back toward God.

He is offering bulletin inserts to take this message to churches here.

But Rev. Graham didn't stop with that. This week, he endorsed the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, too:

I pray that the good people of Minnesota will show their support for God's definition of marriage, between a man and a woman. I wholeheartedly endorse the Marriage Protection Amendment, and urge you to vote Yes to pass Amendment 1.

Billy Graham has never been a political preacher. By stepping forward now, he is underlining the serious and sacred nature of the battle we are fighting.

I just want to say thank you, Rev. Graham—and thank God for your blessed 90-year witness to kindness and to courage!

So many good people of all races, all creeds, all colors and all political parties will be inspired by your witness to once against stand up for God's truth for marriage.

We Need Your Help In These Final Days!

NOM is putting everything we have into these victories.

Of course, as always, I want to acknowledge and all the good organizations out there fighting for marriage. Marriage is too great to be fought by only one person or one organization.

But take a look at these news stories, and you'll see just how deeply NOM is involved in these fights, how much we are putting in to winning these victories for marriage, to being your voice for God's values.

In Iowa, where a fourth pro-gay marriage judge is now facing the voters three years after he ruled to impose gay marriage on the state, this World-Herald story lists the many groups working to oust David Wiggins: Citizen Link, Rick Santorum's new Patriot Voices, CatholicVote.org are all helping The Family Leader fight in this cause. But the same article also notes that, of the $248,000 spent in the campaign to date, "[NOM] has spent about $140,000, most of it on television ads advocating Wiggins' ouster."

In Maine, according to the Oct. 30 Morning Sentinel:

Opponents of same-sex marriage raised nearly $950,000 in October, a major push toward the end of the campaign as voters get ready to head to the polls Nov. 6.

The bulk of the money came from the National Organization for Marriage, which donated $800,000, and the Knights of Columbus, which chipped in $100,000, according to a campaign finance report filed with the state just before midnight Friday.

In Minnesota, the Star Tribune reports on Oct. 31 that of the $3.7 million the pro-Minnesota for Marriage raised to fight for the marriage amendment, "The National Organization for Marriage has poured $1.65 million into Minnesota for Marriage, and nearly all of that came this month, new campaign finance records show. The group gave another $225,000 on Wednesday."

In Washington state, the National Catholic Register reported on Oct 31: "Preserve Marriage Washington, the state campaign organization leading the effort to block the passage of a state law legalizing same-sex ‘marriage,' raised about $2.4 million, including $1.1 million from the National Organization for Marriage.

We are throwing everything we have—heart, soul, body and time and bank-account—into this fight to keep what God has created: marriage as the union of husband and wife; marriage as the foundation of a society ordered to the good of children; marriage as a living emblem of the love the Creator has for us all.

Here's Kelly Yanta in Minnesota speaking for millions about what you and I believe in standing for marriage:

These last few days are quite a whirlwind. Tonight, I'm in Minnesota, where I'll be debating Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson on the Minnesota marriage amendment at 7pm. The debate, sponsored by Minnesota Public Radio, is free and open to the public, so if you live in the Minneapolis area, come down to the Fitzgerald Theater in St. Paul at 7pm for a lively debate (details here).

If you, like me, are willing to sacrifice what you can to stand for marriage, please visit www.StandforMarriageAmerica.com today and give $50, $500, or even $5,000— whatever you can afford, every dime counts!

God bless you and keep you. Thank you for your courage, your decency, your common sense and above all your commitment to Biblical values.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In just 10 days, you can change history. You could wake up the morning after the election to watch the shocked expression on the faces of all the pundits, the politicians, the out of control judges, and see the headlines: HISTORIC NATIONAL VICTORY FOR MARRIAGE!

Just 10 days until the polls close, when America will choose. The future of our country—and also the future of marriage—could be decided for generations to come.

Nationally, Americans will choose between Mitt Romney, a pro-marriage candidate for President who will defend DOMA and appoint judges that respect our Constitutional values; or the openly pro-gay marriage incumbent, Barack Obama, who has surreptitiously undermined the legal defense of marriage for four years and who, if he gets a second term, will have the power to position a fifth vote on the Supreme Court to invent a right to gay marriage and insert it in our founding document.

In Iowa, Judge David Wiggins—the fourth of seven judges who imposed gay marriage on the people of Iowa—faces the voters.

In Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota, four blue state ballot initiatives that converge in a national referendum on marriage. Everywhere, pro-marriage forces are outspent, outgunned, and out-manned. The media is licking its chops, working overtime to predict the defeat of marriage.

Following the Anti-Marriage Money

Just this week, billionaire Bill Gates gave $500,000 for gay marriage to the referendum fight in the state of Washington. Manhattan billionaire and Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, chipped in with his $250,000 "match" gift. Proponents of gay marriage in Washington (R-74) have spent more than $9.5 million already—five times more than the whole war chest of the little band of faithful brothers and sisters at Protect Marriage Washington. They are the David in this fight against the Goliath of the gay marriage media-industrial complex—Big Business, Big Hollywood, and Big Media—who have been on the airwaves for literally months with ads.

The money advantage is only part of the story. Big media and big business are joining forces to push gay marriage like nothing I've ever seen before.

Major corporations in Washington have pooled their resources to take out a full-page ad announcing support for gay marriage. The Olympian reports:

Executives from leading Washington businesses—including iconic Northwest brands such as Costco, Nordstrom, Microsoft, REI, Amazon.com and many others—have signed onto a full page ad in this morning's Sunday Seattle Times [sic], endorsing Referendum 74's same-sex marriage law.

Nordstrom sent an email to all 58,000 employees announcing company policy supports gay marriage, and urging them to vote for R-74. (It may backfire: how many ordinary workers want our bosses instructing us how to vote in a moral matter like the definition of marriage?)

And the Seattle Times corporation upped the ante, announcing it would donate at least $90,000 in free full-page newspaper ads supporting gay marriage!

Money Talks, but Voters Talk Back!

If you and I were a conventional political movement, we would be feeling pretty overwhelmed right now, depressed and in a defensive crouch.

They can't figure out why we don't just give up fighting for marriage!

But you and I know that this is not ordinary politics. There is a Thumb on the scale of justice. Some things are more powerful than money, and this week, we are beginning to see it make miracles happen.

Yesterday, the good news started pouring in!

Just a few weeks ago, polls showed marriage down by 14 points in the state of Washington.

But yesterday the respected Elway poll released the latest figures. After just a week or so of pro-marriage TV ads, there's been an incredible swing in public opinion towards marriage!

Opposition to R-74 has leapt ten points in the last week, since opponents went up on the air with new ads crafted by Prop 8 genius Frank Schubert (who is NOM's political consultant).

Here's one of the ads motivating this change:

And then there's this one, even more powerful than the first!

So, with R-74 now at 49 to 45 percent among likely voters—a statistical dead heat and huge change from the 14 point advantage gay marriage held in September (when 53 percent of Washington voters told the pollster they would support R-74)—there is great cause for hope.

That's right: despite spending $9.5 million, and months uncontested on the airwaves, the pro-gay marriage side has not managed to move public support for gay marriage.

All Bill Gates' money and all Starbucks' alleged Seattle cache may not be enough to push gay marriage over the finish line, if—and it's a big if—pro-marriage forces have enough money to get the truth out to the American people!

The stubborn good sense of the American people on marriage has been extraordinary: Yes, live and let live, people are practically shouting from the rooftops; but don't redesign marriage!

Look for a lot of shocked pundits on election night in November....

Trouble for Wiggins in Iowa

In Iowa, a new poll shows trouble ahead for Judge David Wiggins. I was out in Iowa on the "NoWiggins" bus—with Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and other leading conservative voices.

This month, a new ad crafted by Frank Schubert went up and is on the airwaves in Iowa.

And new Public Policy Polling data shows 43 percent of Iowans saying they will vote "no" to retaining Wiggins, compared to only 37 percent who would support keeping the justice on the Iowa bench.

Kudos to Iowans for Freedom for keeping up the good fight—we stand with you!

Nationally, Support for Marriage Grows While Attacks Intensify

This week, USA Today is reporting more shocking good news: The "Tastes Like Hate" boycott against Chick-fil-A has backfired, and business is up in the third quarter, shocking PR gurus across the country:

Consumer use of the chain was up 2.2% in the third quarter compared with the same period in 2011, says the Sandelman survey of more than 30,000 fast-food consumers conducted in markets where Chick-fil-A is located. Market share was up 0.6%, and total ad awareness was up a hefty 6.5%.

"Chick-fil-A did everything wrong in the book, says Chris Goddard, president of CGPR. "Their president shot from the hip, and his PR team was not equipped or prepared (to respond). It was a PR disaster and a clear case of what not to do in a crisis."

Evidently, the PR gurus don't know there's a Hand in this fight that is not bound by the conventional wisdom.

Chick-fil-A, too, seems unstoppable. "There was a lot of talk that [these boycotts] would hurt Chick-fil-A, but it actually helped the brand," says Jeff Davis, president of Sandelman. During the third quarter, Chick-fil-A broadened its regular customer base in 28 of 35 media markets, he says.

When you stand up for what is right—for God's truth about marriage—amazing miracles can happen!

The stakes are so high. Just yesterday, the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights ruled that a same-sex couple had a civil right to hold their wedding on the grounds of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Bible camp founded in the 19th century to host Christian revivals. Ocean Grove has lost the right to let its property for weddings, unless they are willing to treat gay union vows as equally sacred to marriage.

In New York, Liberty Ridge Farm has similarly been charged with discrimination for politely telling a lesbian couple they don't do gay weddings

Up in Maine, NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance reported this week on school counselor Don Mendell, a "Teacher of the Year" award recipient whose job was threatened when he came out against gay marriage:

And as I write, black pastors in Maryland are organizing a protest on the grounds of Gallaudet University, which suspended Dr. Angela McCaskill for doing nothing more than signing a petition to put the question of marriage to voters. [You remember, I reported last week on the outrageous attacks against McCaskill.]

The rights of all those of us who believe in Biblical standards are at risk. But we can fight back!

Out in Minnesota, a new ad running this week warns of the consequences of same-sex marriage and how it alienates parents from the process of their children's education:

How You Can Help Today

Look, I'm not going to kid you: these are tough, close fights all over—the conventional odds are overwhelmingly against us. But I promise you that victory, with God's help, is within our grasp.

Will you help? I know how tough the economy is out there. Your family and your faith community of course come first.

But if God has blessed you with the means, would you take a few minutes today to donate a few dollars to give us the tools we need to make miracles happen? A few stones, a slingshot, and faith—that's all it took for David to topple Goliath.

With your help, and by the grace of God, we can take on Bill Gates, Mayor Bloomberg, and all the other billionaires—take on Big Hollywood and Big Media. And we can win!

Because of state election laws, if you want to give to any of the four state marriage fights, you need to do so directly. To help, we've set up www.StandForMarriageAmerica.com so you can go and direct your donation to any or all of these state battles.

Meanwhile, NOM's Million Dollar Match for Marriage continues to do well. Thanks to each of you digging deep and sacrificing so generously, NOM so far has raised $564,557—or more than $1,693,000 for marriage! We are more than halfway there for our million dollar double-match challenge!

Less than 10 days to a historic victory. Thank you for all you've done to make us the national leader in the fight for marriage.

Pray, unceasingly—and keep up the good fight!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In an outrageous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution's equal protection clause! This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases, as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote.

While marriage is under attack in the courts, however, around the nation heroes are rallying in defense of marriage. The American people aren't prepared to allow their voice to be taken away from them on this critical and fundamental issue. They are demanding that their voices be heard and that they be allowed to exercise their basic rights to organize, act, speak, and donate in support of marriage!

Maryland: Dr. McCaskill Fights Back!

Dr. McCaskill, the first African-American PhD Gallaudet University has ever produced, was suspended from her job when the university discovered that she had exercised her core civil right to sign a petition in Maryland for putting gay marriage before the people for a vote.

She didn't take the insult or the attacks lying down—she's fighting back!

Dr. McCaskill held a press conference in Maryland last week, and NOM was there to bring you the story.

Dr. McCaskill's words should be heard by everyone, especially the people of Maryland:

I was approached by a faculty member of Gallaudet University... [and] asked if I had signed a petition to put the question of same-sex marriage on the ballot as a referendum. I responded that I had; that I did sign such a petition. In this very moment, she determined that the signature meant that I was anti-gay. [...]

I offered to have a campus-wide dialogue on this very sensitive issue. I believe in civil discourse. I thought it was important that, as a citizen of the State of Maryland, I could exercise my right to participate in the poitical process. I am pro-democracy. I thought that this would have been an incredible opportunity to teach our campus. Unfortunately, that opportunity was lost. [...] They have allowed misinformation to be circulated throughout the campus community. They have attempted to intimidate me. They have tarnished my reputation and my 24 years of service. My record at Gallaudet University speaks for itself: and I ask to be judged by what I have done. [...]

The University took this action against me because I was among 200,000 people that signed this petition. I exercised my rights. I felt it was important that we, as the citizens of Maryland, have an opportunity to vote. [...] I am dismayed that Gallaudet University is still a university of intolerance; a university that manages by intimidation; a university that allows bullying among faculty, staff, and students [emphases added].

Let me make it clear that Dr. McCaskill says she signed the petition to give the people of Maryland the right to decide the future of marriage. On this ballot issue, Dr. McCaskill will be exercising, along with other Marylanders, her basic right to decide the future of marriage in the privacy of the voting booth.

This new ad launched by Maryland Marriage Alliance this week does not imply Dr. McCaskill's endorsement. It does feature Dr. McCaskill's story, though, along with that of Damian Goddard, spokesman for NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance. Damian, once a Toronto sportscaster, was fired the day after he tweeted—on his own personal Twitter account—that he supported the "true and authentic meaning of marriage."

The message? Same-sex marriage advocates promised us that Maryland's Question 6 would not threaten the liberty of those of us who believe in the Biblical understanding of marriage; but the threats to Dr. McCaskill, like in the case of Damian before her, show that this just isn't true. This is the point of a new editorial in the Washington Examiner:

Gay marriage proponents have tried very hard to reassure Marylanders that the new law will not force clerics to perform gay weddings or otherwise participate in ceremonies forbidden by their faith. But McCaskill's removal for merely signing a petition make these vague reassurances even less credible than before. [...]

McCaskill's pastor says her dismissal is "a warning of what is to come if same-sex marriage becomes law in Maryland." And MDPetitions.com founder Del. Neil Parrott, R-District 28, plans to reintroduce a bill to protect people like her—and the 200,000 other Marylanders who signed the petition as individual voters. If Marylanders didn't face the very real threat of political retaliation, they wouldn't need such protection [emphasis added].

The president of Gallaudet sent a letter saying he would "work with" Dr. McCaskill to reinstate her.

Work with her? What does that mean? She did nothing wrong! He can and should re-instate her today and compensate her for the attack on her reputation!

Now Gallaudet University is trying to pull back—probably because they know how unfair this seems to most Americans and what a big impact this can have when voters go to the polls to vote against gay marriage. They know it so well, in fact, that—as the Baltimore Sun reports—the University is demanding that the new ad be pulled!

Washington: Two Brave Women Face Gay Marriage Bully

Meanwhile the fight for marriage is producing many new heroes.

In Washington, a feisty Chinese-American grandmother named Arlene Mark was physically attacked for distributing literature urging a no vote on gay marriage (R-74)—but she's not backing down!

Preserve Marriage Washington reports:

On Sunday, one of our volunteers, Arlene Mark—a Chinese American woman—was verbally attacked while waiting to distribute literature to other volunteers. What is more, Nikki Davis who came to her aid—an African American woman—was assailed with racial slurs....

A gay marriage advocate ran at Arlene's car, hit her vehicle, ripped the yard sign off the side of her car, tore it up, threw it on the ground, stomped on it and said " "This is what I think of your f—ing sign! I'm gay and proud of it." He then screamed insults and profanities at the grandma.

A good Samaritan named Nikki Davis—a young black mother who is uninvolved in the campaign—came to Arlene's aid. The attacker then hurled vile racial abuse at this innocent bystander, calling her a "black b—" and the n-word, telling her to "go back to Africa." He then physically struck out at Nikki's vehicle, hitting the back of her van and kicking it.

Nikki was justly frightened for Arlene as well as for herself and her children who were in the van, so she called the police.

The attacker then hopped into a waiting Silver Audi driven by an accomplice and sped away. Witnesses wrote down his license plate, though, and he was promptly tracked down and arrested.

Thank you Arlene! And thank you Nikki (whatever your views on marriage)!

Minnesota: Doctor Takes His Care for Families Seriously

In Minnesota, a family physician has stepped up to counter the lie that science has "proved" children don't need a mom and a dad. Dr. Kion Hoffman, in his letter to the Duluth News Tribune, points to the Mark Regnerus's "New Family Structures Study," published this summer in Social Science Research:

The problem with much of the previous research is it suffered from three types of bias. The first is sample size. If you don't have a large enough sample, then differences don't reach statistical significance and you can say, from a statistical standpoint, the study finds no difference between two groups when there may still be true differences. The second bias is in survey methodology. If you are trying to determine how the children raised by lesbian or gay couples fare, asking their caregivers is not conducive to objectivity. And the third bias of many studies of homosexual parenting is called selection bias. If you recruit your study subjects rather than obtaining a random sample you can introduce significant error. Admittedly, random sampling of this group is difficult because it represents a very small fraction of the general population.

This recent study minimized these types of bias. It compared the responses of adult children of intact biological families with those of adult children raised in homosexual families.

The new research shows a host of potential problems with the typical child raised by a gay parent (or to use a more precise term an adult child who reports his mom or dad had a same-sex romantic attachment):

Those raised in lesbian households had lower educational attainment, felt less secure and reported worse health and lower incomes. Thirty-one percent reported having had sex forced on them vs. 8 percent of adults raised in intact biological families.

Those raised in gay households with their father were more likely to have received public assistance, to have suicidal thoughts, to have had a sexually transmitted disease, to have experienced forced sex (25 percent vs. 8 percent), to have smoked, to have been arrested and to have had more sexual partners.

Hoffman finishes his letter by stating: "The marriage amendment does not prevent homosexuals from having committed relationships. As a family-practice physician, I advocate for the health of families, and I would recommend we vote ‘yes' for the marriage amendment."

Kudos, doctor!

Religious Leaders Standing Up for Marriage

Above all, religious leaders from various faith traditions are stepping up to the plate for marriage.

Bishop Joseph Tyson of Yakima, whom Pope Benedict appointed to the Washington state diocese in 2011, warned of the threat same-sex marriage poses to religious liberty in a recent pastoral letter:

R-74 jeopardizes freedom rather than expands it. It endangers our religious liberty and the right of conscience. Once marriage is redefined as a genderless contract, it will become legally discriminatory for public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique meaning of marriage, and to teach about the right of a child to be known, loved and raised by his or her own mother and father in a stable home. [...]

I opened this letter with a wedding picture of my parents. I close by asking you to consider what kind of picture of marriage you desire to give the next generation. If you and I don't uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman, who will? If we are intimidated by those supporting marriage redefinition who picket and threaten donation boycotts of our charity and our ministry, then who will proclaim the true meaning of marriage?

The Baltimore Sun reports on the way black pastors are stepping up to speak for God's perfect design for marriage with :

Bishop Willard E. Saunders Jr. quieted his Cherry Hill sanctuary Sunday morning, signaling for the music and the hallelujahs to stop so his words would come across clearly.

"If something is perfect, it does not need changing," Saunders said, his image beaming from two screens on either side of the pulpit. "You can't redefine what God has already called perfect.

"Marriage, the institution, is perfect," he continued. "It is the people who are imperfect."

The Sun reports that this coordinated effort to preach marriage from the pulpit will continue in Maryland throughout the remaining days until the election.

And from Salt Lake City, Utah, here is one of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, Dallin H. Oaks, calling his flock to stand for marriage:

The ugly attacks against marriage supporters all have the same root: the false idea that support for marriage is discriminatory, rooted in bigotry or hatred of gay people.

This is the father of all the lies and all the hatred now directed by so many against good, decent, loving, law-abiding people who stand for this simple, common sense idea—that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife, because children need a mom and a dad.

I do want to caution all of us to remember in the middle of the fight that the majority of gay people and gay marriage advocates oppose violence and abusive attacks. We must never descend to using the same kind of broad-brush judgment against our fellow citizens that we now experience directed our way. I hope the majority of gay marriage advocates also oppose the idea that you should lose your job if you publicly oppose gay marriage—but, sadly, that is not clear in the controversy at Gallaudet to reinstate Dr. McCaskill. Despite some last minute calls for McCaskill to be reinstated made by some gay groups, the fact is that in the past, when there hasn't been vote pending, no major gay rights organization has objected to people losing their jobs for reasons such as voting, writing a letter to the editor, donating, or otherwise exercising a civil right to protect marriage.

And the list of people so threatened is long and growing.

We must stand strong against these attacks and the ones that are coming.

Marital unions are unions of the kind that can make new life and connect those precious babies (whether born or adopted) to both a mom and a dad.

This week NOM agreed to distribute a new video that makes this case in a remarkably simple and powerful way: Marriage is biology, not bigotry.

Government promotes natural marriage because it is so vital to all of society. It permits many other kinds of relationships (including gay relationships), and prohibits only a few relationships like incest.

Watch this video. Email it to your friends. Post it on your Facebook page. Help us spread this important message!

Courage, friend: the heroes are arising. The Truth is durable and will tower above lies and hate and even well-intentioned ignorance.

Bless you for all you've done for marriage. These heroes standing up around the country should give us both hope and courage. Now it's important that we do our part and pay it forward.

We need to support the marriage heroes holding the lines at the various fronts of the marriage battle. That's why I urge you today to show your support for these inspiring people by donating whatever you are able to Stand for Marriage America.

You know the mainstream media is not with us. We need money to get the message out and to help win these crucial states where marriage will be decided by the voters in November. With your help, and with God's grace, we will win this battle.

This week, I want to announce a brand-new website we're launching today. The Marriage Election: A Look at Marriage and Presidential Politics is a service NOM will be providing throughout the rest of the election season, to educate voters on how marriage fits into the national debate over who will be our country's next President. In addition, this site will cover breaking marriage news as it relates to the Presidential race, including any mentions of marriage that might come up in the official candidates' debates (such as tonight's showdown between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan). Please visit the site today, and pass this great resource on to your friends!

University Attacks Free Speech

Dr. Angela McCaskill.

You may not know her name but you should. She is the first black deaf woman to be granted a PhD by Gallaudet University, a national university for deaf people.

Until a few days ago, she was Gallaudet's chief diversity officer.

You can see her discussing her job here:

But then someone complained about Dr. McCaskill.

Was it about her job performance? Did she make a mistake? Fail in a key duty? Treat someone wrongly?

No. The complaint against Dr. Angela McCaskill consists of one fact and one fact alone: she exercised her core civil rights by signing a petition to put the question of marriage on the ballot for the voters of Maryland.

That's it. But that in itself was enough for Gallaudet to relieve Dr. McCaskill of her responsibilities and to place her on paid leave while they "investigate" her!

This is a very sad day in America. African-American Christians, it seems to me, are paying a disproportionate price for exercising these core civil rights to speak, to vote, to donate and to organize on behalf of marriage and traditional views on sexuality. Consider these examples:

Crystal Dixon, an administrator at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing a letter (as a private citizen) to the editor of the Toledo Free Press. The letter respectfully opposed the notion of gay rights and explained God's plan for human beings. Activists later tried to keep a city from hiring her.

In New Jersey, a special education teacher, Viki Knox, wrote a message on her personal Facebook page criticizing the school's promotion of a "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month." Activist groups and others have demanded that she be fired, and have planned protests targeting her. The lawyer who began the attack on Knox said: "Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated. She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it."

This week The Star-Ledger reports that, under ongoing pressure and threats not only to her job but to her pension, Viki Knox has chosen to resign!

And in Michigan, Julea Ward, a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University, was dismissed from that school's counseling program after asking for permission to refer a client to another counselor because she was uncomfortable affirming that client's same-sex relationship.

But there's something especially chilling in this most recent case regarding the treatment of Dr. McCaskill, who simply exercised her civil right to sign a petition in favor of putting a certain question before her state's voters.

It would be shocking to the conscience if this happened anywhere. But here's another thing you may not know about Gallaudet: it's not a private university! It's a Congressionally chartered corporation, with a legal obligation to report each year to the Secretary of Education, who must approve any transfer or sale of real property owned by the university. Traditionally, the diplomas at Gallaudet are even signed by the President of the United States.

I hope Gallaudet University does the right thing. If not, I hope the President of the United States will make it clear that this injustice must stop. As a final failsafe, I hope Congress recognizes its responsibility to affirm how this behavior is unacceptable in a government-affiliated institution.

Let me make it clear that there is a principle at stake here as important as marriage itself: No American, whether he or she is for or against gay marriage, should be afraid to vote, to sign petitions, to donate or to speak—with civility of course!—in support of that position.

Even Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign manager, Josh Levin, says that Angela McCaskill "should be reinstated immediately."

I thank Mr. Levin for that, and I hope and pray that he's doing that out of conviction and not just because he knows that this story is a real problem for his goal of getting voters to approve gay marriage in Maryland—the record of gay rights activists is not very good in this regard.

Please join me in praying for Dr. McCaskill, and praying that justice be done in her case.

NOM's Frank Schubert: A Leader in Protecting Marriage

The New York Times has noticed the genius of our own Frank Schubert in an article entitled, "One Man Guides the Fight Against Gay Marriage."

Gay rights leaders despise Mr. Schubert, who has devoted himself to the issue in recent years, for what they call his misleading arguments. They have also learned to fear him for messages that are less openly harsh than those voiced by many other opponents of gay rights: a strategy aimed at reassuring the moderate voters who decide such elections that barring gays and lesbians from marriage does not make them bigots. [...]

"Everyone has a right to love who they choose," says an ad now running in Minnesota, "but nobody has a right to redefine marriage."

Telling voters they are not prejudiced if they vote against same-sex marriage is "diabolically smart and creative," said Fred Sainz, vice president for communications of the Human Rights Campaign, a national advocacy group for gay rights."

They despise us, but here's the thing—Frank Schubert doesn't despise anybody:

Mr. Schubert, who has a lesbian sister raising two children in a domestic partnership, says, "It's hurtful to know that many people think I dislike gays and lesbians and wish them harm."

He spoke during an interview here in Maryland's capital, where he was making last-minute tweaks to television ads and meeting with local organizers in what seems likely to be a close race.

Mr. Schubert expects to spend some $12.5 million over all, with one-third of the total provided by the National Organization for Marriage, the largest private group financing campaigns against same-sex marriage.

Of course, brilliant as Frank is and as indisputably valuable as his expertise has been in winning victory after victory for marriage in blue state after blue state, no one man is our guide.

God is the author of marriage, not man.

But God grants us talented men and women to do his work in every era, and we're very grateful that he's given us Frank Schubert!

Biden "Sold Out to the System"

Charlie Spiering of the Washington Examiner reports on a new video released in anticipation of tonight's Vice Presidential debate. I'm sure you won't want to miss this!

Grassroots organization Let Freedom Ring releases a new ad criticizing Vice President Joe Biden for failing to live up to his Catholic faith by supporting same-sex marriage.
The ad features Democrat Jo Ann Nardelli, the first Vice President of the Pennsylvania State Federation of Democratic Women.

Nardelli explains that although she supported Biden in 2008, she signals disappointment that he led the charge to support same-sex marriage.

"When I heard Vice President Biden speak about same-sex marriage and I knew the platform for President Obama was same-sex marriage. I know definitely that Mama Biden would not go with," she explains. "I as a devout Catholic could no longer uphold and stand for that platform. I had to stand up for my faith."

She adds, "Vice President Biden, I think he sold out to the system."

Here's the new ad:

And just a reminder, don't forget to follow election news like this at our new website, http://www.MarriageElection.com!

Don't Miss a Great Opportunity with NOM's "Million Dollar Match for Marriage"

Will you stand this week for God's vision for marriage by giving whatever you can to NOM's Million Dollar Match for Marriage?

A generous donor has agreed to triple whatever you give in the urgent next few weeks before the election! Can you give $1? It will become $3 for marriage. Give $10? You will have given marriage $30 for this fight. Has God given you the means to donate $100 or more? Imagine your $100 becoming $300, or your $500 becoming $1500!

Now is the time to take your stand for marriage, because you are the difference between victory and defeat. You can make victory happen, with God's grace!

Thanks to all of you who have responded to this key challenge. As I write, I can report some great news: we've already raised about $150,000 for marriage, toward our million-dollar goal. Because of you and your sacrificial giving, the marriage fight now has nearly half-a-million dollars more to win with!

We can't stop there. Will you pass this email on to a friend and ask if they have $10 for marriage this week?

If you haven't given yet, please won't you give right now when it means more than ever, with a historic victory within our grasp?

Look at the face of Dr. Angela McCaskill and all those Christians (and others of good faith) who have sacrificed so much standing for marriage—and please give what you can right now.

And I ask you again please to pray for marriage, for Frank Schubert, for Dr. McCaskill—and for God's continued blessings on our beloved country.

I will never stop fighting for you and for our shared values. And I will never stop being grateful to you for all you've made possible.

The first presidential debate is over, but the contest continues.

President Obama has openly embraced gay marriage—and it affects your state.

That's because (as the LGBT media outlet Keen News Service reports), there are headed to the Supreme Court "a record eight gay-related cases seeking review, all involving same-sex marriage."

We don't know yet whether the Supreme Court will take these cases, but we do know this: if this president gets a second term, the Supreme Court will be re-made in a way that will virtually ensure that gay marriage will be inserted into our beloved Constitution!

We also know that these cases headed for the Supreme Court would be without a defender in the Department of Justice in Obama's second term (as in his first).

So, we ultimately know that your vote matters more than it ever has.

We are restricted by complicated state laws from reporting to you on all the states that have gay marriage battles, but I am happy at least to share with you this exciting news out of Minnesota.

In Minnesota, marriage amendment supporters released their first two television ads, telling voters that a "yes" vote means the future of marriage is, and should remain, in their hands.

Here's some video on the ads from the local news:

Please take a moment to view the ads themselves, too:

Watch these ads. Listen to the message. And then, if you choose, you can help get the message out by donating to Stand for Marriage America.

Which brings me to the best news I have to tell you this week:

If you donate right now, every contribution you give to NOM will be tripled—that's right, NOM will receive two additional dollars (through a generous matching grant) for every $1 you give today!

This match goes for every donation between now and the November election—up to one million dollars—which means, with your help, we have the chance to raise THREE MILLION DOLLARS to protect marriage before the election!

Marriage can win across the board if we take advantage of this game-changing opportunity—we just need ordinary, faith-filled Americans like you to stand up right now and provide the funds we need to get our message out.

The ads above get the truth about marriage out: Marriage was not made by government, but by God, for the creation and care of the next generation.

But our opponents plan to use government to remake society and impose their own values on the next generation.

So when a new study demonstrates that stable gay couples are very rare, HRC responds by claiming that reporting the truth is the equivalent of insulting gay people.

You probably won't read about this new study by Charles Lau in your local newspaper—it was published in the October issue of the venerable Journal of Marriage and Family. Looking at nationally representative data in Great Britain, Lau's study finds that married unions of husband and wife are five to seven times more stable than same-sex couples' unions. Even merely cohabitating opposite-sex couples are twice as likely to stay together as same-sex couples.

But what was HRC's response? It's "an insult" to speak the truth.

Nevertheless, more and more Americans are recognizing that NOW is the time to speak the truth—or instead be forced forever to hold our peace.

I want to personally thank NFL great Matt Birk for speaking up on behalf of marriage.

Matt is a six-time Pro-Bowl Center from Minnesota, who plays now for the Baltimore Ravens (how great is God to call out a hero for two states voting on gay marriage this November?!).

Matt is a gracious man, married father of six, who grew up in St. Paul, and he wants everyone to know that he respects people who hold different views—but also that he's called to give his own views, especially after a teammate came out for gay marriage:

I took a stance like other guys have done before me. [...] In doing so, it's really not my aim not my goal to engage in any debates with any one person or persons. Obviously, we all have opinions. They have their opinions. It just so happens that we disagree on what marriage is in the public forum. It's certainly a very inflammatory, very hot topic, because it's important. I understand that. Out of respect to my teammates and my team and the organization, this isn't going to turn into a circus. It probably won't be the last time that I publicly take a stance on it. I'm just asking you guys out of respect for everybody that my focus and our focus here is on football and on winning football games.

I let Brendon know that I respect him because I've known Brendon for a while and I played with his brother [Obafemi Ayanbadejo]. And I like Brendon and I respect him a lot. I told him on Friday that I was going to have a piece coming out. I wanted to let him know so he wouldn't be blindsided by it. I haven't had a chance to talk to him today.

You can see Matt speaking here:

Let me close today with the voices of ordinary Americans who, like Matt, have been called to speak up in this debate.

Connie Rossini of New Ulm, MN writes to the editor of the New Ulm Journal:

The proponents of same-sex "marriage" would have us believe that marriage is all about how two adults feel for each other. It's not. It's about the well-being of children. Throughout history, there have been many types of relationships—sexual or notmdash;among adults, but few have been called marriage. Marriage has always had an exclusive role in society. It ties mothers and fathers to their biological children and gives the children their best chance to thrive.

In Maryland, schoolteacher Eric Lee writes to the Baltimore Sun with a unique analogy, pointing to why it is wrong, plain and simple, to redefine marriage:

Now, imagine if I went into my favorite vegetarian restaurant tomorrow and found out that there was a movement under way to start selling hamburgers there, while still calling the restaurant vegetarian. I go up to the manager and protest: "Hamburgers are not a vegetarian food — they're meat! How can you serve this in a vegetarian restaurant?" He replies: "I am redefining what it means to be a vegetarian." To which I would respond, emphatically: "But being a vegetarian is something special, something different from being someone who eats meat. It's been this way ever since the term vegetarian was invented! If you want to serve hamburgers, then you can do it, but you're not a vegetarian restaurant anymore."

Lee goes on to say, "What I and other traditional marriage supporters are standing for is the uniqueness and goodness that by nature manifest themselves only in a marriage between a man and a woman."

And finally, in Maryland, the Gazette reports on a new group of African Americans who have founded a group dedicated to explaining why marriage—not gay marriage—is the first "civil right":

"God's word states that marriage is between one man and one woman," said Alethia Williams, [Jump the Broom for Marriage's] campaign manager. "That's what our organization is about."

Jump the Broom for Marriage takes its name from a traditional African-American wedding ritual that dates back to slavery, and its website defines the act as "the first civil right." In the upcoming vote on the law, the black vote will make the difference, Williams said.

Standing for marriage requires courage, no doubt; but the gifts that come from standing for marriage are extraordinary.

People of every race, creed, and color coming out in solidarity to speak truth to power. That's the marriage movement you've helped create in supporting NOM!

I'm profoundly grateful to you, and to God!

One of the great voices for marriage has been Bishop Salvatore Cordileone. I met him in 2007, when Prop 8 was just a gleam in a group of San Diego citizens' eyes. It was one of the great honors of my life to get to know him, and to help him defend marriage.

Yesterday, he was installed as the Archbishop of San Francisco. He will find many admirers, but still no doubt face a hostile local government with an uncertain commitment (at best) to freedom of speech or the free expression of religion.

Pray for the new Archbishop. Pray for everyone on the front lines of the marriage debate.

And, if you can spare some of your treasure, please support us today, as we have just a month to get our message out.

We've proved again and again that when Americans hear the truth, they respond and stand for marriage. And, with your help, we'll prove it again in unprecedented ways this November!

Thank you for all you've made possible.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

November is a big month.

We as a people will elect a president of the United States: Either a man who will appoint judges that impose gay marriage on all 50 states...

...Or a man willing to fight for the values and views that you and I hold dear.

More importantly: a man willing to stand up for God's view of marriage as the union of husband and wife—and who will give us a fighting chance at the Supreme Court.

In November, the people of several deep blue states will have a chance—thanks to you!—to vote to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife.

And in Iowa, the people will have a chance once again to express their disapproval of the activist judges who imposed gay marriage on that state against its citizens will!

Here's a snapshot of me with Gov. Bobby Jindal on the "No Wiggins" bus.

Iowa is accustomed to being a central battleground in politics, being first among the nation's caucuses; but now Iowans have a chance not only to help elect a new president, but to un-elect an activist judge!

Here's Bobby Jindal, telling the people of Iowa about this great opportunity:

I am continually amazed by the resiliency of the American people in standing for marriage.

Gay marriage proponents have the mainstream media. They have more money than we do—sometimes what feels like overwhelmingly more money—and yet, we have a fighting chance, because we stand for truth, for love, and for God's own vision of marriage!

In one of the states where marriage is on the ballot this fall, our opponents have been on the air for three weeks with the best ads money can buy—but the polls are showing that the more ads they air, the less people like gay marriage.

In Minnesota, the people's continued success in fighting for marriage is provoking some among the opposition to vandalize churches. Yes, sad—but true, as the media reports: "Police are searching for the person responsible for vandalizing multiple churches in Buffalo, Minn., over the weekend."

The Buffalo Police Department responded to incidents at several local churches between Saturday and Monday, with four of those incidents involving placement of handwritten posters containing inflammatory messages.

Police found damage to church buildings at five locations. Police say nothing in the posters left behind referenced the upcoming marriage amendment vote, but most of the churches targeted define marriage as between a man and a woman.

... Rob Jarvis, pastor of Hosanna Lutheran, said he found a poster depicting Jesus as being gay.

"It was (the suspect's) idea of Jesus and then describing homosexual acts, and things like that," Jarvis said, as his church's doors were busted out 24 hours later.

The importance of battles like this is why NOM was founded. Thank you for making the fight for God's truth about marriage possible. We are committed to being your voice for timeless values everywhere across this great land.

In the state of New York, we have a great victory to report:

Kathy Marchione has defeated incumbent Sen. Roy McDonald in the GOP primary for the New York State Senate!

That's incredible. Republican incumbents almost never lose primaries. In fact, they almost never face opposition. But McDonald was one of four GOP senators who supported gay marriage and passed gay marriage in that state.

Sen. James Alesi, who also did so, retired rather than face the voters' music.

Now Roy McDonald has announced his attention to retire from politics and support Kathy Marchione in the general election.

Then there's Sen. Steven Saland, who was expected to sail to easy victory in his nomination, but appears only to have eked out a win by the narrowest of margins over feisty challenger Neil DiCarlo.

Saland outspent DiCarlo 40 to 1 in the primary, feeding on the money pro-gay marriage advocates wafted his way—more than thirty pieces of silver to reward him for his pro-gay marriage vote.

But here's the good news: DiCarlo is not giving up! He won a write-in vote for the Conservative Party nomination, and so he has another chance to take on Saland in November.

Along with Saland, Mark Grisanti (the other pro-gay marriage Republican in New York) will also face a Conservative Party challenger in November.

And as DiCarlo said in his press release this week, "Despite being outspent $700,000 to my $25,000 I have shown that integrity matters and that ideas and morals matter more than money.... Having won the majority of votes in the primary, [adding up the GOP and Conservative Party line,] I look forward to winning the general election in November and serving the people of the 41st with integrity as their State Senator."

City&State's weekly round-up of winners and losers proclaims me—and therefore you, and NOM PAC NY—a "winner" this week:

"...Brian Brown won a larger battle—rendering LGBT rights groups incapable of claiming that no Republican legislator who voted yes on same-sex marriage has ever been defeated because of it ... the example of Roy McDonald will probably serve as a cautionary tale."

Of course, we've defeated politicians who have waffled on or betrayed marriage before, but it's good to see the media is noticing for a change!

I told you this would be a big month for marriage. I want to share with you an initiative NOM just launched—"Keep the Republic and Marriage"—a place for pro-marriage heroes like you to PUBLICLY support NOM's work. You can learn about Sean Fieler, the courageous man who was the first to sign his name to this document here. I urge you to join him today and join our fight to keep the republic and marriage!

Voting begins this week in Minnesota. And so let me leave you with a few words from Kelley Yanta, the face of Minnesota Marriage Minute:

Truth matters. Integrity matters. Money matters, but it does not trump the first two things.

Thanks to you—and to the hundreds of thousands of other Americans who join you in supporting NOM—we are able to get the word—the Word—out!

And the American people are responding.

Bless you for all the good you've made possible.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last Thursday, the voters in New York State finally got a chance to have their say.

As I told you in last week's letter, the primaries recently held in New York are incredibly important to the future of marriage.

Powerful donors tried—and are still trying—to remake the Republican Party in their own image: namely, as pro-gay marriage supporters.

Getting New York Republicans to bring up and pass a gay marriage bill was the first step in that plan. The four Republicans who voted for gay marriage were hailed as heroes and showered with accolades—and massive quantities of cold hard cash. They were supposed to sail to victory, thus disproving the "myth" that voters care about marriage.

But on Thursday, the voters got their turn, and to the shock and surprise of the pundits and establishment hacks, they tossed out long-term incumbents in both parties who had betrayed their constituents' values and voted for gay marriage.

And thanks to your help, the National Organization for Marriage has been at the forefront of these victories.

Here I am on Christian Broadcast News, speaking about this breaking story:

On Wednesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg both expressed sadness that these pro-gay marriage Republicans were in so much trouble with voters because of their vote.

Cuomo even openly admitted that he couldn't help them in the primaries:

"If you're voting against them because of marriage equality, my support is not going to help," he said. "And you could argue that my support may have actually been a negative in that context, because if it was about marriage equality, I would have been a great reminder of the marriage-equality vote, and I would have gone out of my way to speak about the marriage-equality vote, frankly."

Mr. Bloomberg had donated $10,300 to each of the four Republican senators who'd turned on their constituents and voted for gay marriage, and had also hosted a high-dollar fundraiser for them. He tried to offer them consolation:

"No matter what happens in the election," Mr. Bloomberg said, "they're going to have the satisfaction of knowing for the rest of their life they stood up and voted their conscience."

Did their consciences also tell them to mislead the voters? To vote "no" on gay marriage, to run against gay marriage, and then to vote "yes" at the last minute after the money talked?

Perhaps next time their consciences will have the courtesy to tell the voters the truth.

NOM PAC NY also played a key role in these victories, and the newspapers noticed:

"It wasn't supposed to be this way!" was the Daily Beast's cri de coeur!

Gay marriage backers assured them that they would remember their vote for every Election Day hence—even if the candidates were running against Democrats.

"We are in it for the long haul with any supporter of gay marriage," Brian Ellner, the lead lobbyist behind the effort, said in June 2011 as he was trying to convince the four to support the bill. "We have not lost a single supporter because of their support of marriage equality in an election and we are certainly not going to start now."

But the results so far have left supporters of gay marriage fearful that the primary will dissuade other Republicans around the country from supporting same sex marriage.

... "The message we sent was pretty simple," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "If you are a Republican and you vote for [gay] marriage, you are going to lose."

According to the Associated Press:

"Republican primary voters in New York punished two incumbents last week who voted to legalize same-sex marriage, firing a potential warning shot nationwide toward GOP lawmakers who could soon face tough votes in their states.

Two of the four veteran—and long-secure—Republican senators in New York who voted for same-sex marriage a year ago await counts of absentee ballots as they sweat out the political fight of their lives. A third announced his retirement this year in the face of strong opposition to his gay marriage vote.

"Any Republican legislator faced with this vote is going to think twice," said Robert Bellafiore, a political commentator and former top aide to Republican Gov. George Pataki of New York. "I don't think there is any question this going to have a chilling effect across the country."

Well, we certainly hope so! Betraying the values and views of the people who put you in office is always a bad idea!

John Fund in National Review put it the most simply in his editorial, "Gay Marriage Backers Face Consequences in N.Y. Primaries":

The results from Thursday's low-turnout primary aren't complete given uncounted absentee ballots. But it is clear the National Organization for Marriage and other traditional-marriage groups drew some blood.

NY State Senator Roy McDonald was known to be in some trouble, but Senator Stephen Saland's electoral problems came as a huge shock. Feisty challenger Neil DiCarlo was given no chance at all. Saland was not just a long-time incumbent, he was 'Mr. Moneybags', outspending DiCarlo 40 to 1! On election night, DiCarlo was just 42 votes behind with hundreds of absentee ballots still being counted.

As the Albany Times Union admits, the primary results show that "grass-roots insurgents are at least an even match for the party's establishment candidates."

Senator Mark Grisanti was the only pro-gay marriage Republican to win his primary on Tuesday night, but we still have a chance—and a good one!—to defeat him in November.

Why? Because by betraying marriage, Grisanti lost the Conservative Party endorsement to Chuck Swanick in a district that is 60% Democratic. The Buffalo News reports on Grisanti's grim prospects in November:

...If some of the more conservative GOP voters turn against Grisanti and vote for Swanick over the same-sex marriage issue, Amodeo said, that could prove an unbeatable obstacle to the incumbent.

The New York primary election results should have come as no surprise to the pundits and the politicians (remember Dede Scozzafava?!) except too many believe the untruths persistently spread by gay marriage activists and a compliant media.

The New York victories come on top of a win in Minnesota last month where a Minneapolis state representative, Rep. Steve Smith, one of the longest serving Republicans in the Statehouse, lost his GOP primary. As the AP notes, "His opposition to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was one of the reasons."

The victories in New York also follow on the heels of the defeat of several pro-gay marriage GOP incumbents in New Hampshire; and last but not least, the epic failure of an attempt by out-of-state billionaire Tim Gill to flood the Rhode Island Legislature with pro-gay marriage Democrats through a tsunami of money. Five of six of those efforts failed—in the Democratic primary!

Money matters—and believe me, I'm deeply grateful to each of you who have given a widow's mite of your time and treasure to help win this great fight for marriage— but money isn't everything. When you have truth, history, and the American people on your side—and when you strive to take God's side on something as important as His creation of marriage—amazing things can happen!

Four states now face tough gay marriage battles, but with your help and the grace of God, we're going to win them all!

In Iowa, we've helped launch the "NoWiggins Bus", as the Sioux City Journal recently noted. Our special thanks go out to Sen. Rick Santorum and Gov. Bobby Jindal for joining the effort to oust Judge Wiggins, one of the Iowa judges who voted to impose gay marriage on the people of Iowa without their consent!

... "The judiciary's usurpation of authority in recent years is completely unacceptable," Santorum said in a statement. "It is obviously clear the people's Constitution gives the judicial branch the least power, and yet these appointed judges continuously legislate from the bench whether it is gay marriage in Iowa, collective bargaining in Wisconsin, or resulting in the death of millions of lives caused by the opinion of Roe v. Wade."

The "No Wiggins" bus tour—sponsored by CitizenLink, Patriot Voices, the Family Leader, the National Organization for Marriage and CatholicVote.org—seeks to mobilize opposition among Iowa voters to oust Wiggins.

You will remember that in 2010 the first three judges who invented a right to gay marriage in the Iowa Constitution came up for election—and for the first time in history, Iowa voters turned out all three!

It will be a tougher battle this time, as pro-gay marriage money will swarm the state. But with God's help, and yours, we will stay in this fight, too—and win!

Some good news breaking from Down Under: The Australian House and Senate massively defeated a pro-gay marriage bill:

With the House of Representatives rejecting Labor MP Stephen Jones' bill 98-42 earlier in the week, the Senate rejected a similar bill from Labor Senator Trish Crossin 26-41 yesterday afternoon.

Here at home, college students are fighting back against intolerance by standing up and Eatin Mor' Chikin!—according to a story in a new online paper, The College Fix, edited by the young and brilliant Nathan Harden (author of God and Sex at Yale:

The University of Maryland's student newspaper, for example, recently reported that sales are up at its campus Chick-fil-A... "Sales rose dramatically during the first two weeks of school following the controversy around Cathy's statement."

That must be why the newspapers are circulating misleading reports the Chick-Fil-A has somehow cut funding to NOM (which has never received money from the company or from the Winshape Foundation, its charitable arm).

We continue, therefore, to urge you to "Eat More Chikin" on Wednesdays throughout the campaign season, continuing to show your support for the rights of every American to give their views on marriage without threats or harassment!

Elsewhere, columnist George Will turned his discerning eye on one of those threats in the New Mexico wedding photography case:

Elaine Huguenin, who with her husband operates Elane Photography in New Mexico, asks only to be let alone.

But instead of being allowed a reasonable zone of sovereignty in which to live her life in accordance with her beliefs, she is being bullied by people wielding government power.

As Will points out, the same-sex couples seeking a wedding photographer (in a state that does not recognize gay marriage!) could have shrugged their shoulders and said "live and let live"; instead they went after Elaine's livelihood using government power. Will writes, "Perhaps advocates of gay rights should begin to restrain the bullies in their ranks."

And did you see the comments of British actor Rupert Everett, one of the first stars to come out as gay? He told the media his Mom wanted him to have a wife and kids, because "She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her," he said. "I can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads."

After the predictable furor erupted, Everett stood by his comments, telling the British talk show "This Morning": "The good news on this is I'm not applying for any sort of public office. I don't want to be a (Member of Parliament), I don't want to be in a council, I don't want to be the head of (actors' union) Equity. I'm just an individual with my own life and the things I want to do myself."

I don't know Rupert Everett's views on gay marriage. But it is important to remember that gay people are not a monolith. They are our neighbors and fellow citizens with diverse views. There are homosexuals who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife—and I want to reiterate: if you want to help protect marriage, we welcome you to join NOM in the fight!

A last small piece of good news: Recent polling by Public Policy Polling and the liberal-leaning Maine People's Resource Center show gay marriage support in Maine to be declining—this, in spite of weeks of ads being run by same-sex marriage proponents to garner support. Another internal poll by JMC Analytics and Polling, the first of its kind run by a non pro-gay marriage source, showed support for gay marriage falling even further than the other polls showed: below the 50% margin, in fact from 48% to 44%!

The AP reported on September 10 that in Maine, the "National Organization for Marriage has made a $500,000 matching contribution to fight same-sex marriage."

So, we are not done. We have just begun to fight.

We are sending support and prayers into all four states with marriage fights on the ballot this November—thanks to you, we can help voters wherever we are needed to stand up for God's truth about marriage.

Finally, there's that other important election in November: for President of the United States.

As the gay marriage cases head to the Supreme Court, it's vitally important that we have a president who is going to defend marriage and the rights of millions of voters to organize, speak, vote, donate in defense of God's vision of marriage.

On that point, in case you missed it, here's Mitt Romney's video message to the Values Voters Summit, wherein he promises to defend marriage, not redefine it:

We agree, America needs a President who will respect our traditional values

Register to vote. Register your friends. Register your family. And make your voice heard this November!

At NOM, we will fight to make your voice and your values heard—to show that together we can fight for the right—and win!

As Rev. Rick Warren said, we who are believers should take our view of marriage into our lives—by living chastely and faithfully and lovingly within our marriages and teaching our children to grow up to be men and women who do the same.

But we should also take our views and values into the voting booth, without apology.

"You don't need to apologize for voting for a Christian worldview which stands up for the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex and the sanctity of marriage. You don't need to apologize for that because everybody votes what they believe," Rev. Warren told thousands of Saddleback Church attendees at the launch of a new sermon series.

The Southern California pastor said three issues (are non-negotiables for Christians. Christian believers may disagree on health care or tax policy, he said, but we must be firm on is protecting the unborn, viewing sex as holy, and protecting traditional marriage.

"If you call yourself a Christian, you need to line up with what God says is the original intent of all three of these things," he preached.

Whether we are Catholic or Protestant, LDS, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or nonbeliever, we are called in these difficult days to stand up for core truths about human beings everywhere: we are born male and female, and called to come together in love in this sacred bond called "marriage."

Whether we individually are married or not, we can stand up and defend the great truths of Genesis.

We can fight for marriage and, with God's help, win!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You and I know that marriage is not a partisan issue.

We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents, coming together to support something bigger than party: God's own truth about marriage.

Sadly, though, the Democrat party this week officially and formally became the party of gay marriage.

Yet, apparently still fearing public backlash over some issues, Democrat party leaders reversed the effort to strip the word "God" from the platform, and they put the word "Jerusalem" back in the party platform, to widely spread boos and catcalls from their delegates and audience during a questionable voice vote.

Still, they nevertheless unhesitatingly adopted gay marriage as core to their party platform:

Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

Michelle Obama gave a beautiful speech about her husband at the convention this week.

But the First Lady also endorsed gay marriage--as a core civil right--as a major part of the American struggle:

… if a young preacher could lift us to the mountaintop with his righteous dream, and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love, then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream.

Not every Democrat is on board with the President and First Lady's program. I know from your letters and emails.

I also know because Rev. Bill Owens was at Charlotte as the conscience of the party and the nation.

Major religious leaders from the heart of the black church gathered with Rev. Owens to tell the delegates: You do not represent the whole party… and you do not represent the conscience of the nation.

We will not let any politician, or any party, suppress our voice!

We will stand up for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, oriented (if we want to speak of orientation!) towards the good of children.

Only marriage can give children a mom and dad united in one family!

No other union can do that — and another kind of union masquerading as marriage, but denying this essential part of its definition, is no marriage at all!

What's at stake? Well, consider Brazil: there, courts imposed gay marriage. Now, registrars are shocking the conscience of the nation by imposing polygamous unions.

The BBC is reporting that a union between three people, two women and a man, in Sao Paulo is causing major outrage.

The publication says that public notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, based in the city of Tupa, feels the couple is entitled to the same family rights that traditional couples have.

And, after all, why not? The principle articulated by the beautiful Michelle Obama from the Democratic party platform—'you can marry anyone you love'—has no stopping point, no core, and no rootedness in truth, especially God's truth.

God created marriage. He gave us that gift—not government.

Respecting His will and His design is what you, and I, and NOM and its allies stand for.

The fights these days grow intense. Absurd campaign finance laws prevent me from going into detail with you about the national fight for marriage now taking place deep in blue states, but in November the people of Washington, Minnesota, Maryland—and that one other blue state I can't mention legally—will decide the future of marriage in decisions that will reverberate to the Supreme Court.

Ted Olsen, who led the legal efforts challenging California's Proposition 8, is now desperately backpedalling, trying to keep the Court from reviewing his handiwork in that case. Why? Because he's afraid he will lose.

The case challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 is "an attractive vehicle" for determining "whether the States may discriminate against gay men and lesbians in the provision of marriage licenses" — but the Supreme Court should pass on the case, lawyers challenging the law say, and let stand an appeals court ruling that strikes down the 2008 amendment on narrow grounds.

But we know Who wins in the end, don't we?

Thank you for giving NOM the privilege—the absolute privilege—of being your voice for marriage.

We fight and we win because of what you have made possible.

I'm humbled and grateful for the opportunity to speak for the values we all hold dear—even more importantly, for the value God holds dear.

We will not stop. We will fight. And we will win!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Greetings from the great state of Florida, where marriage emerged from the platform fight with a great victory!

In the buildup to the RNC Convention in Tampa, the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud promised that a new generation of Margaret Hoover Republicans would help weaken the GOP's commitment to marriage.

This is part of a larger narrative of supposed inevitability that we always hear: "Support for gay marriage is growing everywhere."

Except when it's not.

The effort to get the GOP to retreat from marriage in Tampa was an epic fail for the seditious pro-gay marriage elites within the GOP!

The director of the Log Cabin Republicans, R. Clarke Cooper, told the Boston Globe in July that his group's goal was to convince Republicans to strike any "anti-gay language" from the platform—including any mention that marriage is a union of male and female or any other definition of marriage as a heterosexual union.

Even two weeks ago, Cooper was still holding out hope to the gay press that "progress" in eviscerating the marriage language would be made.

But in the end he and other gay marriage advocates were reduced to boasting that they were permitted to distribute literature, and calling that a victory. Well, gee! As I asked HuffPo—is that really the best they could do? I'm one of the strongest opponents of gay marriage around, and I don't oppose letting people distribute literature at Republican conventions!

And then GOProud actually boasted victory for giving what they thought was the coolest party attended by conservative luminaries in a Tampa gay bar complete with male go-go dancers. [Pictures from the event, like the one here, are floating around the internet. You can take a look and see if you think they have cause for such celebration!]

Well gee, if that's your victory, then good on you, guys!

Maybe their failure has something to do with another truth the media doesn't report: even gay people don't think gay marriage is their most urgent problem.

That's right: a new Harris interactive poll touted by GOProud shows just 6 percent of gay voters named same-sex marriage as their top issue!

Meanwhile, supporters of marriage can boast a truly substantive victory, as the platform language endorsed by the GOP—far from retreating or equivocating on marriage—is the strongest ever:

Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

A serious threat to our country's constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their institutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

We owe special thanks to Phyllis Schlafly, and also to Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, for all their hard work towards this great (and underreported) victory for marriage.

If you were here with me in Tampa, you wouldn't be surprised at marriage's triumph.

Walking the floor and speaking with delegates at the Convention, it's very apparent that (again counter to the media-narrative) marriage is an issue which totally unites the heart of the GOP—much to the frustration of my old buddy Fred Karger, who's been following me around with a camera hoping to catch me in something he considers a faux pas.

I don't think Fred's going to post the conversation I had with an Indian-American from Texas, one of many who came up to me to say he reads NOM's emails and blog, and that he's praying for me in particular and for all of us in this marriage fight.

The guy's Indian. He's Christian. He's also Texan. Which means he's speaking to me from under a gigantic cowboy hat. You gotta love America!

But if the media and Fred Karger did miss it, others have noticed this great victory for marriage.

Here's Rev. Owens, NOM's liason for outreach in the black community, on Christian Broadcasting News, speaking for a coalition of black pastors to thank the GOP for ensuring at least one party still stands strong for the "common sense and biblical understanding of marriage."

Several folks have given great speeches for marriage from the podium here this week, including Sen. Rick Santorum, whose theme was that we cannot shrink government unless we strengthen marriage and the family—and that support for each and every human life is not a "social issue," but a constitutional issue, part of America's founding creed.

"Marriage is disappearing in places where dependency is the highest," Senator Santorum said. "Most single mothers do heroic work and an amazing job raising their children. But if America is going to succeed we must stop the assault on marriage and the family in America today."

We also owe our thanks to Gov. Mike Huckabee for supporting marriage in his convention speech—but also for having me on his radio show this week! If you missed it, have a listen here:

Most impressive this week, perhaps, was Paul Ryan's touting of Mitt Romney's strong defense of marriage, in a speech that was supposed to be all about the economy. (In his own convention speech, Romney promised: "As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America's first liberty: the freedom of religion.") But Paul Ryan gave what was for many of us the clearest refutation of the idea the GOP is running from marriage or life because voters have changed their minds:

Mitt and I also go to different churches, but in any church the best kind of preaching is done by example, and I've been watching that example. The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable—not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman—he's a fine man, worthy of leading this good-hearted and optimistic country. Our faiths comes together in the same moral creed: we believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person there is hope; each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and the likeness of the Lord of life.

As Paul Ryan said, a time of choosing draws near. For marriage, as for life and religious liberty, the consequences of this election will be of unprecedented importance.

And the National Organization for Marriage will NOT be sitting on the sidelines!

This week, in a historic announcement, a group of social conservative organizations announced a new Life and Marriage Coalition, pledging to work together to make sure voters understand where the two candidates stand on the so-called "social issues" of life and marriage. In the joint press release on the Coalition's site, we explained:

[The coalition is] coordinating efforts in Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina to talk about the importance of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and supporting the sanctity of human life. Together, the groups hope to influence voters in key swing states that Barack Obama carried in 2008.

The Life and Marriage Coalition includes FRC Action, Susan B. Anthony List, the National Organization for Marriage, American Principles in Action, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, and Common Sense Issues. Combined efforts will include independent expenditures for radio advertisements, billboards, phone and bus tour events designed to educate and mobilize socially conservative voters in the three targeted states.

"For millions of Americans, this election is about more than the economy, it's about the direction our nation takes on foundational principles, like what constitutes marriage, and whether unborn children have a right to life," said Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage.

I'm also proud to announce this week NOM's first volley in this joint effort: a radio ad campaign in Raleigh, North Carolina, home to 40 percent of the black electorate. The ad urges black voters to tell President Obama "no more," and features the highly-respected black pastor Patrick Wooden. You can listen to it here:

It was the African American community that helped [President Obama] win here in North Carolina. But President Obama has turned his back on the values of our community with his strong endorsement of the homosexual movement. We worked hard to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment this past May. With the strong support of the African American community, the amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman passed overwhelmingly. The very next day, President Obama came out for homosexual marriage. Now his campaign leaders are working to deny North Carolina's ability to define marriage, and they want to overturn our state marriage amendment altogether. Join me in saying 'no more' to President Obama.

Our own internal polling shows that radio ads on marriage are extraordinarily effective, by the way. This is probably because your average voter, outside of church, hears so little in support of the common sense view that marriage means a husband and wife. So, they notice these ads and they respond!

North Carolina is a state that swung for Obama in 2008 by just 15,000 votes, out of 4 million total votes cast! Obama needed 95 percent of the black vote to eke out that victory! And in a state with 800,000 black voters, don't you think Rev. Wooden is probably going to change a few hearts and minds with this hard-hitting message? It's more than likely—it's certain!

And this is just the beginning of something big!

For the first time in American presidential politics, the American people are being offered a clear and unequivocal choice on the issue of marriage. And NOM intends to make sure voters understand that—and that politicians supporting gay marriage understand that it is a losing proposition!

One was of helping voters understand this is to keep reminding them of the consequences for us all that gay marriage entails. In Vermont these consequences were severe for the O'Reilly family, a Roman Catholic family who ran a small bed and breakfast, the Wildflower Inn. Facing backbreaking litigation threats from a gay couple (supported by the ACLU) who had wanted to get married at the bed and breakfast (which is, after all, the O'Reilly family's home as well as their business), Mr. and Mrs. O'Reilly agreed to pay $30,000 to the lesbian couple.

Vermont gay marriage law changed the O'Reilly family's lives. They must now host gay weddings, or pay a costly price. Remember the O'Reilly family when people tell you that gay marriage is not going to affect anyone at all except gay couples. Gay marriage has consequences for us all!

And while we are on the subject of intolerance, let me give a great shout out to my friend and colleague, Peter Wolfgang, who took over the Family Institute of Connecticut when I left to help found the National Organization for Marriage. Peter has been the subject of a horrific campaign of death threats since last Thanksgiving. If you want to see for yourself what I'm talking about, he's now posted some examples on his Facebook page.

Peter has been able to do this now because the gay activist who'd been threatening him has pled guilty in federal court to the harassment and the threats. LifeSiteNews reports:

One message read: "No mercy for homophobes. I suggest you make your funeral arrangements real soon, Mr. Wolfgang."

Another said, "I sure hope somebody blows you away. Yer dead."

Sarno once asked, "Are 'family values' worth dying for, Mr. Wolfgang?"

"Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident," Wolfgang said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. "In fact it is part of a growing and disturbing intimidation campaign among some proponents of same-sex 'marriage.' It is clear that their pretense of 'tolerance' is over."

When I ask you to pray for all the people on the front lines of the marriage fight, now you will know why.

But we do have good news to report, too: this on the New Family Structures Study published by Professor Mark Regnerus. The University of Texas found no evidence of "scientific misconduct" by Prof. Regnerus, despite the overwrought and hysterical allegation of a gay blogger named Scott Rose. (He's now moved on to trying to get the American Sociological Association to "discipline" Regnerus for doing a study with results of which he disapproves.) You can read more about it here. And another fierce critic of the study also found no violations of standard peer review process (although he remains, one might say hysterically critical, of the study).

If you're in the mood for a kinder, gentler gay marriage debate, without these hysterical and accusatory polemics, check out Maggie Gallagher debating co-author John Corvino on C-Span's Book TV (the new Oxford University Press book, Debating Same-sex Marriage, is available for purchase!):

Meanwhile, I have to thank Frank Schubert, NOM's National Political Director, for his account of my debate with Dan Savage, which Frank called "The Smackdown in Seattle!"

The debate lasted just over an hour. Some of you have already watched it in its entirety. But I realize that not everyone has the time in their busy schedule to watch the full debate, so I went through the video and picked out about ten minutes of highlights. Please take a few minutes to watch.

What you will see is a passionate, reasoned, articulate defense of marriage, and a presentation of the profound public good it serves. You will see Brian demolish Dan Savage's arguments that the bible cannot be believed when it comes to marriage. You will see Brian make a case about the inherent nature of marriage, and how that nature cannot be altered. It is what it is and it cannot be redefined. Gay "marriage" can never exist, Brian explains, because marriage is intrinsically the union of one man and one woman.

Defending marriage is in one sense easy. The truth doesn't change. All the media narratives cannot change the nature of marriage, nor the continuing evidence that the American people remain invested (with good sense) in the idea that marriage matters because children need a mom and a dad.

I promise you that we here at NOM will remain your voice for your values. Whether Democrat or Republican, whether black or white, whether evangelical Christian, or Mormon or Orthodox Jew, we will fight together for what's right—for God's truth about marriage—and we will, by His grace, WIN!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

At last it happened! The Great Brian Brown v. Dan Savage Dinner Table Debate actually took place!

The tape is now live. You can watch me take on Dan Savage here.

But first you should watch the MarriageADA interview with Julia Naman, one of the young teens whose faith Dan Savage decided to attack in an event billed as an anti-bullying initiative for middle and high school students.

Many of you have already watched our debate and blogged your comments or emailed me. I want to thank you!

One viewer wrote:

I found Mr. Savage to be articulate and informed, which made Brown's response the more awesome.

Brown clearly "won" the debate: He had tradition, logic, natural law, and modesty on his side, and was able to eloquently express this and made Savage look weak and pathetic. I do not dislike Savage, I felt genuine sorrow for him. Brown looked like the Patriarch and Savage came across like a teenager.

Of course not everybody who watches agrees; another guy just dashed off, "Brian Brown was destroyted [sic], per usual."

Please go watch and leave your own comments. I want to hear from you!

Let me first begin by saying thank you to Dan Savage for the invitation to come to his home and the chance to meet his partner and his child.

Dan has since told the moderator, Mark Oppenheimer, that he regrets having the event at his home because his role as host interfered with his full prosecution of me (and through me, all NOM supporters):

"Playing host put me in this position of treating Brian Brown like a guest," he said. "It was better in theory than in practice — it put me at a disadvantage during the debate, as the undertow of playing host resulted in my being more solicitous and considerate than I should've been. If I had it to do over again, I think I'd go with a hall."

So I want to make sure and thank Dan Savage and his partner for opening their home to me.

It's hard, when people feel as strongly as Dan Savage and I do, to acknowledge each other's fundamental dignity; the twin and complementary roles as host and guest is one way to accomplish keeping each other's dignity central, even when we strongly and fundamentally disagree on absolutely core moral issues.

So, unlike Dan, I do not regret meeting in his home, even though it contained moral constraints, and I am grateful to him for his hospitality.

One thing is very clear to me after the time we spent together: Dan Savage believes that gay people are "a tiny defenseless minority," as he said during the debate.

He made this claim while defending the public tongue-lashing of Christian students that brought us together. He doesn't seem to realize that his position as a 47 year old adult—one with the power of fame, celebrity and access to not only the White House, but also MTV—requires a new mentality.

With power comes responsibility, including the responsibility to show how you intend to use your newfound power.

A grown man does not accept an invitation to speak to middle- and high-school students and proceed to insult their faith, and to call them names when they show their objection in the only polite way possible, by politely leaving.

Dan has apologized for the latter, but not the former. As I told him face to face: "To have a bunch of high school students and attack their religious beliefs is not appropriate, it doesn't show respect."

He appears unable to process this point of view.

He has become a hero to a lot of gay people not only for the good he's done (like telling gay kids their lives are precious—don't commit suicide!), but in some cases because Dan Savage is willing to insult and demean those with whom he disagrees. He doesn't even acknowledge or see he is doing that, even as he does it!

Another commenter on the debate put it this way:

Wait, Savage doesn't think he was "bullying" because "bullying is the strong picking on the weak"? He really thinks the high school students he bullied from stage were the strong ones? Really?

I called for this debate with Dan Savage to show that I—with your support and help— that we would go anywhere to defend the principles that you and I hold dear.

On that level, this was a stunning success for us pro-marriage people. Another commenter had this to say:

And is this moderator objective? He suggests the title of this "debate" should be: Christianity is bad for LGBT Americans. Come on.

But this speaks volume[s] of the NOM president to step into the valley of the beast and take on this ideologue and (apparently) biased moderator.

The title and the leading topics of the debate were chosen by Dan Savage, not me. Thus, I went beyond the marriage arguments I often make in the public square and took the opportunity to defend the Bible from the most radical charge Dan Savage hurled—that the Bible is a radically pro-slavery document.

He uses that charge to undermine the moral authority of the Bible as the word of God. If it got slavery wrong, Dan maintains, what are the odds it gets human sexuality right? Zero, according to Dan Savage.

Savage wants to believe that he can reconcile his views with Christianity. He keeps telling Christians nothing will change for them if he gets his way: "I don't think LGBT Americans are asking American Christians to do anything you haven't already done. We know you can move because many Americans have already moved. "

And then he uses his growing power (personal and cultural) to argue that Christianity is wrong, the Bible is wrong, and retaining the traditional understanding of sex and marriage is bigotry because he says it's like picking and choosing which texts to believe. For Dan, there is no authoritative tradition in the Bible. Just like he gets to make up his theology on marriage, he gets to make up what Christians believe as well, and if we don't agree with him we are bigots.

I wasn't really too surprised by that.

But what did surprise me was his determined and, in my view, ignorant defense of the slavery charge.

As I told Dan face to face:

To say...that the Bible is a pro-slavery document is just point blank false. What you are essentially saying is your interpretation trumps that of Frederick Douglass, of Harriet Beecher Stowe, of William Wilberforce, of William Lloyd Garrison and all of the abolitionists, who pointed directly to the book of the Bible that you [use to] attempt to justify this notion that the bible is pro-slavery: Philemon. They all pointed to Philemon to say, look what Paul does: Paul...tells Philemon to take Onesimus back, not as a slave, but as a brother, a dear brother in Christ.

This gets to the heart of what Christianity is to the world and Christianity's view on traditional sexual morality. Christianity is, if anything, radical: it's radical in its view of human dignity, of the human dignity of each and every one of us.

Gay marriage is not like racism or interracial marriage.

Christian teaching and practice was never rooted in racism, but in the radical equality of all people and peoples before God. The American South, under slavery, was the exception to the rule—which is one reason why, when challenged, the belief that Christianity can justify not only slavery but also racism, failed abjectly and is now a dead idea. That was Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s great triumph.

But sexual morality and marriage are quite different. Here we have the broad consistent sweep of the authoritative teaching of Christ and the Christian church he founded, recorded in the Bible, and in Christian teaching and practice across the centuries. Here we have something core to the Christian faith, and as I told Dan Savage, it's not going to go away just because he doesn't like it:

The notion of the uniqueness of men and women is not some side thing in scripture, it's a key part of our view of humanity: that there are two halves of humanity, male and female, and that we complement each other, and that complementarity bears fruit in children, can bear fruit in children; that even without children the unitive nature of marriage brings together the two great halves of humanity. . . this is not something we will ever discard. We will always have this view. There will be Christians who always stand up for this view.

And they don't do so...because of any animus or hatred. They do so because they believe this is true; they believe that faith and reason are not at odds here, that scripture reinforces something that is true about human nature, and good, and beautiful.

Maggie says this is the part of my argument she found the most moving, so let me dwell on it a minute. After explaining Christianity's fundamental radicalness, I told Dan: "The reason I'm here is because I believe in your human dignity. I'm willing to come and argue with you because of my respect for you. This notion of equality before God, of us all having this dignity before God, is key to the scriptures."

The reason the Pope and the Catholic catechism condemn slavery, the reason the evangelical abolitionists worked so hard to end it, the reason the Civil War happened, the reason Martin Luther King, Jr.'s revolution in manners and mores triumphed is this: The Biblical idea of the radical dignity of all human beings. As I said in the debate, "This call we have to live out the Gospel message, of love, the call of creating a civilization of love, is not at odds with our idea of marriage. Scripture begins with a marriage, its middle point is the wedding feast at Cana, and it ends with the marriage feast of the Lamb."

On these truths, faith and reason support one another.

I went on to tell Dan in his own home: "What I see attempted here, and sometimes in other things you've said [is to make] those of us who know marriage...deserving of treatment less than others because we are bigots and we deserve what we get.... I don't think it furthers your argument and I think it's wrong."

He can't see his own aggressiveness.

Dan Savage called us here at NOM liars. He thinks we are telling lies, because we say things he doesn't believe.

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor'," he told me. "I do believe NOM is in the bearing false witness business and routinely bears false witness against LGBT people."

"NOM tends to do it through linking and surrogates," he said, echoing the absurd arguments of Scott Rose and now also Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Next, Dan went on to call the Regnerus study a lie and a NOM project (which is a total falsehood by the way). Certain members of the gay community, embraced and endorsed by as powerful a voice as Dan Savage's, are out trying to destroy a young scholar's career—not debating and refuting his study, or accepting the challenge of coming up with random samples of gay parents raising children as Regnerus did—but trying to end his career because he published a study in a peer-reviewed journal—but Dan absurdly claimed that this attempted destruction of Prof. Regnerus' career is our fault.

Something about that dynamic captures what we all see at work at this point in the gay marriage debate. Power is being exercised by a minority, which denies it has the power it is exercising, and denies what we see happening in front of us: this power is being used to label and demonize all who disagree, no matter how relentlessly civilized we are, no matter that we uphold gay people's real fundamental civil rights.

I promise you not one word comes out of my mouth, or the mouths of other leaders at NOM, that is not the truth, as best as I can see it. I may be wrong—any of us can be wrong—but we do not lie.

But to Dan, what you and I care about is all lies designed to hurt him and other gay people.

Sad. I don't know what to do about it.

I do know we cannot surrender an idea as important as marriage to people like Dan Savage.

We all have the right to choose how we live, as does Dan Savage. We do not have the right to use the power of government to redefine marriage in law and society.

The dangers of such an ideological shift in society are being seen now abroad: in France gay rights groups are protesting as homophobic (and a possible violation of hate speech laws) a prayer the Catholic bishops of France had their flock pray at Sunday mass. The prayer they see as homophobic asks God to hear the prayer of the faithful:

For children and youth, that all of us may help each one of them to find his own way to progress towards the good, that they cease to be the objects of the desires and the conflicts of adults, by benefiting completely from the love of a father and a mother.

Let me pose a question to the Dan Savages of the world. Once gay people were a powerless and defenseless minority. Now, you have organized, protested, and become powerful through the use of democratic freedoms and intellectual debate, a powerful cultural force in our time. What use do you intend to make of your power?

"Liberty when men act in groups is power," as Edmund Burke said, and before we congratulate them, or they congratulate themselves, it behooves us to look at what use they intend to make of the growing cultural power.

We should not forget in our culture war the individual dignity of each and every human soul. We shouldn't forget that it's hard to be gay in many places, that children are bullied and hurt, that we have to find a better (I would say more Christian) way to combine truth and love, to sustain our understanding of what's right while retaining compassion for human suffering, including the suffering of gay people. But when praying that kids "benefit completely from the love of a father and a mother" is labeled phobia and hate, there's something clearly wrong.

Thank you for all you've made possible. Thank you for your friendship, and your comradeship. Thank you for refuting in the way you live your life the lie that we who stand for God's truth about marriage are liars, haters and bigots. Thank you above all for obeying one of the most often repeated Biblical commands: Be not afraid!

This great work undertaken we will not abandon. We know who triumphs in the end.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

After a week dominated by the Chick-fil-A grassroots support movement there is more good news for marriage that you will never hear on the nightly news. Earlier this week another federal judge rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage!

A same-sex couple tried to get Hawaii's marriage laws struck down on the grounds that they are allegedly irrational and rooted in bias towards gay people.

Hawaii, you will recall, was the original seat of the litigation wars seeking to impose gay marriage upon the American people. The population of the blue state of Hawaii responded in 1998 by overwhelmingly passing (69 percent to 29 percent) the very first marriage amendment, clarifying that the legislature has the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now a federal judge has affirmed the right of the people of Hawaii to make that determination—and in the process rejected the argument that marriage is rooted in bias or bigotry:

"Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing.... It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure."

"In this situation," the court continued, "to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage 'would short-circuit' the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii."

Bottom line: "Because Hawaii's marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution."

The majority of courts, as well as the majority of citizens, recognize that our marriage laws are not rooted in hatred towards gay people or anyone else! I wish more gay marriage advocates could see this.

This same misperception was on display as the MSM tried to downplay Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, because there was no way to cover the story without showing the huge outpouring of support for marriage and for Dan Cathy's right to his opinion.
On Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day even Fox News' Shepard Smith went so far as to urge viewers to avoid "National Day of Intolerance":

Most Americans—even those who support gay marriage—simply do not buy the extremist rhetoric emanating from Chick-fil-A opponents that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, hateful and illegitimate.

Four big-city mayors, though—people with power—disgraced themselves by suggesting just that.

Rahm Emanuel, a former key White House official who is now mayor of Chicago, was in some ways the worst offender. His claim that Chick-fil-A violates something called "Chicago Values" produced pushback very close to home.

It was too much even for the very liberal Chicago Tribune:

Emanuel and [Chicago alderman] Moreno have changed their tone a bit over the last week, in the face of growing national criticism. But they are still exhibiting intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Moreno has called Cathy's comments "bigoted." Emanuel asserted, "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values."

Mayor, many of your constituents do not support same-sex marriage. They have a heartfelt view on this. They are not bigots. But you are telling them they don't belong in their city.

Take a moment to consider what Cardinal Francis George has written: "I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?"

Moreno seemed to spoil for a fight with the cardinal, calling his comments "disingenuous" and "irresponsible."

Emanuel and Moreno ought to recognize they are losing people across the political spectrum ... because they are being intolerant.

But not all were so perceptive: this display of intolerance by high government officials was actually praised by the major organizers of the gay marriage movement.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino eventually may have backtracked on his suggestion that he "...would prevent a Chick-fil-A franchise..." from opening in his city, but not before major mainstream gay rights groups endorsed and applauded his stance.

For instance, even as most Americans were uniting over a great chicken sandwich and the idea of tolerance for all, the Human Rights Campaign doubled down on using government power to exclude supporters of traditional marriage, calling on more public officials to express similar views to Menino's.

The HRC said, and I quote:

We applaud Mayor Menino for calling out Chick-fil-A's anti-LGBT practices. We have been asking people to make their own decisions about whether to continue supporting Chick-fil-A based on the facts available, and Mayor Menino has done just that. Mayor Menino's rebuke of Chick-fil-A sends a strong messages[sic] that their habit of supporting hateful organizations that demonize LGBT Americans are out-of-step with not just Bostonians, but the majority of fair-minded Americans. Chick-fil-A is on the wrong side of history, and we look forward to seeing more and more elected officials and businesses speak out against their discriminatory practices.

Meanwhile, far from backing down, a major Chicago gay rights group filed multiple human rights complaints against Chick-fil-A charging that Cathy's personal views violate Illinois civil rights laws.

Ironically, Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda, said in their press release announcing the filing of the complaint, that Chick-fil-A used to be one of the family's "favorite places to eat" until Cathy's statements made them feel "completely unwelcome."

Yet, Chick-fil-A has made clear that its policy is welcoming to everyone: the only one excluding Martinez from eating there is Martinez himself and those like him, who are blinded by intolerance in the public square to any opposing views.

I think the Chicago Tribune is right: the gay marriage movement is increasingly demonstrating that the power it has is not going to be used to expand the liberty of all but to suppress dissent.

While Rahm Emanuel charges ahead, President Obama is being curiously silent, not only about Chick-fil-A, but about reports that the Democrats are going to endorse gay marriage in the party platform: Susan Crabtree of the Washington Times reports:

Democrats are asking supporters to "stand with" President Obama and the Democratic Party in solidarity on gay marriage — even though the White House and Mr. Obama's campaign repeatedly have declined to say whether the president supports efforts to write a gay-marriage plank in the party's platform.

In an opening line of an email to supporters with the subject line "Are You Proud?" Mike Ryan, the policy director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is clearly excited about the efforts to include a gay-marriage plank in the party's platform this year.

"The Democratic National Convention is moving forward with a plank embracing marriage equality as part of our 2012 platform!" he writes.

Both the White House and the President's campaign have declined to say whether the President supports adding the plank, or whether he believes doing so would hurt Democratic candidates in swing states.

Enthusiastic private fundraising emails combined with public silence in the mainstream media: what does that tell us? It tells us that the White House knows support for gay marriage is not a winner with the public.

WaPo's The Fix confirms this fact:

Americans remain just as divided on gay marriage as they were before President Obama's announcement in early May he now publicly supported it.

The Pew Research Center poll shows views of gay marriage remain basically unchanged since April, right before Obama announced his support for gay marriage — a reversal from his past public opposition. Support has gone from 47 percent to 48 percent since April, while opposition ticked up from 43 percent to 44 percent. Neither is even close to statistically significant."

More significantly, one-third of Democrats continue to oppose gay marriage, and 14 percent say they do so strongly.

Rev. Bill Owens (who serves as NOM's liaison to the black churches) and his wife Deborah have been organizing black pastors who oppose gay marriage as leaders of the Coalition of African American Pastors.

With support for same-sex marriage lagging in the black community, we expect more major hit pieces like Lisa Miller's in the Washington Post: Miller accused Rev. Owens, who has organized a distinguished group of black pastors in three different press conferences, of being merely "astroturf".

But the MSM cannot change the facts:  large numbers of Americans, including black Christians who are core Democrats, are very disturbed by President Obama's stance endorsing gay marriage, and they are calling on him to be faithful to their views and values.

Here's a Scripps Howard story, one of many on the black pastors organizing effort:

Support for same-sex marriage is now in the Democratic Party preliminary platform. Once approved by the full platform committee and voted on at the convention, same-sex marriage will have the party's formal support.

But as Democrats institutionalize their support for same sex-marriage, their relationship with the party's most loyal constituency, black Americans, becomes increasingly uneasy.

A new survey just released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows 65 percent of Democrats support same-sex marriage compared to just 40 percent of blacks.

A group of 3,700-plus black pastors, the Coalition of African-American Pastors, under the leadership of the Rev. William Owens, has moved to formally oppose the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama on this issue.

The group is spearheading a "Mandate for Marriage" campaign to gather 100,000 signatures on a petition declaring support for traditional marriage. The petition also calls for Obama "to repudiate his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right."

We will continue to work with people of all races, creeds, and political parties who support marriage.

Thank you for all you've made possible.  With God's help, we will continue to stand—and not only stand, but triumph!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

What a day! Thanks to all of you who made yesterday's Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day such a resounding success!

Over 665,000 people responded on Governor Mike Huckabee's Facebook event page saying they would visit Chick-fil-A on Wednesday. Media outlets across the nation carried the story. Chick-fil-A locations were swamped with customers.

My inbox was flooded with hundreds of pictures from all across the nation yesterday. Click here to see just a small sampling of the tremendous outpouring of support Americans gave the Cathy family yesterday.

We will be updating these throughout the next several days, so please continue to send in your Chick-fil-A pictures and stories to NOMCF@nationformarriage.org.

Let's keep the momentum going! Dan Cathy put his reputation and livelihood on the line when he stood up for marriage. Yesterday, we told him in concrete terms that we support his remarkable courage. Today we must continue to uphold him and his family as they continue to take fire from same-sex marriage supporters.

If you have not already done so, please visit www.ThankChickfilA.com and send the Cathy family a letter of appreciation for their commitment to marriage. If you have a chance to swing by a Chick-fil-A branch over the next couple of weeks, make a point to stop in and purchase even a small snack so that the Cathy family knows that we continue to stand with them. Let the manager know why you're there, and be sure to let us know, too!

Marriage Making National News

Chick-fil-A rules the roost this week in terms of the top news in the battle over marriage.

Rush Limbaugh chimed in recently with his typical passion and candor on the unconstitutional actions of several big city mayors who told Chick-fil-A—and, implicitly, any business that values free speech or stands for traditional values—that there are not welcome in these mayors' cities:

What do we have? We have two mayors who are essentially Stalinist, who have had no problem whatsoever—not one problem at all—with going before the microphones and telling an American business, "You are not welcome here. And if you come here, you will be penalized or whatever the hell will happen." All because the guy who owns the outfit happens to be a publicly professed Christian who believes that "marriage" has a specific definition.... This is a direct assault. That's a direct assault on Christianity. That is a direct assault on Christians. With economic punishment thrown in including threats from government officials that are in clear violation of the Constitution.

Thank you, Rush, for recognizing that these attacks on Chick-fil-A are simply the latest in a series of assaults on freedom of speech for Christians and those of other faiths who believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. These attacks on religious freedom will only continue and increase in frequency and boldness, if the pro-gay marriage radicals have their way and impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

Another voice heard from lately is Rick Santorum, a longtime ardent supporter of marriage; The Blaze reported Santorum's appearance on CNBC as the former Senator spoke up strongly in support of marriage and against the radical mayors' recent attacks on free speech.

"You just keep seeing this more and more, which is the absolute intolerance of the left in America. There can be no dissent from what their position is," he said on "The Kudlow Report."

The idea that the company would face pressure for its leader's beliefs was antithetical to the idea of the United States.

"This is why the Hugenots came to America," Santorum said, adding the Dutch Reform Church and Catholics to that list.

"They didn't want the government telling them what to believe and that they couldn't say things in public, that they had to keep it to themselves," he said, or be "barred from doing business."

Reverend Billy Graham has ministered to presidents and to peasants. He has shared Truth for decades with everyone who would listen. Earlier this spring he came out strongly in support of the North Carolina marriage amendment because it was in keeping with God's plan for marriage. Last week Rev. Graham shared his own statement in support of the Cathy family and marriage.

I want to express my support for my good friends Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy, and for their strong stand for the Christian faith. I've known their family for many years and have watched them grow Chick-fil-A into one of the best businesses in America while never compromising their values. Chick-fil-A serves each of its customers with excellence, and treats everyone like a neighbor. It's easy to see why Chick-fil-A has become so popular across America.

Support for marriage is not about hatred. It is about recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and woman because children have a right to their mother and father. Dan Cathy realizes this truth. Whether a liberal or conservative, anyone can understand why Mr. Cathy ought to have the right to share his personal opinions. The latest attacks on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A in the name of "tolerance" are constitutionally indefensible, and just the latest egregious example of the extremes to which anti-marriage radicals will go in an effort to silence those who disagree with them.

But the American people won't stand for it!

Supporting Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A has been a wonderful opportunity to engage people in the discussion over how same-sex marriage threatens the religious freedom of Christians and the freedom of speech of all Americans who support marriage. Imagine how this situation would be different if same-sex marriage were the law of the land!

Two Simple Actions to Continue Our Success

There are two favors I have to ask of you today.

First, please keep up your support for the Cathy family and Chick-fil-A as they continue to be targeted by same-sex marriage activists. This Friday around the nation, same-sex marriage activists will be hosting their own protest event at Chick-fil-A restaurants—"Same-Sex Kiss Day."

So, the Cathys need our continued prayers and encouragement—after all, threats to their constitutional freedoms aren't going to disappear because of just one day of great sales. A quick visit to www.thankchickfila.com is all that it takes: do you have thirty seconds to sign the letter to the Cathys and stand in solidarity with them to support marriage?

Second, I would ask you to do is to please pray for our founder and friend Maggie Gallagher. Maggie recently stepped down from the NOM board to care for her mother, who is in hospice. Please pray for her and her family.

Please take a moment and send an email to Maggie letting her know that she and her family are in your prayers. Send the message to us at contact@nationformarriage.org and we'll make sure she receives your letter.

Let's all pray for each other as we continue together to stand on the front lines of this fight for marriage!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Victory! Chick-fil-A Feels Your Love!

In response to the open hatred and threats directed at the Cathy family for gently saying they stand on Biblical principles (including on marriage), Gov. Huckabee called for a day honoring the restaurant chain and the heroic family who founded Chick-fil-A in 1946. That day will be August 1, 2012—next Wednesday, "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day," and we're expecting a great success, based on the great showing at our own "National Eat at Chick-fil-A Day" this past Wednesday.

Our co-founder, Maggie Gallagher, happened to be listening to Gov. Huckabee's radio show when he called for such an event, and immediately she called me up to ask: "Is this something NOM should jump on board with?"

"Yes," I said. And we got right to work communicating to our 500,000 strong list of marriage supporters.

And boy did you respond!

Photos and testimonials have poured in from across the country on the packed turnout at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday.

NOM's own Thomas Peters visited the DC Chick-fil-A food truck and reported packed lines the whole lunch hour.

A DC supporter who arrived later said the truck had sold out of sandwiches! (She opted for chicken nuggets instead.)

A NOM supporter from Alabama sent this photo along with this description: "I tried to eat at Chick-fil-A today, but the Homewood, AL location was too crowded! What the photo doesn't show is the back-up behind the camera and the packed shopping center parking lot adjacent to the restaurant. Jam packed."

Meanwhile a NOM supporter from St. Louis wrote us: "I've never seen a fast food restaurant as busy as the Chick-fil-A here in St. Louis today."

Eat Mor Chikin!

I went on Gov. Huckabee's radio program on Wednesday to promote National Eat at Chick-fil-A day! You can listen to me here.

I want to thank Gov. Huckabee publically for stepping forward on behalf of not only the Cathy family, but millions of other decent, loving, law-abiding American citizens who believe marriage is, and ought to remain in law and culture, the union of one man with one woman.

Gov. Huckabee also had some very kind words to say about me and NOM and I want to thank him for that too:

Brian, thank you, and my thanks also to the National Organization for Marriage, a highly-respected family organization that has been willing to courageously show leadership in states where there have been ballot measures to not change something but rather to leave something alone, to simply allow us to continue in the traditional view of marriage.

Seeing how this past Wednesday was such a success, we're determined to make next Wednesday, August 1 even bigger!

We are joining Gov. Huckabee in extending the love: Wednesday August 1 will be "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day"—an even bigger tribute of love to the Cathy family for all their good works to so many charitable and Christian organizations, their courage in refusing to back down from Biblical principles (including marriage), and of course for their fabulous chicken sandwiches!

So, if you can, do me a favor: go to Chick-fil-A next Wednesday and take your cell phone! Snap a photo of the crowd and send it to us care of NOM's Corporate Fairness director Jonathan Baker. You can reach Jonathan at NOMCF@nationformarriage.org. (Send Jonathan a message to let him know how this past Wednesday's National Eat at Chick-fil-A Day went, too!) Together, we're going to show that the majority of Americans stand behind Chick-fil-A and the Cathy family!

On the other side, though, the attacks are escalating, getting meaner, and now even involve threats from government officials to punish a legitimate business because of the political and religious views of its founders.

Of all the hatred being launched at Chick-fil-A, Hollywood's special brand takes the prize for being the most hysterical. Actress and former Green Party presidential candidate Roseanne Barr tweeted that she hopes Chick-fil-A customers get cancer and die, Twitchy reports.

Warning: her original message was totally foul-mouthed of course. The part that is printable said a customer "deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ, (sic)" she tweeted Wednesday.

Referencing tweets Barr sent to another Twitter user, Twitchy said, "Roseanne believes parents who feed their kids food from Chick-fil-A are child abusers."

Later, she posted a sort of apology, claiming she was only stating her opinions about the health qualities of the fast food chain.

"Too late everyone has seen the screencap and they know you are lying," one person wrote.

"That's not what you said. Now you're just lying to cover for your hate," wrote another.

Somewhere the gay marriage movement, which likes to imagine itself following in the footsteps of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.— preaching tolerance, love and respect—is getting seriously off message here.

But hate-filled Hollywood rants aren't even the worst of it.

In several spots throughout the nation, the ugly specter of abusing government power to block Chick-fil-A's business has been raised.

In Mountain View, California, it is private citizens who are trying to misuse the government's zoning power to block a Chick-fil-A franchise from opening.

According to the Huffington Post, area resident David Speakman (one-half of the first gay married in Santa Clara in 2008) posted an online petition on fundraising site WePay looking to gather the $1,000 necessary to lodge a zoning challenge to stop the franchise from moving in. Speakman made it clear that it was Dan Cathy's statement that he supports the Biblical understanding of marriage that was triggering his attempt to use zoning laws to block the Chick-fil-A (which is seeking to take over property which previously housed a Sizzler restaurant).

"We're pro-business and pro-growth, but businesses that move here have to reflect our community," Speakman added to the Palo Alto Daily News. "If they're going to be offensive to our friends and family who happen to by gay or lesbian, we're going to look at them a little bit harder and make sure they follow the rules."

But it gets even worse than private citizens trying to misuse laws to raise obstacles for political reasons.

What we have right now are powerful government officials announcing to the press that they are going to try to block a legitimate, law-abiding business because its owners don't share their political views on marriage.

The first out of the box was Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino, who threatened Chick-fil-A saying that it would be "very difficult" for the franchise to get licenses in Boston, according to the Boston Herald.

Mayor Menino's actual letter was angry and insulting—not just to Chick-fil-A and its customers, but to every person in the city of Boston (and around the nation) who does not support same-sex marriage. I would also argue that it is insulting to gay people who are portrayed as incapable of tolerating the sight of a fast food franchise whose owners do not support same-sex marriage:

I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples here to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick fil-A across the street from that spot.

Menino's call was then picked up by a Chicago Alderman, whose position in turn was (unsurprisingly) affirmed by Chicago's politically well-connected Mayor Rahm Emmanuel.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times:

"Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values," [Mayor]Emanuel said Wednesday.

"What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it's not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope ... is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO's comments ... reflects who we are as a city."

Ald. Joe Moreno (1st) is using the same argument to block Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing restaurant in Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood.

Chick-fil-A already has one Chicago store—at 30 E. Chicago near Loyola University's downtown campus.

"Same sex marriage, same-sex couples—that's the civil rights fight of our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is just not something that we're open to. ...We want responsible businesses," Moreno said."

No business unless it reflects "Chicago values"—Rahm Emmanuel's hammer-fisted values. The good news is that this blatant attempt to use government power to punish individual's businesses for their personal speech is provoking some backlash, even among gay marriage supporters.

The Los Angeles Times editorialized:

... [Mayor of Boston Tom] Menino suggested that it would be appropriate to block the chain from opening in Boston because Cathy's views amount to discrimination. That would rightly apply if Chick-fil-A were to refuse service to gay customers; the city has a right and an obligation to prevent discriminatory actions against its residents and visitors. But there's no evidence that any such thing has occurred.

Menino referred derisively to Chick-fil-A's possible plans to open a restaurant along the city's Freedom Trail, considering Cathy's stand on marriage freedom. That too misreads law and history. It was the freedom to express politically unpopular views and to oppose such views that the Founding Fathers fought to establish.

Chicago Tribune columnist Erich Zorn, who reveals that he is pro-gay marriage, just weighed in as well:

It plainly offends the spirit of the Constitution—and sets a horrible precedent—for public officials at any level to punish otherwise legal forms of speech with arbitrary exercises of government power.

He supports the idea of a consumer boycott of Chick-fil-A, but he draws a line (and I'm glad to know there still is a line somewhere that at least some gay marriage advocates draw!) against government officials persecuting private business owners for their beliefs:

Don't shop at stores or eat at restaurants where the owners proudly embrace or fund positions with which you disagree. Put your money where someone else's mouth is. Picket on the sidewalk out front if you like. Just don't ask The Man to do the dirty work of attempting to marginalize and silence your opponents... .I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to sell chicken sandwiches in order to make money to help you say it.

Mary Mitchell, an African-American columnist at the Chicago Sun Times who describes herself as moderately pro-gay marriage, called the precedent "dangerous":

Moreno is attempting to deny Chick-fil-A the right to do business in the 1st Ward because he doesn't like Cathy's religious beliefs, and that's just wrong.

Do these same rules apply to business owners that are Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses? I mean, what the heck happened to religious freedom?
People have a choice of not patronizing this fast food restaurant.

But the city shouldn't be bullying this CEO because an alderman disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible.

If this is allowed, what's next?

But she also pointed out the hypocrisy, in her view, of government officials prioritizing the Chick-fil-A harassment over issues of real concern to the African-American community in Chicago:

Quite frankly, the level of outrage over Cathy's comments is insulting when you consider Chicago's bar scene.

As long as I can recall, bars on the North Side and on Division Street have used bogus dress codes to keep African Americans out of trendy clubs. . . .

Although most people know these so-called dress codes are used discriminatorily, elected officials haven't said a word, and nothing has changed.

But the very idea that Cathy would not support same-sex marriage has put this business owner at the mercy of our City Council.

Gov. Huckabee's high profile position has helped call real attention to an ongoing outrage—and, with your help, brought a tremendous outpouring of love to the Cathy's this Wednesday. Thank you.

I should also note the outpouring of love might have been even bigger except for a successful attempt to shut down Gov. Huckabee's Chick-fil-A tribute page on Facebook, which had generated nearly one million people sending invites to their friends and 100,000 American pledging to eat at Chick-fil-A Wednesday—before suddenly vanishing on Monday.

Gov. Huckabee has a big megaphone. So Facebook responded by restoring his Facebook page, after 13 hours of shutdown. Gov. Huckabee said Facebook originally told him it was a "content" issue, but later blamed a failure of its "spam prevention" mechanisms and apologized.

Approximately 13 hours after deleting an online invitation from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee asking people to show support for Chick-fil-A on Aug. 1, Facebook restored the page around midnight Tuesday....

Huckabee said that explanation was "more thorough" than the one Facebook provided him on Tuesday; the company said it was a "content" issue.

That "was remarkable to us, because the content was not offensive," Huckabee told CitizenLink. "It was not asking anyone to do anything violent, unholy or unhealthy to anyone. It was simply expressing affirmation to the Chick-fil-A company. Interestingly, while that site was pulled down, the site that the militant homosexual groups had put up, which was Same-Sex Kiss Day to happen on Aug. 3 at Chick-fil-A restaurants, was left up."

The incident, however, highlighted the uncivil nature of the debate over same-sex marriage, Huckabee said:

"I think it's a very clear indication of what we're up against in this culture," he explained. "When a person who affirms a Christian worldview—by the way, the same view that Barack Obama held until just a few months ago, when he needed the campaign contributions of the gay community, the same position that Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden held when they ran for president—that position is somehow offensive, even though it represents the will of the people in 31 out of 31 states where it's been on the ballot.

Gov Huckabee confessed he had no particular desire to get in the middle of a food fight with the gay marriage community. But he now can see the writing on the wall:

I never really wanted to get in the middle of this, but I also know that when believers stand back and say nothing when their convictions are just ridiculed—and not only ridiculed but seemingly driven out of the public square—this is what ought to be frightening to us," he added. "It's one thing for our views to be ridiculed, but to have them silenced and censored, either by economic pressure and bullying, or by just outright pulling the plug on them and not giving voice to them in a public forum—that ought to scare the daylights out of people.

An update on the situation of Prof. Mark Regnerus, another perfectly honorable American who has had the temerity to refuse to shut down his "business"—scholarship—in deference to gay marriage activists.

The Weekly Standard published a report on the price this sociologist is paying for conducting a study that was published in a peer-reviewed journal that had outcomes gay marriage activist don't like.

"On the phone, Mark Regnerus sounds a little shellshocked. Professional sociologists hardly ever sound shellshocked.

"I knew it would be controversial," he says. "But this is worse than I ever could have imagined."

"It refers to a scholarly paper Regnerus published last month. This is the hell that broke loose as a result," writes the Weekly Standard's Andy Ferguson:

As of mid-July, a month after his paper was published, these are some of the things that have happened to Mark Regnerus. Three of his colleagues in the sociology department at UT joined with a fourth to -publish a widely distributed op-ed in the Huffington Post accusing him of "besmirching" the university through his "irresponsible and reckless misrepresentation of social science research." Led by Gary Gates, the UCLA demographer who had declined Regnerus's offer to help design the study, more than 200 "researchers and scholars" signed a letter to the editor of Social Science Research. The letter demanded that the editor "publicly disclose the reasons" why he published the paper and insisted that he hire scholars more sensitive to "LGBT parenting issues" to write a critique for the journal's next edition. UT's Director of Research Integrity sent Regnerus a letter informing him that a formal complaint of "scientific misconduct" had been lodged against him. The complaint, made by a gay blogger/activist/"investigative journalist" called Scott Rose, triggered an official inquiry into Regnerus's research methods and his relationship with the Witherspoon Foundation; he's now preparing to appear before a panel of faculty investigators. Requests have been filed with the Texas attorney general's office demanding that Regnerus, as an employee of a state-run institution, make public all email and correspondence related to his study. And he has hired a lawyer.

We hope, believe and pray that the scholarly community will stand up to this blatant attempt to harass and hinder the academic process. But this is about more than Prof. Regnerus, as Ferguson notes:

"As several of Regnerus's allies point out, the professional intimidation of Mark Regnerus isn't about Mark Regnerus—it's about the next researcher who might attempt a study of gay parenting. The guild has put that poor fellow, crouching under his desk, on notice: Only some findings will be acceptable. ("That's a nice little tenure-track job you got there. We'd hate for something to happen to it...")

Here's my takeaway from these two experiences. Many people, especially Christians, would like to get out of the ugly culture war we find ourselves in. We'd like to be able to present a consistent loving message of Christ's love without drawing this kind of fire.

That's totally understandable and I do not know what any individual Christian (or nonbeliever!) is called on to do. But what's becoming apparent to many more people, through the public and open use of tactics like these, that what we are being asked to do is not express sympathy for the legitimate sufferings of gay people, our fellow citizens.

We are being asked to cower in fear and suppress the Bible's understanding of marriage---or face an avalanche of hatred and harassment.

As the stakes become clearer, the number of people willing to stand up to the tactics of a handful of gay marriage advocates is actually beginning to grow.

Meanwhile the American people, with their customary good sense, continue to express surprisingly powerful support for marriage as the union of husband and wife.

I could tell you many bits of evidence, but let me leave you with this bit of good news from Minnesota.

A new SurveyUSA poll asked voters how they would vote on Minnesota's marriage amendment.

"An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?"

The support for the Biblical definition of marriage was surprisingly high across the board.

Encouraging.

Men support the Amendment: 53%-37%
Women support: 52%-36%
Age 18-34 support 50%-44%
Independents support: 48%-42%
Twin Cities supports: 49%-40%

Please pray for everyone fighting to protect marriage who is willing to stand up and say so.

And thank you for your courage and your fellowship.

I want to especially take a moment to thank the gay citizens, and pro-gay marriage supporters who have written to me to say they dislike and disapprove of the hatred and the harassment directed at citizens with whom they disagree.

Pray for them too, would you? And for every decent, loving law-abiding American who understands that open hatred is a confession you do not have an argument.

We need reason and faith, truth and love, and in the end we need each other.
God bless you and thank-you!

Remember: Eat Mor Chikin next Wednesday!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It's not the criticism, it's the death threats that have apparently scared Brad Pitt's mom into silence after (as we told you last week) she wrote a letter to the editor urging her fellow Missouri Christians to vote for Romney based on shared moral values, including opposition to gay marriage.

However, these ugly attacks have a silver lining. They've brought one more celebrity voice for marriage onto the stage, Academy Award winning actor Jon Voight (the father of Angelina Jolie, aka Mrs. Brad Pitt).

"Good for her," Voight told FOX411's Pop Tarts column, adding that he agrees with the points-of-view expressed by Jane Pitt.

(Totally irrelevant digression: Jon Voight's brother and Angelina's uncle is Chip Taylor, the singer/songwriter responsible for the hits "Wild Thing" and "Angel in the Morning." That's a lot of diverse talent for one family!).

The rarity of celebrities speaking up for marriage underscores the courage it took for Kirk Cameron to stand firm. His focus has always been helping husbands and wives build happy and faith-filled marriages. The gay marriage issue is not something he typically concentrates on; but when he was asked his opinion, he gave it. And when the furor ensued, he did not back down.

If you missed Kirk Cameron's interview with Damian Goddard, NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance spokesman, take a look. You will like what you see.

Fact: It requires courage to speak out for marriage, and more
courageous voices are joining in—over 12,000 pro-marriage people said
they supported Cameron's message when we shared it on our Facebook page!

More marriage heroes are standing up.
Witness Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A whose commitment to his faith has landed him at the center of a trumped-up controversy. Here's Dan speaking up for marriage in the Baptist Press:

"We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business...our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

After dealing with a gay rights boycott based solely on one franchise owner's decision to donate chicken sandwiches to couples attending a marriage education workshop sponsored by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Dan Cathy still is not backing down.

That boycott was spectacularly unsuccessful, by the way, as Get Equal's spokesperson more or less admitted to the Atlanta Constitution Journal this week.

"We've moved on," said Heather Cronk, managing director of Get Equal, a national LGBT rights organization that has initiated previous boycotts of the chain. But Cronk added that while many in the gay community already choose not to eat at Chick-fil-A, the latest statements may influence "some of our straight allies who may decide to go somewhere else."

Dream on, Heather.

In a prepared statement, emailed Wednesday evening to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chick-fil-A spokesman Don Perry said:

"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of belief, creed and sexual orientation," the statement said. "We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

In his own words, Perry said, "There is no change of course in our previously stated Chick-fil-A position."

Thanks to the Cathy family for all they've accomplished: for their wide-ranging philanthropy; for their special commitment to marriage education that builds strong families; and—not least of all—for all those great chicken sandwiches!

Julie Goodridge, one half of the lead plaintiffs in the court case that launched gay marriage in America (in Massachusetts), has just cut a video for a liberal Super PAC slamming Romney for opposing gay marriage:

"Mitt Romney did everything he could do to block gay marriage," Julie Goodridge testifies.

(You can see her video released by a liberal Super PAC here.)

She was appalled when Gov. Romney refused to answer her question: "Gov. Romney, what would you suggest I say to my 8-year-old daughter about why we can't get married?"

(A few years later the Goodridges filed for divorce but I won't ask how they explained that to their daughter, given how important marriage allegedly was to her.)

This is one video that is going to help Gov. Romney, I'm predicting. Share it with your friends.

Let me close by sharing with you two important and very different essays you may want to read.

The first is by NOM's founding Chairman of the Board, Prof. Robert George, over at Public Discourse.

It's called "Marriage, Religious Liberty and the ‘Grand Bargain'."

Prof. George speaks to the recurrent belief among some Christians that it is possible to conduct some kind of grand bargain or great compromise on the marriage issue, surrendering marriage in exchange for promises that religious liberty will be respected.

There are a lot of reasons why that strategy doesn't work. For one thing, as Maggie has pointed out in the past, that's not the way culture works. There is no-one with whom you can sign a deal who will permanently protect our religious rights, once we concede that our position on marriage is not publicly defensible.

But the strategy doesn't work on a fundamental level either, as Prof. George points out:

[A]dvocates of redefinition are increasingly open in saying that they do not see these disputes about sex and marriage as honest disagreements among reasonable people of goodwill. They are, rather, battles between the forces of reason, enlightenment, and equality—those who would "expand the circle of inclusion"—on one side, and those of ignorance, bigotry, and discrimination—those who would exclude people out of "animus"—on the other. The "excluders" are to be treated just as racists are treated—since they are the equivalent of racists. Of course, we (in the United States, at least) don't put racists in jail for expressing their opinions—we respect the First Amendment; but we don't hesitate to stigmatize them and impose various forms of social and even civil disability upon them and their institutions. In the name of "marriage equality" and "non-discrimination," liberty—especially religious liberty and the liberty of conscience—and genuine equality are undermined.

The fundamental error made by some supporters of conjugal marriage was and is, I believe, to imagine that a grand bargain could be struck with their opponents: "We will accept the legal redefinition of marriage; you will respect our right to act on our consciences without penalty, discrimination, or civil disabilities of any type. Same-sex partners will get marriage licenses, but no one will be forced for any reason to recognize those marriages or suffer discrimination or disabilities for declining to recognize them." There was never any hope of such a bargain being accepted. Perhaps parts of such a bargain would be accepted by liberal forces temporarily for strategic or tactical reasons, as part of the political project of getting marriage redefined; but guarantees of religious liberty and non-discrimination for people who cannot in conscience accept same-sex marriage could then be eroded and eventually removed. After all, "full equality" requires that no quarter be given to the "bigots" who want to engage in "discrimination" (people with a "separate but equal" mindset) in the name of their retrograde religious beliefs. "Dignitarian" harm must be opposed as resolutely as more palpable forms of harm.

Ideas have consequences.

If you want to know why I think marriage is an idea worth fighting for, read another essay published this week in the American Conservative.

It is by a son of a single mom, about why we cannot just give up on another part of the marriage fight: the fight for the idea that children need their mom AND dad.

He's reacting to Katie Rophie's calls to stop criticizing single motherhood because it hurts feisty women struggling to raise children on their own.

There are some things only a child of a single-mother could tell you about single motherhood.

...As a single mother, helping to take care of her parents and her son, she wasn't in a position to make men be courtly with her. So she stopped trying. That was the sexual revolution for her. Men willing to sleep with her, but not willing to build a family.

...Obviously all the social science the Times presents in its article point to a basic truth: broken homes divide and scatter resources...

Not having a father around meant I took on more student debt than I would have otherwise. It meant I would be recalled from college to do things around the house on the weekend, or I would come home just to make sure she was alright and make sure she spent time with someone. Instead of her helping me start life financially, I was helping her manage her mortgage payment, or paying for a new water-heater. I was happy to do so when I could...

Helping her meant diminished resources for starting my own family when it came time. It also meant that there was no one else to manage things when she became sick and died last year.

My young childhood and adolescence (maybe my whole life) was wrapped up in searching for substitute father figures: uncles, neighbors, teachers, professors, priests, even God. I know I'm not alone in this. This state of life makes one especially vulnerable to peers and to predators. I survived just fine, others in similar situations don't.

Pointing to these truths does not undermine the dignity of every single mom struggling to raise her children alone, he points out.

"Did my mother live a life of dignity? Yes, of course. She fought so much for what little she had, and cared for me almost recklessly. ...I remember telling myself little fantasies as a child and a young man, that my home, peaceful and harmonious if strapped, was probably better than the bickering and arguing and likely divorce that came with having two parents around. As if the only alternative to homes like mine are ones filled with resentment, yelling, and domestic abuse.

Writing checks, delivering take-out dinners, and trying to fit in 20 minutes of quality time with my empty-nester mom shook those fantasies out of me. We told ourselves all sorts of things while I was growing up, but my mother would have been happier, healthier, and more secure with a man to love, and with one who loved her. She would have had more of that if she had more children too.

He concludes, "Just because I turned out fine doesn't mean that everything is fine."

I read his essay as a child of divorce, lucky enough to have a mom and dad who both remained closely involved in my life.

But like him, I remain committed to building something better for my children and for my children's children: An America which understands that children need their mothers and fathers; which expects adults to make sacrifices, if necessary, to achieve that good goal; which raises men to take fatherhood seriously and to understand the only decent path to fatherhood is to become a husband, and to take care of his children and their mother too.

That's the cause for which we fight. That's the idea we cannot abandon.

Bless you for your own courage and faithfulness. It means so much to me. You are what, God willing, has made our good fight—and our victories—possible.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Gov. Mitt Romney spoke this week at the 103rd national convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

A powerful majority of African-Americans are strong Democrats (and economic liberals), so, while I hardly think it is news, the headlines have focused on the fact that the crowd did not like it when Romney said he would repeal Obamacare.

Meanwhile, what was the biggest applause line for Gov. Romney? It was the strong stance he took for marriage, when he said:

A study by the Brookings Institution has shown that for those that graduate from high school, who get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of becoming poor is two percent. And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76%," said Gov. Romney, "Here at the NAACP you understand the deep and lasting difference that family makes. [...] Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country and that must be our goal. As President I will promote strong families and I will defend traditional marriage.

NAACP members in the audience then gave Gov. Romney more than polite applause in response to his pledge.

People try to claim Gov. Romney never speaks about his stand for marriage. Nonsense. Of course he speaks mostly on the economy—we're in real economic trouble—but he has always been a consistent fighter for marriage as one man and one woman, and he re-affirmed that this week in Houston.

While we are on the subject, Texas Gov. Rick Perry also reaffirmed his strong support for marriage this week in an interview with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution for the Uncommon Knowledge series over at National Review Online.

Texas is a model for economic issues, governor, but is it also a model for social issues?

Here is what Gov. Perry said in response:

If you are going to base your public service upon your values then you are going to get criticized by those who don't agree with those values. I don't back away from my positions on traditional marriage, on abortion. Those are values, and actually they are values from my perspective, they can't be equivocated. You are either for traditional marriage or you are not. You are either for protecting innocent life or you are not... The issue of traditional marriage is one that continues to bubble forward and I happen to believe that if you are going to have a society that is successful, economically or otherwise, you are going to have to have values that you attach that society to.

For 2000 years we have had marriage between a man and a woman....I suspect that issue is not going to go away, but just because you share a different view, or you are flexible on the issue does not mean that God has changed his mind about it.

The warm response by the crowd in the NAACP national convention, whose leadership just endorsed gay marriage, reminds us that it is not just Republicans who support marriage. In fact, Buzzfeed Politics reports that, "One third of House Democrats broke with their leaders today and kept their names off a brief urging a federal appeals court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits federal recognition of marriages to those between one man and one woman."

The media does not seem interested in this evidence of dissent within the Democratic party on this issue.

Marriage is an extraordinary issue, politically speaking. It is an issue that unites and ignites a new coalition across old lines of race, creed and color.

Witness another great event for marriage that took place at the NAACP convention just yesterday afternoon.

The Coalition of African American Pastors, headed by Rev. William Owens (who also serves as the NOM outreach coordinator for Black churches), organized a press conference with leading black pastors calling on the NAACP to rescind its endorsement of gay marriage.

Here's Rev. Owens own words on the subject (from a CAAP press release):

"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People needs to be recalled to its founding purpose," said Rev. William Owens, President of CAAP. "Black people face acute and urgent needs, from unemployment to education, family fragmentation, discrimination and crime.

"We are calling on the NAACP, a beloved organization in our eyes, to reclaim its mission. The Black church founded the NAACP, and it is not the organization for the advancement of gays and lesbians—whatever the merits of that movement. Return to your roots and stand with the Black Church on marriage. The Black Church in our eyes remains the conscience of America.

"To the board of NAACP we say, 'Do not worry about the money, God will provide.' Stand with the Church and the Bible and the natural law, as our brother with whom we marched, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., called on us to do."

Wow. And that's not all. After yesterday's press conference Rev. Owens sat down with Megyn Kelly of Fox News to talk about Obama's position on same-sex marriage and why it is putting his support among the African-American community in jeopardy:

Our own Thomas Peters put together a great summary of the explosive impact the Coalition of African-American Pastors has had in the last two months, ever since President Obama renounced his view that he supports marriage as one man and one woman "because God is in the mix."

This story which appeared in the Washington Examiner was picked up by the Drudge Report (as you can see at right):

A large coalition of African-American pastors, snubbed by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder in their demand for a meeting to discuss same-sex marriage, are calling on blacks to boycott the president and sign a petition demanding that the administration withdraw support for gay marriage.

"By embracing gay marriage, President Obama is leading the country down an immoral path," said Rev. William Owens, president of the 1,300-member Coalition of African-American Pastors. "Some things are bigger than the next election."

...His group also started a petition to encourage Obama to change his mind. It's called 100000signatures4marriage.com.

..."We were once proud of President Obama, but our pride has turned to shame," said Owens.

Numerous other news sites are picking up on this story, including OneNewsNow, USNews & World Report, and the Kansas City Star, which includes this interesting tidbit:

"...Obama rejects the suggestion of specific programs aimed at African-Americans, and the contrast with his recently announced support of same-sex marriage and his executive order halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants strikes some African-Americans as taking them for granted."He can have the gay pride celebration in the White House, he can have Lady Gaga in the White House, and he's in the White House today because of the civil rights movement and the price that was paid for civil rights," said the Rev. William Owens, the president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, a group that opposes Obama's gay marriage stance. "He has met with the Latinos; he meets with everything except for the people who put him where he is."

These questions will surface again this week, as Obama skips the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People annual convention in Houston."

All this news and coverage prompted Crystal Wright (the "Conservative Black Chick") to write in the Washington Post:

With nothing left in his arsenal and desperate to save his job, Obama has resorted to pandering to black voters, whom he largely has ignored during his presidency Obama is losing ground with black voters among the 95 percent of blacks who voted for him in 2008. Outraged over Obama's support of gay marriage, the Coalition of African American Pastors said they would not support him in 2012. A new poll found Romney would get 20 percent of the black vote in North Carolina if the election was held today.

Meanwhile, Edward Klein, the former editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine writes:

"...Many socially conservative church-going blacks are deeply upset with Obama's endorsement of gay marriage. Recently, the president refused to meet with a group representing the 1,300-member Coalition of African-American Pastors to discuss the group's opposition to same-sex marriage. "By embracing gay marriage, President Obama is leading the country down an immoral path," said the Reverend William Owens, president of the coalition.

...It is Romney, the lily-white presumptive Republican nominee, who is traveling to Houston to make a major speech to this important black audience, while the country's first African-American president is skipping this year's NAACP confab in order to avoid having to confront some uncomfortable questions about the worsening state of black America under his administration."

While the majority of African-American voters will probably overlook his betrayal of marriage and vote for him for other understandable reasons (including pride in his historic achievement of winning the office of President in a country that within living memory shamefully segregated Black people), it is very clear the Black Church is going to push President Obama hard to change his mind on the issue.

African-Americans have been the one constituency in the last few months which President Obama appears to take for granted. Women, gays, and Latinos have all had concrete "gifts" from this administration in the last few months: ending deportations, free contraceptives, switching sides on gay marriage. I pray these leaders, Democrats almost all, will be able to reach the White House and sway the President's heart.

Let me close with some good news.

First, here's the latest video from the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance, and you will want to see it!

Actor Kirk Cameron, when asked about gay marriage on national TV, answered truthfully and was hit with the full, "What??! How can you say that horrible stuff?!" routine in the media.

Yet he really wants to talk about marriage and faith: "If we want a great future in this world, we have to take God at his Word, and God makes it really clear that society and civilization is really held together by the glue of families—this is where the next generation of human beings are incubated and nurtured and matured.....when a man and a woman come together and they say "I do" they are committing for a lifetime to love each other and to model what love is and what forgiveness is and what joy is to their kids."

As Kirk Cameron said in another venue on where he gets his ideas about marriage. "He speaks with authority on every subject including marriage and His advice trumps Oprah's every time."

Amen to that! (And no offense to Oprah!)

CNBC just released a list of the top ten states for growing businesses. It's yet another nail in the coffin for the absurd argument gay marriage advocates keep promoting that protecting marriage is somehow bad for business.

Top of the list? Texas, followed by Utah, Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Colorado, Georgia, and Wyoming.

None of these states recognize gay marriage. And 9 out 10 have passed marriage amendments. But truth does not seem to be a high priority for a lot of these pro-SSM advocates—if it sounds good, they say it and seem to believe they can make you and I believe it.

But truth does have a way of winning out. The Presbyterians met this week and the media announced they were likely to vote to endorse gay marriage. Instead, just as the Methodists did a month ago, this historic mainline Protestant denomination refused to do so.

A final bit of happy truth for you this week:

Arthur Brooks, a scholar and president of the American Enterprise Institute, crunched the numbers. And when it comes to happiness, here's what he found (from a New York Times Op Ed):

...Whether religion and marriage should make people happy is a question you have to answer for yourself. But consider this: Fifty-two percent of married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very happy—versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids.

People are happy when they feel connected to something larger than themselves: marriage, family, country and faith.

We were made that way by One who knew what He was doing, as Kirk Cameron says.

God Bless you, and thank you for all that you have made possible. You are the glue that holds our work together, that unites and ignites the fire of love and truth now blazing across this great land.

Together we will keep up this great and good fight!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Greetings!

Like me, you probably spent yesterday in some sort of celebration with family and friends.

Barbecuing, swimming, fireworks.

I was talking with a friend who is not a believer, and I asked him, "Do you believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights? Among them being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

It is an amazing thing to wake up in a country which is founded on that principle, and that faith.

A faith that includes our right to doubt and our right to strive.

America's second founding was during the Civil War, and its ultimate expression is President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address.

The horrors of the war and the purpose for which that war was fought were both vividly in Lincoln's mind:

...The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

We are so lucky that we fight only a culture war, aren't we?

The reason Lincoln fought was to hold a nation together. He could not, therefore, simply expel from the body politic—from the circle of charity—those with whom he fought.

To fight a civil war for the unity of the nation—and end up with excluding the South, excluding the evil of slave owners from the nation—would be to defeat himself.

And so he finished his address with the most magnificent and stirring of all the words he wrote.

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in....

When people try to tell me that some philosopher—some John Rawls or somebody else, has issued a fatwa that religion must be excluded from public policy on some grounds or the other—these are the words that echo in my mind.

(And I studied political philosophy at Oxford, mind you!)

That and a fleeting phrase from J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, "A lesser son of great sires am I, but I do not need to lick your fingers."

Let us expunge all hatred from our hearts, and remind ourselves those we disagree with are also children of God, for whom (we Christians believe) He sent his only Son to the cross.

And let us also, with great firmness, continue to press for the right as God gives us to see the right.

Marriage is the union of a husband and a wife, ordained before any government was constituted, for the good of the husband and the wife and the children they make together.

I am keeping the newsletter short this holiday weekend. But if you have a chance, take a look at this video of NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance spokesman Damian Goddard speaking about his "re-conversion" to faith, and his decision to stand up for marriage. He's paid a bigger price for it than most of us will ever be able to equal.

And be on the lookout for a new interview to be posted to MarriageADA.org soon!

With malice towards none, with charity towards all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in.

It is a great blessing to me to fight for the good by your side.

Thank you for your courage, your decency, your persistence.

May God bless you and your family. May God bless our great country.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

14,714!

That's the number of Americans who, as I write this morning, have already signed our new petition at DumpGeneralMills.com!

Speaking of morning, what in the world is the nation's leading manufacturer of breakfast cereals thinking?!

I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. General Mills' decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me and my family to choose between their food products and our conscience. As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms. Until they stop supporting this radical social agenda I must, in good conscience, look for substitutes that I can purchase instead of General Mills' brands.

General Mills is headquartered in Minnesota, so the Pioneer Press covered our announcement. "We'd like (General Mills) to step back and say they respect the views of all of their customers and employees," our own Jonathan Baker, director of the Corporate Fairness Project for the National Organization for Marriage, told reporters, "Eating Cheerios for breakfast shouldn't have to be a moral choice about marriage."

The Drudge Report linked to this Washington Examiner article reporting on our DumpGeneralMills.com campaign:

The Washington-based National Organization for Marriage, created to fight gay marriage proposals, is betting that Betty Crocker would be on their side. Because on Tuesday, the activist group announced a boycott of General Mills, owners of the Betty Crocker brand, which this month announced its opposition to a ban on same-sex marriage in Minnesota, their headquarters.

"We value diversity. We value inclusion," the food producer said in a letter, making it one of the biggest corporate voices for same-sex marriage.

"In declaring a war on marriage, General Mills is declaring war on their own customers. Now, rather than seeing the flowing 'G' trademark as a symbol of General Mills, consumers across the world will equate that symbol with gay marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president.

Dumb, really dumb, corporate PR stance.

The polling continues to suggest that Pres. Obama's endorsement of gay marriage is not helping him either. First, there was the shock poll out of North Carolina, a key swing state that Obama won by just 14,000 votes in 2008. That poll showed just 76 percent of black voters said they would vote for Obama, down from 95 percent in 2008.

Now we have a new state poll from Michigan, another of the swing states. Independents, by a more than 2-1 margin, said Obama's gay marriage flip-flop makes them less likely to vote for him.

"The fact that only 17 percent of polled independent voters were supportive of the President's stance on gay marriage—and that 41 percent indicated they were less likely to vote for him as a result—may be some cause for concern with this crucial group," said Jeff Lambert, president and managing partner of public relations firm Lambert, Edwards & Associates.

Nationally, support for gay marriage declined by 2 percentage points according to an AP poll: 42 percent told pollsters they supported it last August while just 40 percent said they do today. (I have to tell you these things because I'm guessing that headline never made it to your local newspaper, newsblog or TV news!)

More good news out of New York. The dynamic and pro-marriage Wendy Long just won a primary to emerge as the GOP contender for marriage flip-flopper Kirsten Gillibrand's senate seat. Gillibrand is considered a big frontrunner, with more than $10 million in the bank. But Wendy is going to give her a run for her money in a year which is likely to be very tough for incumbents generally.

In more New York news, the Poughkeepsie Journal reports on the influential Conservative Party's decision not to endorse Stephen Saland because he betrayed marriage.

For the first time in his 12 electoral campaigns for the state Senate, Steve Saland's name will not appear on the Conservative ballot line, New York State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long said.

That is due to his vote one year ago to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. Long said at the time he would no longer support Saland, who is seeking his 12th two-year term in the Senate, and the three other Republicans in the state Senate who voted for the bill.

Long has not changed his mind. He has yet to endorse a candidate for the state Senate 41st District.

"Anyone who voted for same sex marriage, there's no question about it, they will not get the Conservative endorsement," Long said last week. "It's not going to happen. They were all forewarned before the vote that traditional marriage is very important."

Thanks to Michael Long and to everyone who has stood tall against the pressure to redefine marriage!

Good news continues to flow, this time from Maryland! With referendum signatures due on June 30, the campaign has now submitted nearly three times the number of signatures required.

The Maryland Marriage Alliance announced today that it plans to submit an additional 39,743 signatures to the Maryland State Board of Elections as part of efforts to add a referendum on the state's same sex marriage law to the November ballot.

The addition brings the total of signatures supporting the referendum to 162,224. The Maryland Marriage Alliance submitted more than 122,000 signatures to Maryland's Secretary of State May 29, more than double the nearly 57,000 signatures required to add a referendum.

As we fight the good fight, let's remember together that gay marriage is not something that just gay people are pushing. The people we disagree with are our friends and neighbors and fellow citizens. And in fact, although I'm sure the great majority of homosexual people favor homosexual marriage, some gay people agree with us!

Maggie Gallagher mentioned that, while she was on Connecticut's public radio station talking about David Blankenhorn's change of position (more on that in a second), a 71-year-old gay man called in to say that although he's lived through and is grateful for "gay rights" generally, he doesn't feel like the word "marriage" is right to describe gay relationships!

And in Minnesota, a lesbian out celebrating pride day told a reporter something similar.

Ujay Gang of St. Paul regularly attends Nativity with his wife and two young children. He said, for him, the marriage amendment is about the definition. Other Nativity parishioners said they support the amendment but declined to comment on the record.

"I don't understand why the homosexuals are trying to redefine marriage," Gang said. "They should come up with their own word. They are pushing their view on others."

At the Pride Festival, Karen Ahern, a lesbian from Bloomington, agreed.

"It hits a nerve with the straight community," Ahern said. "They should call it 'unions' or something else. It's polarizing, and I know that people here will (have) a fit because I said that, but just get the thing done. Don't agitate people."

I do know that we need to stand tall and fight for what we know is right, without descending into hatred. Without, for example, throwing back at our opponents the tactics used against a young newlywed couple in Great Britain who delivered 500,000 petitions requesting the government stop messing with marriage.

I told you about Rhys (a charity researcher) and Esther Curnow (a primary schoolteacher) at the time when they turned in this overwhelming number of signatures for protecting marriage. But they hit the news again this week after they were shocked to be the target of hate mail. I'm sure some of it was respectful and civil criticism, but they were disturbed and concerned at the level of open hatred expressed by some of these letter writers, according to the British press:

Rhys and Esther Curnow, from Newcastle, received scores of messages after opponents of their stance on same-sex marriage including a Labour councillor circulated their Facebook details online.

They included messages saying the couple, who are committed Christians, should "rot in hell" and wishing they would become infertile or die of cancer.

Several included explicit references to sexual acts while others suggested they should be subjected to "compulsory sterilisation."

(Fortunately, again according to the press, police have investigated and concluded the emails "did not contain direct threat.")

Why do some gay marriage advocates do this? They do it in part because it reflects their honest feelings towards people like you and me who do not view gay unions as marriages, and stand up to fight for what we believe is right.

But as Mark Oppenheimer of The New York Times made it clear last Friday when he released a documentary on David Blankenhorn's "conversion" on marriage, they also do it because these tactics "work."

Normal people duck when this volume of open scorn and hatred heads our way.

Maggie Gallagher, who has known David Blankenhorn for many years and worked under him for almost a decade at the Institute for American Values, penned a very loving and sympathetic take on David's defection, which she published in her own new personal newsletter and also in The Public Discourse.

(I would not have been nearly as kind!)

David Blankenhorn says he is standing by his Prop 8 testimony and his book. He's not recanting a word of what he wrote. He has just given up hope that fighting gay marriage will do any good.

But, from Maggie's column, here is how one reporter describes what happened to David Blankenhorn.

"After the trial, something changed in Blankenhorn," according to [New York Times columnist Mark] Oppenheimer, "He does not entirely know how to describe what happened. Maybe it was some cocktail of the fame, the public abuse, or just getting older. Maybe it's that he began to fear for his legacy, for how the world would remember him. He definitely saw that gay marriage was happening, and it was likely to spread and wasn't going away. There was no turning back the clock. Is it too cynical to say that nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history? Maybe that's not a fair way to put it." Oppenheimer says.

"David's out of the gay marriage fight, which was never a major focus for him," continues Maggie. "He's hoping that by embracing gay marriage he'll be allowed by the powers that be to do something about divorce and unmarried childbearing, his core concerns. God bless him and good luck."

What lessons should we all learn from this?

Maggie writes, "The lessons gay marriage advocates will take from David Blankenhorn's ‘conversion'? They will learn what they know: stigma and hatred directed at people who disagree with them work."

Sad but true. Some people will lack the courage to stand for what they know to be true. But here's the most important part.

"What lesson should we take? What lesson do I take?" Maggie asks.

The first is that no-one can fight alone. To stand up to the wall of hatred directed our way, we need each other. And we need the larger sense of community that faith uniquely provides.

The second is that as we fight for the good, we must never respond to hatred with hatred, to exclusion with the desire to exclude.

David Blankenhorn is my friend and I love him. I also respect him. I understand what he just did and why he did it and I wish him well in his personal fight to somehow square the circle, to combine a culture of gay marriage with a renewed culture of marriage. Here's a bit more from David's interview:

"Sometimes it's important to stand down a bit from the purity of one's position in the interest of comity. We need to live together here. Sometimes it's not being chickenhearted or selling out...You can compromise a bit from the purity of one's position in the interest of accommodating a broader spectrum of people in the society as kind of full members. You know? You can bend a little bit because we have to live together."

Yes we do.

But here's what I want to say to David and to you: a comity that is bought by surrendering principle is submission, not comity at all. The truth about something as important as marriage cannot be the price we pay to live with each other.

The challenge of our time—and it is a deep challenge, not an easy one—is to find new ways to combine truth and love.

Thank you for standing with me as we fight for the truth about a good as basic and important as marriage.

You are what make our victories possible.

Let me close with Maggie's very last reflection because it points us to the place we need to go, to draw the courage to sustain us in this great and good fight on behalf of God's truth about marriage.

Giving up marriage is too high a price to pay. And it is not the last good we will be asked to surrender, unless we find the courage to stand.

I promise you I will never stop fighting this good fight, never relinquish the honor of being your voice for your values. With the grace of God, we will keep on not only fighting but winning!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

X-Men Comics is depicting a gay superhero wedding. "Northstar," who came out as gay in 1992, is now proposing to "Kyle."

Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Axel Alonso said, "Marvel has a long and proud tradition of reflecting the world in all its diversity, and this is just one more example of that."

Marjorie Liu, an X-Men writer, told Rolling Stone she wanted to inspire others to follow their footsteps. "Here are two people, trying to live their lives—mutant and gay, black and gay—empowered in their own ways, but also fringe-dwellers," she said. "They're living life on their own terms...The message is: You can do the same thing."

A comic book shop in New York City spotted a commercial opportunity, a chance for some nice publicity, according to LifeSiteNews.

They decided to fund an all-expenses paid wedding for two lucky guys, in their comic book store.

No, I'm not making this up.

Scott Everhart, bless him, at 39 years of age, saw an opportunity of his own. He applied online to win the comic book store wedding prize—and waited to tell his partner Jason until he was asked by the store to come in for an interview.

"That's when I broke the news to [Welker] and kind of proposed at the same time," he said.

Thor Parker, social media and events director at Midtown Comics, said, "They really stood out as super fans."

After the ceremony the store sold copies of Astonishing X-Men No. 51, which features Northstar and Kyle tying the knot.

(Same-sex weddings are becoming commonplace in comic books, from Archie to X-Men. Batwoman—originally a love interest for Batman—has become a lesbian.)

Why am I telling you this story? I don't know Scott or Jason and I wish them both well.

But something is wrong when huge companies push gay marriage into children's literature in order to make money. Something is wrong when a comic book store decides to host a wedding, again for commercial purposes. And something is really wrong when a man proposes because, well, somebody else is going to help pay for the wedding and it might mean a cool trip to New York City.

Somewhere there may be some foolish man and woman getting married in a comic book store. But nobody else is paying for it and nobody in the media is covering it.

Are we really supposed to believe in the "sanctity" of gay comic book weddings?

The promotion of gay marriage continues apace.

But so do more hopeful cultural evolutions.

The Southern Baptist Convention elected its first African-American president, the Reverend Fred Luter, Jr.

This is huge.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant body in the United States and the world's largest Baptist denomination. With over 16 million members, it is also the second largest Christian denomination in the United States, after the Catholic Church.

The SBC was formed in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia following a regional split over the issue of slavery. After the civil war, black Baptists generally split off from the SBC and formed their own congregations.

Dr. Richard Land, the Oxford-educated head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, reminded me a few months ago of something else about the Southern Baptist Convention: they were the first, and perhaps the only, Protestant denomination to re-form themselves along Biblical principles. (The reformers called it "the conservative resurgence" while the dissenters refer to it as the "fundamentalist takeover.")

Actually, I was at Judge Pressler's ranch this February when Dr. Land reminded me of this historic event. Judge Pressler, along with theologian Paige Patterson, launched the re-formation of the Southern Baptists along Biblical principles.

In 1995, the Convention renounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery and Jim Crow laws. Today about one-fifth of SBC congregations are majority non-white.

Upon his historic election, Reverend Fred Luter, Jr., told CNN's Soledad O'Brien that he will stand with the Good Book when it comes to marriage:

I'm a man of the book. I believe in the word of God. I believe in the Bible. God has specifically spoken about marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's biblical. No president whether it's a president in the White House, no governor, no mayor, no one can change that. God has already established marriage between a one man and one woman. So I would stand for that because that's what the word of God says and that's what I believe in.

He went on to say, "I support my President. He is my President. I pray for him and Michelle and his daughters on a daily basis. But on this issue, the President and I have two different opinions, for sure."

The day after this groundbreaking, historic event the Southern Baptist Convention went on record opposing not only gay marriage, but more specifically, the conflation of gay marriage with a civil right.

Marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful."

The resolution acknowledges the "unique struggles" of gay people but goes on to affirm:

It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of `same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement.

The times they are a-changing—and not always in the way progressives predict.

In Minnesota, the amazing Kalley Yanta just released a new video explaining the consequences of gay marriage that experts predict, including a "flood of litigation."

(The incredibly amazing Frank Schubert of Mission Public Affairs—who led the fight for Prop 8 among many other great victories—is heading up the fight in that state to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.)

I thought about Kalley's video when I ran across a little news story—no big deal, you won't hear about this on Fox News, or from Sean Hannity or NBC. A federal lawsuit was just filed against St. Joseph's Medical Center, a Catholic hospital in Westchester, New York, because the Catholic hospital doesn't provide spousal benefits for same-sex unions. It's yet another lawsuit challenging DOMA, the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Religious charities, who do good work and are now facing litigation threats, are just collateral damage to gay rights activists intent on using the law to impose their vision of "equality." It quickly becomes clear, like in George Orwell's famous dystopian novel Animal Farm, that some are more equal than others.

"I remember almost a year ago when this bill was signed into law, we were told that it would have no impact on religious freedoms," my friend the Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms told Citizen Link. "Less than a year later it's very clear that gay marriage is indeed having an impact on religious freedom here in the Empire State."

St. Joseph's Medical Center's insurance plan is self-financed, which means it falls under federal law rather than the laws of New York State. Catholic hospitals self-finance in order to avoid state laws that require them to fund abortions and other acts the Catholic church considers immoral. Striking down DOMA (which protects their right to limit spousal benefits to husbands and wives) is the first step to imposing a new orthodoxy of gay "equality" on every organization in America.

I want to thank Sen. Mitch McConnell personally for speaking out against the abuse of power against nonprofits, including a suspicious attempt by the IRS to force disclosure of donors whose names are not required under federal laws. And for specifically mentioning the leak from the IRS of NOM's confidential tax documents:

The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group's confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama's re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.

Thanks Sen. Mitch McConnell, for speaking truth to power!

Let me promise you—with your help and with God's—we will not be deterred or intimidated from standing up now and forever for God's truth about marriage.

This fight, this good fight, continues. We know Who wins in the end, don't we?

Thank you for all that you have made possible—with your prayers, with your letters, with your kind words of encouragement and with your financial contributions.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

247,331. That's the number of signatures people in the state of Washington turned in opposing gay marriage and asking for the right to vote.

The news this week from Washington State is huge. R-74, a measure overturning gay marriage, will be on the ballot this November.

247,331 is a huge number of people in a small state like Washington.

Groundbreaking. Record-breaking. Historic.

To see just how many people and how big a wave, watch this video:

Our own Thomas Peters was asked by CNS news if the "momentum" can be sustained.

"I don't think there's much question about being able to keep up energy," Peters said. "It's actually more time for us to organize."

More evidence of the big momentum for marriage: a shocking new poll from North Carolina by Public Policy Polling (a Democratic polling firm) shows a huge drop in Pres. Obama’s support among African-Americans, as Business Insider reports.

Back in 2008, Pres. Obama won North Carolina, a key swing state, by just 14,000 votes with 95 percent of the black vote. Today, just a month after Pres. Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, the President's support among black voters has dropped to just 76 percent. Twenty percent of black voters say they will vote for Mitt Romney and another 4 percent aren't yet sure how they will vote.

NOM's own political guru Frank Schubert (who led marriage to victory in California, Maine and North Carolina) took up this issue when Pres. Obama endorsed gay marriage last month:

"As the Cheerleader-in-Chief for gay marriage, President Obama will now have to return to North Carolina – and Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado and Nevada – and explain why his administration is actively undermining the overwhelming votes they cast in support of traditional marriage, and in opposition to same-sex marriage. This will be especially difficult for Obama when talking with African Americans, who oppose gay marriage by a two-to-one margin."

A group of African American pastors is calling on our President to "evolve again" on marriage. (Rev. William Owens, who heads that group, also helps NOM with outreach to black churches). And in Iowa, NAACP national board member Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. resigned after that organization formally endorsed gay marriage.

The Atlanta Black Star reports that the decision of the NAACP national board to endorse same-sex marriage has caused not only a national board member (Rev. Ratliff) to resign, but it also has caused division within state and local chapters.

I'm sad to say General Mills, the beloved breakfast company, just endorsed gay marriage, opposing Minnesota's one-sentence marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Earlier this week, NOM's Corporate Fairness Project director Jonathan Baker went on Minnesota TV to explain why corporations have no business redefining marriage:

Corporations don't normally endorse things like abortion "rights." Corporations don't normally wade into culture war issues at all. They know that not only their customers, but also their employees and vendors, all have different views on these crucial issues.

One thing we know: gay marriage is not particularly good for business.

Yahoo! just posted a report from Kiplinger that lists the top 8 U.S. cities for future job growth.

Kiplinger says these cities are "poised to become job-creating machines in the years ahead."

ALL of these cities exist in states that have recently passed marriage amendments.

1. Nashville, TN
2. San Antonio, TX
3. Orlando, FL
4. Raleigh, NC (just last month!)
5. Portland, OR
6. Oklahoma City, OK
7. Phoenix, AZ
8. Atlanta, GA

The gay marriage movement believes it can make up stories and get other people to believe they are true. But the data keeps contradicting them.

The amazing thing about marriage is that it transcends ordinary politics. It crosses divides of race, creed and even, for at least one Mormon man who writes "I'm a Gay Mormon, Happily Married with Three Kids"—sexual orientation.

He reports on all the questions he's asked by a culture that increasingly teaches that people like him not only don't exist, but they shouldn't exist.

Why do you not choose to be "true to yourself" and live the gay lifestyle?

First of all, I understand that when people refer to a "gay lifestyle" they are talking about a lifestyle that includes gay romantic and sexual relationships. But I want to point out that because I am gay, any lifestyle I choose is technically a "gay lifestyle." Mine just looks different than other gay peoples'. My hope is that other gay people will be as accepting of my choices as they hope others would be of their choices.

He goes on to say that people do have the power to choose the way they live their life and this always involves sacrifice, of one kind or another:

One of the sad truths about being homosexual is that no matter what you decide for your future, you have to sacrifice something. It's very sad, but it is true. I think this is true of life in general as well. If you decide to be a doctor, you give up any of the myriad of other things you could have chosen. But with homosexuality, the choices seem to be a little bit more mutually exclusive. If you are Mormon and you choose to live your religion, you are sacrificing the ability to have a romantic relationship with a same-sex partner. If you choose a same-sex partner, you are sacrificing the ability to have a biological family with the one you love. And so on. No matter what path you choose, if you are gay you are giving up something basic, and sometimes various things that are very basic. I chose not to "live the gay lifestyle," as it were, because I found that what I would have to give up to do so wasn't worth the sacrifice for me.

Traditionally Christians have understood the virtue of chastity as the ultimate expression of human freedom. Our sexual desires do not need to define who we are. We can choose.

Now, channeling lust or eros is difficult. This one young man benefited, he testifies, from a lifetime's experience in practicing chastity, in learning to tame passion and subordinate it to an ideal.

That's what freedom means, not being buffeted by desire, but becoming, through practice and hard work, the masters of our fate—for most of us that means by the grace of God.

We seldom see this vision reflected in our desire-driven culture. Kudos to this man—and his wife—for their courage in "coming out" in the public square.

Kudos as well to the Social Science Journal for having the courage of its scientific convictions in publishing two new studies that call into question a related desire-driven orthodoxy: sciences have "proven" that the natural family has no advantages for children. There are "no differences" between children with a gay parent and other children, we were told.

Judge Walker, as you will recall, ruled as much in striking down Prop 8: the scientific evidence is so overwhelming that only an irrational hateful person could vote for marriage on the grounds the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad, he claimed.

One new study by Prof. Loren Marks, takes a hard look at the scientific basis for the APA's repeated claims that science has proven that having gay parents makes "no difference" to a child. He concludes that the existing body of scientific research is amazingly weak: small samples, few comparison groups, few outcome measures studied, and, most importantly of all, the data is not nationally representative. It's not based on a random sample.

From a scientific point of view that's a flaw that cannot be overcome. Without a random sample, you simply cannot say whether the children with gay parents you are studying are typical of all such children or self-selected outliers.

That's why the second new study is so significant. The New Family Structures Survey is the first new survey of young adults that is large, nationally representative, and looked at more than 40 varied outcome measures, from the chance a young adult has been arrested, is unemployed, is depressed or suicidal, has relationship problems, or has had multiple sex partners, to how good he or she felt about their family growing up, and whether he or she was sexually abused. On 25 of these 40 outcomes, adult children who reported that one of their parents had had a same-sex romance during their childhood, fared worse.

Overall, 1.7 percent of all American adults between the ages of 18-39 reported either their mom or their dad had a gay romance. Very few of them lived with their fathers during that time. 91 percent lived with their mothers while she had this romantic relationship. But most of these relationships turned out to be fleeting.

The researchers interviewed more than 15,000 people and found just two young adults who had been raised from birth by two moms.

This tells me something really important: gay marriage is not about helping children. The "Modern Family" we see on TV and relayed in the media is vanishingly rare. We aren't seriously contemplating gay marriage because it will protect the children.

Does this new study prove gay parents harm their children? No. Does it tell us how children fare, on average, when raised by two moms from birth? No. We still can't say that from scientific evidence because we don't have good data.

But together these two studies do tell us Judge Walker was wrong. They show us the claim that science has disproven and ruled out of court the idea that children need a mom and dad is just bogus.
The attacks on these studies and their authors will continue—because attack, attack, attack people who disagree is what the gay marriage movement does at this point.

Look, I'm an activist, not a social scientist. But I respect the scientific enterprise enough to wish for open, robust scientific debate unmarred by fear or favor.

After all, in the end I know this: truth and love will prevail over lies and hatred.

God bless you for your courage and thank you for your prayers and your fellowship in these great battles. They mean more to me than you will ever know.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The guys at Oxford University Press are no dummies. When they needed someone to make the case against same-sex marriage as part of a Point/Counterpoint series, edited by James Sterba of Notre Dame, they went straight to the top: to one of the best, the brightest and most articulate spokespeople for marriage in America.

They asked NOM's own co-founder, Maggie Gallagher, to spar with Prof. John Corvino (who co-authored the book and writes the pro-gay marriage arguments).

The resulting book, Debating Same-Sex Marriage was released this week, and today I'm heading up to Manhattan to watch the book launch. Live from New York: It's Maggie Gallagher and John Corvino "Debating Same-Sex Marriage." The two of them will be "Conversing" (with a capital C) with David Blankenhorn on the marriage debate: what it means, why it is hard, and why it matters.

You can watch it with me live-streamed here at 6 p.m.

If you go to Amazon you can read for yourself the extraordinary praise for Debating Same-Sex Marriage, and for our own Maggie Gallagher, from some of the smartest people in America: Mary Ann Glendon, Prof. Robby George, John Eastman.

Fair warning: You will also hear from Dan Savage who doesn't like Maggie very much. He actually awards Prof. Corvino "A Gay Medal of Honor" for so patiently responding to Maggie's "bad and sometimes infuriatingly insulting arguments."
This is probably the only book in the history of civilization to be endorsed by both Dan Savage and Sen. Rick Santorum.

Go to Amazon if you want to read the full praise, but here's a taste of what Sen. Santorum has to say.

"Maggie Gallagher is a hero to many of us who care about life, marriage and religious liberty. She is lucid, honest, compassionate, fearless and above all relentlessly reasonable in making the case for marriage..."

I say Amen to that!

Every time I read what Maggie writes, I learn something new, something I didn't know—and I emerge feeling stronger, better equipped and more hopeful, with renewed energy for the fight. I know you will too!

A few highlights that may help you:

Fidelity, she establishes, is a key marital norm. She then lays out the detailed evidence that sexual fidelity is not very common in gay male unions, and then she does something I've never seen anyone do before. It's vintage Maggie.
She asks a question nobody else asks: "Does sexual fidelity play the same role in same-sex unions?" The same, in other words, as it does for marriages?

For husbands and wives, sexual fidelity points to all the goods of marriage: it protects our children, it protects the unity of the family, it points to marital satisfaction and it is a key ingredient in marital permanence. The norm of fidelity makes sense. Adultery is a violation of the essence of marriage, and tears at the fabric that holds it, and civilization, together.

"The radical challenge to marriage from gay marriage is not that gay men are by nature promiscuous, as some have argued. ...The more fundamental and radical challenge is that for gay men, sexual fidelity may not point to or support permanence or relationship satisfaction in the same way it does for opposite-sex relationships," Maggie writes.
She then lays out, point by point, the devastating evidence that "marriage equality" is based on a myth; same-sex unions are not just like opposite-sex ones, and not only in terms of their ability to create new life and connect those children to their mom and dad.

"Sexual infidelity doesn't work very well for opposite-sex unions because male sexual jealousy is a powerful disruptive force, because women tend to fall in love with ongoing sex partners, and of course because children regularly result," Maggie writes. "Men in same-sex relationships, by contrast, frequently find sexual novelty with outside partners helps them sustain their core domestic affection."

Men cannot tolerate the idea of another man being with their wife. Gay men do not have this same problem. "This alone," Maggie writes, "is a powerful signal that in fact same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are dramatically different kinds of sexual unions."

Marriage and its norms grow out of the experience of sustaining long term unions of men and women that give rise to children.

"Marriage equality," she writes, "institutionalized in law and culture will exert continuous ongoing pressure to sideline marital norms that do not work for both kinds of couples equally."

They will cease to become "norms" in other words and become mere preferences, things individuals work out on their own.

We've seen how badly children and society fare as we progressively "de-norm" sex and marriage.

The most fundamental reason to oppose same-sex marriage, she argues, is not that gay marriage will have consequence. Yes it will, and she tells us how and how much!

If the law endorses the idea that same-sex unions are marriages on the grounds that equality requires it, then people who continue to believe that marriage is a union between a husband and wife that can give children a mother and father will be treated the same way we would treat someone who believes that only a marriage between people of the same race is a marriage. That's what "marriage equality" means.

For the record: I am not complaining that Corvino or anyone else has [said] something mean or uncivil about me....I am asking gay marriage advocates to own up to the truth that this is in fact what "marriage equality" means.

This is important, but it is not the most important reason to fight gay marriage. The most important reason is because it is not true. Gay unions are not marriages.

"Marriage equality" is based on a lie about human beings, and commits our government to supporting and enforcing this lie, to propping up a political ideology against human nature.

"John Corvino," she writes "makes a claim that is truly astonishing, the claim that really goes to the heart of our disagreement." Corvino writes of a "wedding" between two men, "Were it not for the absence of a bride, you'd have a hard time distinguishing the scene from any other wedding."

Maggie says, "My jaw drops when I read and reread this sentence." (Mine too!)

You cannot simply take the woman out of the wedding and proceed as if nothing significant has been removed. Take the woman out of the wedding, and you take out the link between the generations, the sense that in the moment we stand at the crossroads of history, that we are in this couples' act of marriage recreating that moment from which we come, while forging a link to the future. Marriage is the key link in the great chain of being. That is what you lose when you take the woman out of the wedding.

The truth of marriage is that it is not a mere plaything of politics, created of, by and for the politicians. It has a reality that government is obligated to respect and protect, not violate and redefine.

"When a man vows to take his masculinity, his sexuality, and put it at the service of a woman and her children, to channel his sexual nature to make it pleasing in a woman's eyes, to make his manhood good for a woman and her children—he becomes a husband," she says.

"Take the woman out of the wedding and marriage is no longer a universal human institution, necessary to the future of the whole society, indeed of all humanity. Cut off from its deep roots in human natures, marriage loses its past, and quite possibly, its future."

Wow. If you want to read more—and I urge you to do so—you can get a copy here or ask for it at your local book store.

The truth: Marriage doesn't go away and it cannot merely be redefined by power alone. Too many gay marriage advocates want to shut down this debate, punish dissent, and get on with the business of using the power of our government, the beloved United States of America, to impose this strange new public morality called gay marriage.

We've seen it this week when the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals contemptuously refused even to listen to the arguments of supporters of Prop 8, letting stand the ruling of a divided three judge panel that struck down Prop 8.
The fierce and scathing dissent of Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain is bracing to read, especially for those of us who spent our time and our treasure fighting to put Prop 8 on the ballot and persuading our fellow citizens to exercise their core civil right to vote for it:

Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority's gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California's democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.

We've won so many amazing victories only because Truth matters. It has a power beyond the reach of bureaucrats or lawyers or angry activists. In the privacy of the voting booth, Americans have again and again demonstrated that they know the truth about what marriage is, and what it is not.

This week in the state of Washington we had another amazing demonstration of the power of marriage. Preserve Marriage Washington just turned in 241,000 signatures to put gay marriage to the trial of the ballot box. This is historic. This is sweeping. Washington is a state where the referendum is frequently used, but the number of signatures that were collected broke all records.

Truth matters. People care about marriage.

You and I know this. And we know that in the end we will be accountable to a loving and just God for how we fought, or failed to fight, to protect His creation.

Thank you for all you've done to make the good fight possible.

Please pray for Maggie and for everyone at the front lines of this marriage fight.

Until next week, keep up the fight!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This week the Maryland Marriage Alliance had to do something to keep the fight against gay marriage going in Maryland. They had to turn in over 18,000 valid signatures just to sustain the efforts to get a vote to repeal gay marriage to the people. Well guess what? Standing on the steps outside the Maryland Secretary of State's office, Pastor Derek McCoy turned in over 113,000 petition signatures.

Here's McCoy in a video explaining the significance of this huge accomplishment:

The fight for marriage continues to create an unprecedented coalition of people of all faiths and colors. In Washington State the press reported this week a surge of requests for petitions from Muslim Americans who want to repeal gay marriage.

(For an interesting essay on Islamic opposition to gay marriage, check out The Public Discourse)

New York City Jews, along with others, played a key role in another undersung victory this week. David Storobin, a Republican, emerged as the winner in the 27th State Senate district special election by 27 votes (yet another recount is in play).

The victory is largely symbolic because, by the time the automatic recount is undertaken and certified, the seat will have been redistricted out of existence. But we're talking about a Republican winning a Senate seat in a district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 1. Lew Fidler lost in a colossal upset because he endorsed gay marriage.

Unprecedented and amazing things are happening by the grace of God!

The most amazing thing is the powerful moral leadership of the Black church. We see it happening in Maryland.

We see it even in the halls of Washington, D.C. The Daily Caller sent a reporter to a meeting of black church leaders with the Congressional Black Caucus.

Is gay marriage a civil right, she asked?

Here's the video of their responses: No, gay marriage is not a civil right.

I'm also proud to bring you some original video footage—never before seen—of a historic press conference organized by the Coalition of African-American Pastors that took place on May 17 in Memphis, Tennessee. Leaders of the black church, many of whom marched for in the civil rights movement, called on Pres. Obama to "evolve again" on gay marriage.

Rev. Bill Owens, who organized the conference is NOM's liaison to the African-American churches.

In the minds of the hard left "evolution" works in only one direction: towards gay marriage.

But there is no reason to accept the inevitability or the permanence of this politicized innovation in marriage.

A convert to Catholicism, a scientist now home raising her kids, blogged about her own personal "evolution" on the marriage issue—in exactly the opposite direction.

Like Obama, I have also evolved on the marriage debate. I suspect a lot of people journeyed a similar path, and even more so, I suspect a lot more people are evolving now. Here's how I went from not really caring to wide-eyed activism.

"Let's Be Diverse" Stage: It was cool and sophisticated to hang out with "gay" people, and people made sure others knew they hung out with "gay" people to appear diverse and tolerant. As a single, liberal, non-religious, bicep-pumping, hair-tossing mom and career woman (career woman before mom) I had plenty of "gay" friends. They seemed to love my approval, and well, I loved theirs... We were crazy and fabulous together!

"Ambivalent" Stage: I realized my priorities were—not right. This whole message in society seemed to be that adults can do whatever they want, that they could follow any desire and frown at anyone who criticized them. It wasn't about children; but about adults and their desires. At some point a grown-up senses he or she needs to act grown up, however, and demanding your way is childish. There are reasons not to make certain choices. As my priorities changed and I focused more on raising my kids, I still knew "gay" couples and my kids played with their kids. I honestly did not care one squash about "gay rights" or "gay marriage" though. If that's what they wanted, fine. I was too busy with my own life trying to align my priorities and figure out how to be a responsible parent.

"Leave Me Alone" Stage: As I converted to Catholicism, I began to understand the teaching of the Church regarding Marriage, and how children are gifts who ought to raised by parents committed to loving them unconditionally... Even as I realized the beauty of Marriage, I still didn't really care if two men or two women wanted to call themselves married. Rather libertarian in my views, I thought perhaps government should just stay out of marriage altogether and leave that personal part of life alone.

"Imposing?" Stage: I discovered social media and began to identify myself as a Catholic wife and mother. Immediately, to my shock, I got called names I'd never been called in all my life, even when I explained my views about government leaving people alone. I got called "misogynist" and "homophobe" and "bigot" and "seeyounexttuesday" and people jumped from the abyss of the internet to tell me how much they despised me. I began to realize that the issue isn't really so much about two same-sex people having the liberty to live however they want and to call themselves whatever they want, but the issue was far more politically driven and weighty. Whether I wanted to or not, I had to approve and people were going to use the government to impose approval on me and my family, or silence us. Tolerance wasn't enough. I had flashbacks to the behaviors of people I met in the "Let's Be Diverse" stage.

"I Must Stand" Stage: It is worth noting that even then, I still knew same-sex couples whom I considered friendly acquaintances. They respected my faith and my family, and they knew where I stood; there was trust. However, the hostility and tyrannical behavior of the "gay rights" activists was remarkably disturbing. Not only do they want to silence anyone who doesn't approve, they want to harm them too. I grew resentful until I realized that anger wasn't helpful, so I grew attentive and dedicated. I saw the slow creep of social change they pushed for—to make marriage meaningless—and I saw that it was not healthy for society, not good for the future of our children because it isn't about the children. I saw the lies that a Godless society tells young people in greater clarity than ever before, and I saw how that message is destructive. Then I posted my frustration, and hell broke loose. I realized that I owe it to my children to defend the truth without compromise in my country and my world. Even more, I owe it to God who gave me those children.

Many people are going through some version of these stages, this evolution, this dawning recognition of the biggest of the Big Lies: gay marriage is not going to affect you, so why should you care?

The first, very human response to the organized flood of hatred directed at you when you stand up for marriage is to flinch, to duck, to try to find some way to get out of the heat.

Like this Catholic blogger, it's important for us not to confuse gay people generally with the organized gay marriage movement. Many of our friends and fellow citizens who are homosexual are just ordinary, law-biding, (if misguided on marriage) people of good will. We can disagree with each other without hatred or insults, and we do!

But the gay marriage movement's leadership, at this point in history, is dominated by ideological hard leftists who want, as this Catholic mother has discovered, to impose a new morality on America. A new morality that stigmatizes and represses traditional Christian understandings of sex, gender, and marriage. The result is not diversity or pluralism or respect for our civil right to disagree, but an angry insistence on public affirmation of the goodness of gay unions as marriage whether we like it or not.

And as more Americans are recognizing this, two things are happening simultaneously: the mushy middle is flinching—getting scared to express its views; and the polling is becoming seriously unreliable on the marriage question.

This is a problem.

In this sense the strategy of hurling charges of hatred and bigotry at supporters of our marriage tradition is "working." That's probably why they keep doing it, in addition to the normal human satisfaction of the primal urge to hate those with whom we disagree—an urge only kept in check by people of any ideology by consistent, civilized, moral discipline!

At the same time, we see more and more examples of this strategy backfiring: the people most committed to the Biblical understanding of marriage are recognizing, like never before, that they—we—are being called to stand. We are called to stand up in truth, with love, in defense of marriage.

I'd like to close with another such testimony, from David French, an evangelical who wrote an "Open Letter to Young 'Post-Partisan' Evangelicals" about his own evolution, rather similar to our Catholic mom's.

It's an amazing letter. I'm going to quote him at length because really it's that important:

David begins by noting,

It's that time again—the time when the younger evangelical generation surveys our damaged nation, observes the terrible reputation of leading evangelical 'culture warriors' in the pop culture and with their peers, and says, 'You guys blew it. It's time for a new approach, for a post-partisan approach. We're not in anyone's political pocket. We're not focused on politics at all.' ... Young, post-partisan evangelicals, this letter is for you.

"Dear fed-up idealists," David French writes, "I used to be you. I know that's hard to believe. After all, I'm pretty darn partisan. I'm a religious liberties lawyer, a pro-life activist, the founder of Evangelicals for Mitt, and the most recent winner of the American Conservative Union's Ronald Reagan Award. I serve my country in uniform in the Army Reserves and am a veteran of the Iraq War. In other words, for a lot of you out there, I'm less role model than cautionary tale. I'm the guy you're trying not to be—the guy you think is destroying our Christian witness. Heck, I'm the guy that even I used to hate."

He describes his own evolution from a post-partisan evangelical to a culture warrior.

Step 1 he says was "Despising my elders."

We called ourselves 'Solomon's Colonnade' after the temple area where Jesus delivered one of his many stinging rebukes to the religious leaders of the day. There were only a few of us, friends from college, but we were determined to upend the silly, partisan hypocrisy of the religious right. I blame Bono, really. I attended a U2 concert during the 1987 'Joshua Tree' tour, and was enthralled as Bono (a real rock star!) not [only] spoke openly about his love for Jesus, he wound up his rousing mini-sermon with a passionate condemnation of the televangelists who were then dominating public religious life. His words were both shocking and exhilarating: 'Here's my message to the televangelists: get the f**k off my TV screen!'

Shortly after law school, while reflecting on the latest media-reported "outrage" from Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or James Dobson, I remember emailing my friends something like this: 'There has to be a revolution in American Christianity. The old guard has to go, and we have to put Jesus at the center of all we do. I don't have to lead the revolution, but at least let me drive the tank.' How those words would come to haunt my conscience...

Step 2 he calls "Encountering Life," real life.

I was living my dream. Sure, I was still pro-life (I co-founded Harvard Law School's only pro-life student group), but you couldn't categorize me! I had also written a then widely-read op-ed arguing that gay marriage was 'inevitable' and that the state had forfeited any legal grounds for denying gay couples the 'right' to marry. No labels for me!

But he says, "I soon realized that my nonpartisanship had a steep price. I could be pro-life, but not too pro-life. You see, if you're too pro-life; if you talk about [it] too much, then you can't be post-partisan. One political party is completely dedicated to legal protection of abortion on demand. The other political party is completely dedicated to repealing Roe v. Wade. If you talk too much about abortion, others will define you, and if you're defined how can you be independent?

'No problem,' my hip inner voice said. Pro-life is really whole life. Anti-poverty programs, environmental advocacy—that's all 'pro-life' in the broad sense, right? Can't I be pro-life and maintain my independence?' But my rational inner voice quickly rebelled. If I'm 'whole life' without talking about unborn children then I'm functionally pro-abortion, but if I'm 'whole life' and bring unborn children into that conversation in any meaningful way, then I'm right back where I started....

So I was pro-life. Firmly. Actively.

I clung, however, to my marriage position—with even greater ferocity. But my rational voice rebelled once again against my hip inner voice. Didn't no-fault divorce fly directly in the face of biblical marriage? Weren't legal regimes that were focused entirely around adult self-actualization having measurable and devastating effects on our culture? Why then would we continue down the path of marriage as a legally recognized means of adult self-actualization rather than marriage as a legally-protected institution of cultural preservation?

Finally like our Catholic blogger mom he saw through hard experience that gay marriage is not just about letting gay people live as they want.

Then, as a lawyer, I saw the catastrophic effects that normalization of same-sex relationships was having on religious liberty. And I realized I was wrong.

He realized something else: Christians are not obsessed with politics. The vast majority of Christian time and effort is in helping the poor and the sick around the world.

In 2011, I researched the budgets of the leading culture war organizations and compared them to the leading Christian anti-poverty organizations. Here's what I found:

How do those numbers stack up with leading Christian anti-poverty charities? Let's look at just three: World Vision, Compassion International, and Samaritan's Purse. Their total annual gross receipts (again, according to most recently available Form 990s) exceed $2.1 billion. The smallest of the three organizations (Samaritan's Purse) has larger gross receipts than every major "pro-family" culture war organization in the United States combined. World Vision, the largest, not only takes in more than $1 billion per year, it also has more than 1,400 employees and 43,000 volunteers.

In other words, Christians are overwhelmingly focused with their money and their time on the poor, not on culture war issues. Then why are Christians portrayed differently? Because the media is obsessed with the sexual revolution and demonizes dissent....

Anyone who believes that Christians are in control of their own public image does not understand how public perceptions are created in this country. No one is in total control of their own image and reputation.

We do not create the caricature we are subjected to it, in other words.

The final stage for David French was Step 3: "Becoming my elders."

I'll never forget the day I met James Dobson. I was preparing to appear on a Focus on the Family broadcast highlighting a number of my cases on behalf of Christian students. In a very real way that broadcast would cement my transition (not that anyone cared about that but me) from 'post-partisan' to firmly, completely 'religious right.' I was joining Focus and many others in their long fight against cultural and legal trends that result in millions of aborted babies, millions of broken families, persistent poverty, and increasing inequality.

Of course they're not perfect. Of course I'm not perfect. Of course I'm in fact deeply flawed. But so are relief workers at World Vision. So is the pastor you may admire so much. So were each one of Jesus's disciples and apostles. As we fight the culture war, we're going to make mistakes, we're not going to agree with each other, and sometimes I still get deeply frustrated at my own side. But I no longer believe the lie that there is a path for Christians through this culture that everyone will love—or even most people will love. I no longer believe the lie that American Christians are 'too political' and if we only spoke less about abortion we'd be more respected (the mainline denominations have taken that path for two generations, and they continue to lose members and cultural influence).

He ends with this remarkable call for these young people to evolve again.

So, 'post-partisan' Christians, please ponder this: First, as the price for your new path, are you willing to forego any effective voice at all for unborn children? Are you willing to keep silent when the secular world demands your silence? After all, that is the true price of non-partisanship—silence.... Follow Jesus, yes, but don't think for a moment that will improve your image, and don't be surprised if He takes you down much the same path He took the generation before you.

As for me, my fight for faithfulness to the Bible and for marriage will take me soon to Seattle, Washington.

A few weeks ago, in this very newsletter to you all, I issued a challenge to Dan Savage, after watching him insult the Bible and Christians who believe in it to a conference of high school student journalists. (Warning: offensive and profane language used in the video.)

Pick on someone your own size, I told Dan. Don't prove you can make 14-year-old girls cry by your over the top rhetoric and your ignorance of what the Biblical understanding of sex and marriage means.

Any time, any place, I told him, I'll be there.

Dan Savage responded with an invitation to his house for dinner, with New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer for a moderator and a film crew to cover.

This week, I accepted that invitation!

Dan—I accept and will look forward to debating you at your dining room table. As I said in my challenge to you, anytime, any place.

While I appreciate the invitation that you have extended to my wife, she will not be able to attend. She is a full-time mom with seven beautiful children and an eighth on the way.

I have no objection to Mark Oppenheimer from the New York Times covering the discussion, nor to you hiring your own video crew to film the event, provided that I am able to hire my own video crew to be sure there is no creative editing of the discussion.

Not that a New York Times reporter would slant the news, mind you!

This will be fun!

The fight continues. For truth, for justice, for an America in which the ideal for a child—a mom and dad united in marriage—is upheld and respected, not stigmatized as hatred or bigotry.

More and more of us now know: we must stand for these truths.

Thank you for being one of those decent, loving law-abiding Americans who do stand.

Thank you for all the victories you have made possible.

God bless you and your family: Please pray for all those on the front lines of this great fight.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I flew to Europe this week to spread the good news: marriage is a winning issue!

I was in London.

The Law Society had banned the conference. So the organizers switched the venue to the Queen Elizabeth II Center, which is actually owned by the government.

The managers of the QE2 Center waited until the night before the event to ban the conference against gay marriage—again.

We assembled at a London hotel instead.

Here's what I told the crowd:

"I'm an American—so I'm a bit of a rebel. You guys have accomplished something amazing here. Six months ago you gave yourselves only a ten percent shot of derailing David Cameron's gay marriage bandwagon. Now it's a fifty-fifty battle, a result of a genuine rebellion of the people against the elites who looked at polls and were going to throw in the towel."

And I told them, that's exactly what has happened in the U.S., over and over again. Political elites try to shut down the debate, they tell us it's impossible to win. Then we win, over and over again.

Phillip Blond is an important public intellectual in Great Britain. He's behind David Cameron's emphasis on localism and the true diversity it encourages. He's not behind the Prime Minister's absurdly counterproductive embrace of gay marriage.

He's actually taken the position that gay marriage is "homophobic" for forcing gay people out of authentic diversity into an institution designed by and for opposite sex couples. Domestic partnerships, he says, offer homosexual people a chance to develop their own diverse cultural norms.

Philip Blond showed up at the conference, and sat there tweeting a response to all those who claimed he was hanging out with bigots, saying more or less 'I haven't heard anything homophobic, and the way to get me to show up at something is to try to ban it.'

(For some of his actual tweets, the liberal press in the U.K. reports them here.)

We got a chance to hang out together afterwards.

For the flavor of Phillip Blond, take a look at this video from the nomblog:

Philip Blond is not the only rebel for marriage!

Brendan O'Neil used to publish a Marxist magazine. He now edits his own progressive online journal Spiked.

After the amazing victory for marriage in North Carolina, he published an essay in The Telegraph chronicling the open hatred and insults directed at an entire state by elites:

The bile being spat at the people of North Carolina exposes the ugly elitism of the gay-marriage lobby.

This orgy of bile, from the mainstream branding of North Carolina's voters as 'ignorant' to the peripheral demands that they do the world a favour and kill themselves, shows what is behind the gay-marriage campaign. This is not about rights and equality, or love and happiness. Rather, gay marriage has become a tool through which the right-minded sections of society express their moral superiority over the dumb, the brainwashed, the insufficiently cosmopolitan, the churchgoing. Gay marriage has become a kind of weapon, wielded by the right-on to demonstrate that they are better—that is, less brainwashed and more caring—than your average redneck or country black. Supporting gay marriage has become a kind of cultural signifier, a way of distinguishing oneself from the ignorant throng.

Given all this, it is possible that the voters of North Carolina were not only voting against gay marriage, but were also sticking two fingers up at the sneering cultural elite which has been hectoring them for weeks to do "the right thing" and embrace "liberal values." In the intensively divided America of 2012, being against gay marriage can now be seen almost as an act of political rebellion, against a faraway elite which fears and loathes anyone who is not like them.

A New York progressive named Sean Collins was inspired (I suspect in part by Brendan's courage) to rebel and come out as another progressive opponent of gay marriage:

In this environment, those who disagree with, or have questions about, gay marriage will feel tremendous pressure to start conforming. Opposing gay marriage has become a view that "dare not speak its name". Following Obama, expect more public figures to be called upon to recant and say 'I now believe'.

Well, count me out. I will not join the cultural elite's bandwagon, a bandwagon that runs on self-flattery and the demonisation of 'backward' voters. Critics of the same-sex marriage campaign are here, and we're not all bible-thumping Christians—get used to it.

Sean Collins' piece is worth reading, both for its own sake and as a cultural signifier of its own: this thing called gay marriage is not anywhere near inevitable!

At some point even the Manhattan liberals are going to start questioning a movement that seeks to brand the majority of the black and the white working class as "bigots."

What is left of progressivism as a movement of the working classes against the elites? What is left but open disdain for the views and values of the people whose interests progressives claim to champion?

An Associated Press reporter this week rebelled against the directive that all portrayals of people who oppose gay marriage "MUST" be unsympathetic.

(I know a little about this informal press rule. When a Washington Post lifestyle columnist published a personally humane profile of me a few years back, the avalanche of hatred directed against her for finding me personally likable was amazing! She had to come out, through the WaPo ombudsman, as a personally pro-gay marriage bisexual to survive!).

So the AP profiles John Tolo, a St. Paul missionary, whose ministry has bought and is renovating an abandoned house to create a safe space for teens.

From his own life, ("recalling his own drug use and multiple sexual relationships after his parents divorced") and his work with the poor in St. Paul, Tolo worries about "this fundamental breakdown of having a healthy father role model and a healthy mother role model." He says that "there's this major identity issue where men are just missing."

Tolo supports some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples, but told the AP that marriage is a sacred template for raising and caring for children as God intended. Broadening marriage risks undermining that, while infringing on the rights of Christians to define their own institutions.

"It's almost like the government wants to come and rewrite the Bible and, to me, that's a position that I don't think the government should take," Tolo said.

Another opponent of gay marriage, April Brown of Lewisville, Texas, told the AP "I was evolving, definitely, just like the president," said Brown, the mother of four. But not in the same direction!

Until a few years ago, Brown said she was heading toward acceptance of the idea of civil unions for gay couples. But she was troubled after reading about a lawsuit filed by a gay man against the eHarmony dating site, demanding it provide matchmaking for gays and lesbians. That struck a chord because Brown knew two straight couples who had met through eHarmony and gotten married. While same-sex couples might argue they had a right to be together, what gave gays or lesbians the right, she wondered, to demand a private business change its ways to suit them?...

"I just began kind of questioning, what do they really want?" she said.

Brown said she doesn't want to tell people they can't be together. But the word "marriage" means something more, the joining of a man and a woman that is critical for society to sustain itself. "That's when it goes from a right to a privilege," she said.

You and I know that millions of Americans are like Mrs. Brown and Mr. Tolo: decent, loving, law abiding people who don't hate anyone but who do want to stand up for what's right—in our eyes, and more importantly in the eyes of God.

The rebellion continues!

A young teen in North Carolina rebelled this week against the hatred and invective directed at her and her whole state for standing up for marriage:

But for me the personally most moving "rebellion" is not a rebellion at all, it's a demonstration of a profound faithfulness to the Christian tradition.

Since President Obama's announcement that gay marriage is a right, we've seen an extraordinary outpouring of faithfulness and leadership from the black Church.

Two quick examples:

Here's a roundup from the local press of black pastors speaking out and speaking up, in defense of core Christian teachings.

The Orlando Sentinel, among other news outlets, reveals the reality: Even More Black Pastors Speak Out Against Obama's Marriage Switch

"I'm opposed to same-sex marriage. I don't find any support for it in the Bible," said the Rev. Willie Barnes, pastor of Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in Eatonville. "I wish he had never made that statement."

And watch this TV coverage of a historic press conference held by civil rights leaders who marched with Rev. Martin Luther King, along with major bishops of the Church of God in Christ

Rev. Bill Owens, who consults with NOM as a liaison to the black churches, organized the effort as he is organizing 100000signatures4marriage.com among African-American Christians.

Most importantly, I want to thank Bishop Blake and the Church of God in Christ for publicly speaking out in defense of marriage, reaffirming their commitment to core Christian principles, after the media coverage of President Obama's announcement.

Let me share with you this important statement in its entirety because I don't think you will read it elsewhere. From Charisma News, the official publication of COGIC:

The president's position regarding "same-sex marriage" has set off a "firestorm," unlike any other debate in our civil society, perhaps, since the civil rights unrest of the mid-20th century.

The advocacy for same-sex marriage, while in conflict with our nation's long-standing moral posture, has indeed created opportunity for the church to communicate our unequivocal position about God's design and foundation for humanity, the biblical mandate for heterosexuality through the bonds of matrimony and the centuries-old understanding of the only acceptable means of procreation, habitation and the establishment of the family. The president suggests same-sex relationships and male-female relationships committed to by oath before God and/or witnesses, where formal documents are signed before a civil or ecclesiastical figure. It further implies that both are equally good and valuable. In addition to this, it suggests that both equally contribute to the good and advancement of a society. From a fundamental view of Scripture, the same word should not be used to describe both same-sex and heterosexual relationships.

Fundamentally, traditionally and historically, marriage has functioned to unite a man and women together in facing the challenges of life, to sanctify sexual involvement, to authorize the conception of children, provide an environment for the protection and development of offspring and to strengthen and sustain the family unit.

Historically, the sexual coming together of husband and wife produces children who are the fruit of both their bodies and are united by blood to their brothers and sisters. This coming together of husband and wife is the means by which the world has been populated, and the human race sustained.

A husband, wife and children are the bedrock of a society which also mirrors the universal church as a microcosm, or domestic church, out of which God's values are modeled, nurtured and disciplined. This divinely inspired family framework, pronounced in Old and New Testament Scripture, is without compromise. To tamper with the foundation is to disrupt the order God intended. This order is the intended structure by which all humanity is expected to govern their lives.

The human body is designed by God as male and female to anatomically accommodate individuals of the opposite sex in the conception, bearing and nurture of children; the human body is unquestionably designed to accommodate individuals of the opposite sex, not of the same sex.

The Holy Bible, which is the authoritative Word of God, clearly prohibits sexual relations between members of the same sex. Though it does not isolate intercourse between individuals of the same sex as the only sin, it designates this and a series of other activities as sinful behavior from which the Christian is to abstain. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 (NKJV) says, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (See also: Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; and 1 Timothy 1:8).

The Bible indicates that there is nothing that can excuse or eliminate the sinfulness of sexual involvement between individuals of the same sex. Neither so called "marriage vows," civil unions, nor homosexual drives or passions are recognized by the Bible as justifications or acceptable excuses or rationale for sexual acts between individuals of the same sex. Sinful desires and inclinations must be resisted and overcome by the power of God in Christ Jesus, and by power of the Holy Spirit who strengthens our minds and our wills.

Our vocabularies are made up of thousands of words because there are so many distinctive entities and concepts to be referred to. Each word designates a category of entities which are unique to that word. Specific words are most useful when they reflect identical images, and when they do not create conflicting or unclear images in the mind of the speaker and the hearer.

The Bible defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). To define marriage otherwise is to dilute and destroy its usefulness as a word which denotes what is highest and best about human society.

While we are committed to proclaim and support the tenants of the Bible, and also to persuade others to do so, we recognize that in a free and democratic society morality cannot be legislated. We oppose violence and discrimination against individuals or groups because of sexual orientation. We do not feel that it is necessary to legalize same-sex marriage to provide the civil benefits and civil rights to all regardless of sexual orientation.

COGIC is the largest black Pentecostal denomination in the United States—and the 5th largest Christian denomination of any kind. This kind of affirmation would be big news if the largely white and liberal mainstream press were not clueless and biased in their marriage coverage.

I'm honored to work with and learn from and follow the lead of fearless men and women of God like this, who recognize: this is not primarily about whom you vote for, but about where your heart and its treasure lies. This is about whether we are going to put our faith in princes or in God?

Let me follow where COGIC leads by affirming the closing of their historic statement of faith:

We proclaim the value and worth of every human being regardless of sexual orientation.

But, we passionately and unapologetically defend the right of faith communities to maintain the integrity of their message, mission and identity. We welcome to the church all people who seek to serve and know God and His Word.

God bless you. We rebels for marriage keep growing!

Thank you for making all of this possible. Without you—your courage, your fellowship, your sacrifices of time and treasure—we could not have helped make any of this happen.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The fallout from Pres. Obama's flip-flop on marriage continues. Sixty-two percent of Americans say, in a new Fox News poll, that it was just a political decision on Obama's part (including a plurality of Democrats, 46 percent to 38 percent).

If so, it was a very bad one.

As NOM's political consultant Frank Schubert told California's influential insider Flash Report:

"After months of very carefully managing expectations about his 'evolving' position on gay marriage, President Obama suddenly found himself last week careening between powerful forces like the steel ball in Elton John's 'pinball wizard.' His own Vice President threw him into the pinball machine, and then his Education Secretary thrust the plunger, launching him into game."

"...The left is jumping for joy at their accomplishment, forcing President Obama out of the closet on gay marriage. Their celebration will be short-lived, though, because they have very likely cost him the presidency."

A NYT/CBS news poll showed that a whopping 40 percent of Americans said Pres. Obama's endorsement of gay marriage would affect their vote. Among independents, by a 2-1 margin they said it would make them less likely to vote for Obama.

As Katrina Trinko of National Review put it, "It looks like Barack Obama's decision to support gay marriage is hurting him in the polls."

In one congressional district in Arkansas, according to a new poll, Obama is leading a virtually unknown candidate (with no funds) by only seven points, 45 to 38 percent, in the Democratic primary. "The president's policies are wildly unpopular in a party which has historically supported mainstream Democrats like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton," says Republican state representative David Sanders. "He's got some major problems, I think. A lot of it is driven by his new position on marriage."

Here I am in a CNN op-ed making the case, looking at just one swing state, North Carolina, which Pres. Obama won in 2008 by just 14,000 votes:

North Carolina is so important to the re-election chances of Barack Obama that he picked Charlotte as the host city for the Democratic nominating convention.

On May 8, all his careful plans came crashing down when 61% of voters in a North Carolina referendum adopted a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

...Obama's embrace of same-sex marriage will help ensure he becomes a one-term president, and his political demise will begin with North Carolina.

Our victory for marriage was so impressive that the prominent Democratic firm Public Policy Polling sent out this Twitter missive as the results came in: "Hate to say it, but I don't believe polls showing majority support for gay marriage nationally. Any time there's a vote, it doesn't back it up."

Other pollsters and polling experts are beginning to admit the obvious: It's easy to rig polls to get Americans to say they support gay marriage. But those polls do not reflect the real underlying support for gay marriage.

When offered the "out" of civil unions, for example, just 37 percent of Americans say they support gay marriage in the Fox New polls. This doesn't mean they are actually for civil unions, as the North Carolina vote makes clear. It means they want a way to express support for marriage without expressing hatred towards gay people as human beings, with real, genuine civil rights.

The media is not acknowledging that marriage supporters don't reject being respectful and civil towards gay people—that's very clear. The Dan Savages of the world have reduced any expression of disagreement with gay marriage to the status of hateful, ignorant and bigoted assaults on gay people. The most committed stand up to the pressure.

The mushy and uncomfortable middle tells fibs to pollsters, who are then repeatedly and predictably surprised by election results.

The same week that Pres. Obama endorsed gay marriage, the vitriol and hatred directed as people who oppose his marriage flip broke out into the news media in two different ways.

Young Bristol Palin innocently blogged against Pres. Obama's marriage flip-flop, especially the way he cited his children as his moral authorities in the matter. The result, she says, is a torrent of hatred and death threats.

"People claim they're just trying to protect the right of two people to love each other—a right I don't contest, by the way—and then spew the worst words imaginable at someone they disagree with," Palin, the eldest daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, writes. "If the agenda is love, why do you hate so intensely?"

Near the bottom of the post, Palin displays some of the worst feedback she's received, including death wishes against her and her family.

"You all, including your son, deserve a slow, painful and miserable death," one commenter wrote. "Your backwards thinking is so sad because the world is moving forward and you will certainly be left behind. May death be upon you."

Palin wonders why her remarks—in which she criticized President Obama for consulting his daughters about gay marriage—prompted such nasty backlash.

(The Palin flap prompted our co-founder Maggie Gallagher to blog, "Unwed Moms for Marriage Unite!" on the Corner at National Review.)

Popular pro-wrestler C.M. Punk himself blogged death wishes to his fans who opposed his endorsement of gay marriage after our great win in North Carolina, according to LifeSite News:

To one objecting fan Punk replied, "Kill yourself." He told another supporter of the nuclear family to "drink bleach."

...In another tweet, Punk castigated the amendment's supporters as "So many stupid people. Bigots."

I was perhaps most shocked by the news that a Hollywood shopping mall has banned the world's greatest boxer, Manny Pacquiao, from appearing on its property—because he spoke out against gay marriage.

(The press falsely reported he had wished death to gay people, which he quickly denied and the reporter who interviewed him confirmed.)

Our Next Gen leader Thomas Peters went on Seattle radio to talk back to all the Dan Savages of the world. You can hear it here:

We are just 945 signatures away from breaking 40,000 in our DumpStarbucks.com campaign. If you haven't signed, can you just take a second to do so now?

In a press story designed to calm fears, Starbucks CEO Howard Schulz admitted that investors are worried, and they're asking about his decision to have Starbucks corporately endorse gay marriage as key to their brand.

Keep the pressure on! Get one friend to go to DumpStarbucks.com today!

The press did not report it, but NOM was at the Bank of America's annual shareholder meeting, which took place in Charlotte, NC one day after the great victory for marriage there.

Bank of America is the company which fired Frank Turek for having written a book opposing gay marriage:

After NOM sent a letter to the board, the corporation sent a letter back making it clear that firing people for their views for or against gay marriage was against company policy, for which we thank them.

In Charlotte, we asked the company to make this policy clear to all their employees—and their bosses. Thomas Strobhar introduced from the floor this shareholder resolution:

Freedom of Speech Resolution

Whereas, the Bank of America Corporate Social Responsibility Report of 2010 says, "Employees with diverse backgrounds and perspectives enrich our business, engage us to better serve our customers and make us a better community partner."

Whereas, the Bank of America Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Statement states it recruits and hires candidates without regard to race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, age, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, veteran status, marital status, medical condition or disability.

Whereas, we do not offer similar assurances of non-discrimination to job candidates or employees who publicly speak out on issues of concern to them.

Whereas, by not providing free speech safeguards we potentially deprive our company of the unique intellectual heritage, characteristics and perspectives each person brings to the job.

Resolved, the shareholders request the Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Statement specifically include protection to engage in free speech.

This is the start of something big!

What happened to Manny Pacquiao is an example of the mismatch in our laws and policies at the moment. He was banned from shopping at a Hollywood mall because he opposes gay marriage.

Huh?

Well, I suppose the world's greatest boxer will get over that and shop somewhere else.

But I know of no one, not a single person who opposes gay marriage, who would support banning gay people or gay-marriage advocates from appearing at shopping malls.

Meanwhile, at Liberty College, Gov. Mitt Romney received thunderous applause for speaking up for marriage from tens of thousands of young people the media never interviews: Watch it for yourself!

In his new column, Patrick Buchanan points out that Pres. Obama has only one pathway to deliver on gay marriage: the Supreme Court.

"But Obama needs one more justice. If elected, he will get it, and same-sex marriage will be forced on all of America. If Romney wins, the Supreme Court will likely leave the issue of same-sex marriage to be decided by the people and their elected representatives."

Game on!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Thanks be to God!

The victory for marriage in North Carolina was huge. "Overwhelming" and "landslide" were just two of the words even MSNBC had to use in covering the great victory for the marriage amendment.

North Carolina was huge because once again, with your help we visibly exploded the myth of inevitability.

In a record turnout for a primary, 61% of voters in a moderate Southern swing state which President Obama carried four years ago voted "yes" to marriage and "no" to gay marriage.

Congratulations to Tami Fitzgerald, whose leadership made last night's victory possible; to my good friend and campaign manager Frank Schubert of Mission: Public Affairs; and to the dedicated volunteers whose tireless efforts made victory happen.

It was truly an honor to serve on the Executive Committee and be a part of this campaign. Check out this video of the official victory celebration in North Carolina! I have a couple brief appearances in it!

61% to 39%!

If you are one of the more dedicated readers of my email alerts, you already know my and NOM's response to this victory: Let's use it to push harder for more victories.

Four more states will vote on marriage this November. In Maryland and Washington, the people will vote on whether to repeal gay marriage bills passed by their politicians. In Maine, advocates of gay marriage will seek to get the people to approve gay marriage by a popular vote. In Minnesota, voters will decide whether to add a Marriage Amendment to their own state's constitution.

Winning these battles takes money.

Over the past several months, NOM was able to contribute $425,000 to the North Carolina campaign. But the simple reality is that we can't match that level of financial support in four states this November.

Every crisis is also an opportunity—to take our movement to the next level.

That's why we're launching Stand for Marriage America.

Through Stand for Marriage America, you can make a single contribution and know that all of it will go directly to the four state campaigns in Minnesota, Maine, Maryland, and Washington state. With just a few clicks of the mouse, 25% of your gift (or any portion you allocate) will go to each of the state campaigns fighting to protect marriage this November.

I want to underline a bit how unusual this new initiative is. Organizations mostly raise money for their own organizations. But we at NOM are not in this fight for our organization but for a great and noble cause: to protect God's vision of marriage. We hope other organizations will join us in raising money 100% of which will go directly to winning more marriage battles in more states. This is a cause and a community, and no one organization can win alone.

Please help us launch this initiative and come out of the gate strong by making a generous donation today! This November, Minnesota, Maine, Maryland and Washington state each have the opportunity to share in North Carolina's success, defending marriage and sending a powerful statement to politicians and judges across the country: The American people know what marriage is—the union of one man and one woman.

Here's the thing. I'm not going to just ask you to give—I'm going to put NOM's money where your dollar is. NOM will match every dollar you contribute, up to $100,000.

Together, this November we will once again prove that the naysayers, the doubters, and the pessimists are wrong: The people standing together will not be defeated.

God is real, and the inevitability myth is made up to substitute for His providence.

That's why I'm challenging you today to make a generous gift, not to NOM today, but to Stand for Marriage America.

With President Obama's marriage flip, the stakes just got even higher.

As I told the press,

President Obama has now made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada.. His administration is already trying to dismantle the nation's marriage laws by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. All the state marriage amendments and laws are at risk under a president who actively wants to change the definition of marriage.

NOM will work ceaselessly in these swing states and across the nation to preserve traditional marriage because it is profoundly in the public good to do so. God is the author of marriage, and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama who is beholden to gay marriage activists for campaign financing to turn marriage into something political that can be redefined according to presidential whim. Just yesterday North Carolina voters sent a clear message that America wants to preserve marriage. We intend to win the marriage debate this November.

Gov. Mitt Romney immediately came out to affirm his disagreement with gay marriage and Pres. Obama:

Jeff Bell in the The Weekly Standard has a great analysis of the political consequences of the North Carolina victory coupled with Pres. Obama's pro-gay-marriage announcement:

Yesterday's overwhelming approval of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by the voters of North Carolina underlines the growing likelihood that the issue will be a major factor in the 2012 presidential election. Consider the following circumstances:

...Republican elites and consultants who say the definition of marriage and other social issues are "narrow" and "divisive" will now no doubt explain why marriage is, in terms of margin, today running more than 20 points ahead of John McCain in 2008 and (in recent North Carolina polls) Mitt Romney. (Don't hold your breath waiting for that one.)

Regardless of what the consultants think, the gulf between the American people and what the Democratic party is likely to write into its platform this September in Charlotte is rendering the issue of gay marriage unavoidable this November. The unanimity of Democratic elites has made a gay marriage platform plank unstoppable. The Republican platform will continue to oppose gay marriage, and by election day more voters than ever before will be aware that, for better or worse, reelection of the Obama-Biden ticket could well mean federal imposition of gay marriage in the president's second term. Given that in the swing states most critical in the Electoral College, voters are (like those in North Carolina) more socially conservative than economically conservative, partisan polarization of the marriage issue should be far from a source of comfort for Team Obama and its strategists.

Jeff Bell, one of the original Reagan supply-siders, has a new book, "The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism," making the case that the social issues are key to GOP victories.

Pres. Obama may be basking in the applause of the media, and rolling in cash from his gay millionaire bundlers, but American now has a clear choice: a president who supports gay marriage or one who stands with the majority of the American people.

The polls were wrong in North Carolina, as they have been wrong in predicting every single marriage amendment battle.

The new Gallup poll shows a six-point swing in our favor since last year. That's good news, but I do not believe the topline that 50% of Americans support gay marriage. A poll just last year by ADF showed that 62% of Americans reject same-sex marriage.

I don't believe the pro-gay-marriage polling, and neither does the Democratic polling firm PPP, which tweeted, as returns from North Carolina's landslide victory for marriage rolled in,

"Hate to say it, but I don't believe polls showing majority support for gay marriage nationally. Any time there's a vote it doesn't back it up."

Let me make a prediction for this November: Gov. Romney will be proven to be on the right side of history, on the right side of 5000 years of the wisdom of mankind in defining marriage as the union of husband and wife.

Family Research Council's Tony Perkins just released a statement, which I agree with, saying that with this announcement Pres. Obama may have handed the support of social conservatives to Gov. Romney.

The choice for voters will be clear.

Gov. Romney consistently opposed same-sex marriage. Gov. Romney has signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, promising to appoint judges who respect our Constitution, to support a federal marriage amendment, and to protect Americans who have been harassed for their views on marriage.

BTW, speaking of harassment, if you have not yet seen this video of young Daniel Glowacki please take a moment to watch it:

And please take a moment to write to him and his mother thanking them for their courage.

A 14-year-old kid branded a bigot on national television and by his own teacher, simply for speaking up for his Catholic faith?

Amazing that this could happen in the United States of America. It's a clarion call to us to stick together, to build a movement strong enough to speak up, in love, for what's right—and, especially, to defend the heroes of the next generation who are refusing to be cowed.

Please, as NOM's new spokesman Damian Goddard suggests, thank a hero today.

Hundreds of you already have. We need to stand together to withstand the hatred and incivility headed our way.

Meanwhile in New York state, another pro-gay-marriage Republican just stepped down.

In an interview which aired on Capitol Tonight, GOP state senator Jim Alesi announced that he will not run for reelection:

"Alesi sparked controversy when he became the first Republican to publicly support same-sex marriage last year. Those troubles were magnified by an ill-timed lawsuit Alesi brought against two of his own constituents. He dropped the suit and apologized repeatedly, calling the move boneheaded, but the damage was done," reports Capitol Tonight.

"At some point, you have to really look at what is good for the party. What makes it easiest to maintain the majority," Alesi said. Too bad the GOP leadership which brought up and passed the gay-marriage bill did not think of that earlier.

He was even more frank to the New York Daily News: "Gay Marriage Vote Sunk Me."

"I've gotten a lot of support from Democrats and the gay community, but unfortunately they can't vote in a Republican primary," he said.

One down, three to go among Republicans who voted to bring gay marriage to New York.

Another bit of good news. Senator Orrin Hatch is asking the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the possible unauthorized disclosure of the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) confidential donor information.

Sen Hatch, the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote that "evidence suggests that the IRS may have been the source of the unauthorized disclosure of donor information," and adds that this "is a matter that I take with the utmost seriousness, and I expect that you will treat this inquiry with the attention that it deserves."

(You can hear NOM Chairman John Eastman discussing the situation on Steve Deace's nationally-syndicated radio show here.)

We believe the IRS is taking the release of protected tax information seriously and we thank Sen. Hatch for his support.

Thank you for the victories you made possible this week and every week. Together we will stand up against the hatred and continue to fight in defense of marriage.

Together we will win more impossible victories.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

By now you've probably heard about the incredibly squalid performance of President Obama's anti-bullying advisor, Dan Savage.

If not, go watch this video here:

Invited to address the issue of bullying before a captive audience of other people's children, Dan Savage chose instead to belittle these high-schoolers' faith, to repeatedly curse at the Bible, and, when a group of rather brave students quietly walked out, to curse directly at them.

He has refused to apologize for any of it, except for directly cursing at the teens who left.

As a father of seven, watching it makes my blood boil.

Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I'm here, you name the time and the place and let's see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It's easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let's pick on someone our own size!

Here's Dan Savage following up on that performance with an incredibly filthy and obscene attack on the Pope from the Hammerschmidt Memorial Chapel at Elmhurst College in Illinois. Warning: It's sexually-explicit and disgusting language. Please do not play it where children can hear.

I'm here, any time, any place you name, Dan Savage. You will find out out how venal and ridiculous your views of these things are if you dare to accept a challenge.

But our greater challenge is to Pres. Obama and the White House, which is continuing to host and promote Dan Savage's anti-bullying campaign It Gets Better.

Pres. Obama needs to disassociate our nation's White House from a man who behaves in this fashion.

Savage himself told the Seattle Times there was nothing unusual about his speech. It's at the heart of how he defines "anti-bullying":

"Savage said the speech is one he has repeatedly given in promoting 'It Gets Better,' his hugely successful project to help gay, lesbian and transgender youths cope with bullying. The project has at least 40,000 videos—testimonials meant to offer encouragement—including one by President Obama, and an accompanying book that debuted on The New York Times best-seller list."

Dan Savage actually told the Seattle Times, "It wasn't like I sneaked up on a Bible study class and commandeered the podium. ...I'm like the Devil. You have to invite me in."

So far Dan Savage has been invited in and warmly welcomed to the White House, on the White House website, as well as MTV. It's unseemly to say the least.

Thanks to the thousands of you who have already responded to our call to Pres. Obama: Drop Dan Savage!

And I really need you to send the petition request to all your friends and relatives. Let them see the man Pres. Obama is standing by, at this point.

Let them see what real unabashed and unashamed hatred looks and sounds like.

If you haven’t yet signed our petition, go here and please do so.

For all our children's sake, and for the sake of civilized discourse in this beloved and God-blessed land.

On Tuesday, we will wake up and find out whether the people of North Carolina have voted for the Marriage Amendment.

Those who oppose the amendment have chosen to raise millions to spread blatant falsehoods to North Carolina voters.

The campaign to dehumanize supporters of our marriage tradition has been stepped up as well, with reports that as many of half of all pro-marriage signs have been vandalized.

Yes, a pro-marriage amendment teenager stole a neighbor's sign and videotaped himself shooting it and posted in on YouTube. This teen was properly visited by the police to make sure he meant no harm to any person and they also properly cited him for destruction of property. Let me reiterate NOM's persistent call to mutual respect and civility in the midst of these important moral questions that we believe ought to be decided by the people as a whole.

No gay person, or gay-marriage advocate, should be afraid in our great democracy to stand up, speak, organize, or donate for the things they believe in. Violence, threats of violence, and name-calling have no place in our democracy.

Will Joe Solmonese or Evan Wolfson or any other major gay-rights leaders stand up and say the same? Will they tell their people: Respect the rights of "anti-gay marriage" citizens, even as we fight for what we think is right?

I hope so. I'm waiting to see.

I was there in California during the Prop 8 campaign when so many people faced harassment and threats just for standing up for marriage. So when the NC campaign released a report that an elderly woman was physically attacked for having signs that said "Yes on the marriage amendment," I was shocked but not surprised.

This story has not received media attention. But we posted the police report on the NOM blog.

According to the police report, this elderly lady went to a home looking for her sister. She told police that a man who lived there told her they needed to "talk about this marriage amendment." She said she didn't want to speak about it, but as she tried to back out, this man stuck his head in the window and would not let her leave. Her glasses got knocked off somehow. When she tried to retrieve them, he started banging the car door against her four or five times, cussing at her very angrily because she supported the marriage amendment. The police officer noted what looked like bruises on her back and that she was very upset and crying.

She told police she had "never experienced anything like this."

I'm so sorry this happened to her. But of course she is not alone. You and I know that apparently even in North Carolina it now takes courage to stand up for marriage.

The students at TFP Student Action have just released their own video about what it's like to be a young man holding signs on the street saying positive things: "One man, one woman = marriage."

The hatred generated against these young people is profoundly antithetical to the basic principles of fair play and democracy. But too many gay-marriage leaders are determined to create an equation in which opposition to gay marriage = hatred. They have convinced themselves of this, among many other untruths, and they are convincing others to act on it.

They think it's a strategy for victory, clearly. But it amounts to an attempt to write out of civilized society at least half or more of the American people. And it's going to fail.

Meanwhile a dramatic story is unfolding in North Carolina, where voters will go to the polls on May 8 to decide the future of marriage in that state.

As pro-gay-marriage advocates began to blanket the state with ads claiming that the marriage amendment will strip single women of domestic-violence protection, I began to get a little worried.

But the NC campaign fought back with the truth.

"I am concerned about the false and misleading claims that are being made by opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment," said Rockingham County District Attorney Phil Berger, Jr., Vice President of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. "Citizens should have no concern that the marriage amendment will impact domestic violence prosecution, because it will not."

And so were so many others who have fought for marriage in North Carolina.

So after showing some initial slippage, the polling now shows gay-marriage advocates heading for a massive defeat at the polls.

The latest SurveyUSA today poll shows the Marriage Amendment ahead by 20 points!

The most amazing thing about the support for marriage is its breadth. SurveyUSA reports that the measure passes 57 percent to 37 percent, "with majority support among men and women, black and white, rich and poor, and in all parts of the state. Opposition is most strong among Democrats and independents, but rises to a majority only among the relatively small number of voters who identify themselves as liberals."

Read that again closely. Majorities of blacks and whites, rich and poor, men and women, and Republicans and Democrats oppose gay marriage.

This is not surprising to you and me; we know the truth, which is rooted in Truth itself.

Don't stop fighting now, in North Carolina—or anywhere else! Victory is within our reach!

Thanks to all of you who have written to express your support and concern about the massive illegal attacks on NOM, most recently through the release of federally-protected IRS tax returns.

We believe that both the IRS and other legal authorities are responding appropriately with a serious investigation and we want to respect the legal process as it moves forward.

Please pray for the safety of all the voters in North Carolina, both those who favor and those who oppose marriage.

But please remember especially in your prayers this week the one elderly lady who says she was viciously attacked for standing up for God's vision of marriage, and for all the teens in Dan Savage's audience.

With charity towards all, with malice towards none, we will fight for the right, as God gives us the power to see what's right.

God bless you and may God bless America.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You know me. You know I'm a happy warrior.

Even as we speak, voting has begun in North Carolina over the Marriage Amendment.

The vote may well be close, but only for one reason: Gay-marriage advocates in North Carolina have abandoned the idea that they can win a vote on gay marriage.

Instead, in North Carolina they've conceded defeat on the main question—should marriage be a union of husband and wife?—and are blanketing the airwaves with lies to scare voters into thinking the amendment will somehow strip women of protection from domestic violence.

We've seen this before, by the way, as the Marriage Law Foundation's president Bill Duncan points out:

"[A] majority of state marriage amendments also prohibit legal statuses that are just marriage by another name so what North Carolina is doing is hardly unprecedented. Some of these amendments have been on the books for eight years with none of the outcomes North Carolina gay-marriage advocates have predicted. On the other hand, to understand why the proposed amendment's drafters felt it necessary to include a prohibition of civil unions, one need only remember that a Ninth Circuit panel cited the fact that California had a marriage amendment and a civil-union statute simultaneously as a reason for invalidating California's Proposition 8 just months ago."

(A group of law professors at Campbell have carefully refuted these ludicrous claims in this PDF.)

Thirty-one states have marriage amendments, some with wording quite similar to North Carolina's. In none of them have women been deprived of domestic violence protection because they are not married to their abusers.

The good news is that gay-marriage advocates in North Carolina have conceded that gay marriage is a losing issue with voters. And they're not the only ones.

Washington Post blogger Jonathan Bernstein notes a strange disconnect between the triumphalist rhetoric on gay marriage in the mainstream media, and the way Democrats are treating the issue:

Greg has been reporting recently on a fascinating issue: how Democrats will handle same-sex marriage in their 2012 party platform. The general sense has been that Barack Obama is lagging behind his party on this issue, and that it'll be hard for him to block a marriage equality plank without angering core Dem voters.

That may be true. But if so, he may have company: Dem candidates for the U. S. Senate also are generally avoiding or downplaying the issue, at least if their campaign web sites are any guide.

For the first time, some polls show majority support for gay marriage. But if this is any guide, Democrats are still being extraordinarily reluctant about an issue they seem to think can still backfire on them.

(Maybe they are watching the carnage in New York state among Democrats who came out for gay marriage in conservative districts!)

On the incredible scandal and potential politicization of the IRS I have a bit of good news to report: We spoke with the Inspector General of the IRS, who has assured us that the IRS takes the misuse of taxpayers' private data very seriously and will conduct a serious investigation.

We are glad. But the IRS will only prosecute a crime if the crime was committed internally by an IRS agent. The other possibilities—that the IRS database was hacked into by an outsider, or that an individual criminally impersonated a NOM staffer to obtain this data—must be pursued by the Department of Justice.

The Human Rights Campaign scrubbed its website of any mention of NOM's stolen 990s, after our lawyers demanded they do so. The Huffington Post remains in violation of federal laws that forbid "knowingly" retailing illegally-obtained IRS data.

Thanks to Red State's Erick Erickson, the Weekly Standard, and GOPUSA for covering the story.

But thanks especially to Alliance Defense Fund's Brian Raum for his column, "In Defense of the National Organization for Marriage":

"The unfounded attacks and insults lodged against the National Organization for Marriage have increased recently by an ever ravenous opposition. The Human Rights Campaign has shamelessly published NOM's confidential IRS records, and last month a federal judge unsealed some of NOM's constitutionally protected internal reports.

"Not surprisingly, those who seek to redefine marriage immediately seized upon the opportunity to attack NOM based on these documents with salacious accusations and vilifications," writes Raum.

He goes on to ask this important question, "So why are HRC, The New York Times, and others attempting demonize NOM simply because they have sought to marshal the black and Hispanic communities to speak out for marriage...?

"The reason why NOM's opponents are so enraged is because NOM is effective."
I think he's right about that. It's not because we speak hatefully or intemperately. You and I have always bent over backwards to remind our opponents that we believe gay people are human beings like us with legitimate rights that need to be respected. But none of us have the right to redefine marriage.

Let me pause to say thank you for all the good together you’ve allowed us to accomplish. We are drawing fire because we are effective, thank God!

This week we released a new video: Is gay marriage a civil right? Listen to these African-American and Latino leaders explaining in their own words why they oppose same-sex marriage:

I defy anyone to say that leaders like these are speaking because NOM is manipulating them. That's a racist idea. Clearly these brave men and women are, like other Americans, standing up for what they believe is right for America!

The crisis we face, together, is that fewer Americans are willing to speak for marriage; when you hear of a loss in the polls, it stems from the communications breakdown in the mainstream media.

At NOM we are fighting this in multiple ways, including by bringing you news you will not hear anywhere else:

NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance now has a new spokesman, Damian Goddard.

You may remember Damian Goddard as the Toronto sportscaster who was fired one day after tweeting that he believes in the "true and authentic" meaning of marriage.

This week he introduces Daniel Glowacki, a 14-year-old Michigan boy, who was persecuted by a teacher and kicked out of his classroom for raising his hand and saying the "homosexual lifestyle" was against "my Catholic religion." Daniel was told he did not belong in a public school by this public-school teacher, according to eyewitness accounts.

When the school disciplined this out-of-control teacher, the teacher went to the press and was lionized for standing up to homophobia. The school district backed down. Daniel and his mom were left hanging.

Please watch this video. And do as Damian asks: Send a word of encouragement to Daniel and his mother. The Thomas More Law Center is defending their rights legally. But we need to send a message to Daniel: You are not alone. Together we will fight against the injustice descending on our great country.

To see the future we must fight against, all we have to do is look at our sister democracies.

In Great Britain, it's just now been ruled illegal for counselors to help clients fight unwanted same-sex attractions. If you want help controlling your sexual impulses so you can lead the life you believe is right—you have to go it alone.

As the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, just warned the European Court of Human Rights, "In a country where Christians can be sacked for manifesting their faith, are vilified by State bodies, are in fear of reprisal or even arrest for expressing their views on sexual ethics, something is very wrong."

Yes, something is very wrong. Our core faith traditions are under sustained attack. But just as importantly, we are losing marriage as a social institution, under the twin pressures of the sexual revolution and the gay-marriage juggernaut.

Young people are being told repeatedly, by authoritative voices, that marriage has nothing to do with its deep, cross-cultural purpose of bringing together mothers and fathers for children. "Marriage is a right!" "Marriage is about soulmates!" "Marriage is—well, what exactly is the point of marriage?"

The young are responding by eschewing marriage in record-breaking numbers: ABC News is reporting the demographic decline under the headline, "The End of Marriage?" For the first time the Census Bureau is reporting that fewer than half of all households consist of a married couple. The numbers are from 2010—down from 52 percent in 2000 and 78 percent in 1950.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number of babies born to unmarried cohabiting couples skyrocketed, from 14 percent in 2002 to 23 percent in 2006-2010.

In the Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last reports on another aspect of this crisis, in "Demography Is Destiny": an unwillingness to give ourselves to children at all.

Israel is the only developed country in the world where women have enough children to sustain the current population.

A new report shows a huge rise in middle-aged Americans entering old age alone:

The proportion of adults ages 46-64 who are not married climbed from 22 percent in 1980 to 34 percent in 2009. In 1980 45 percent of those were divorced, 33 percent widowed, and 22 percent never married. Today 58 percent are divorced, 32 percent never married and only ten percent widowed.

These are all practical problems for a society. Much suffering has already ensued and more is on the way. But the root of this crisis surrounding generativity is a spiritual crisis. At the heart of this crisis is our inability or unwillingness to commit to marriage and all it represents.

Marriage binds us together, but only on the condition that we surrender the grandiose idea that we can make up what marriage means. To put the self at the center of marriage is to surrender what marriage is and what marriage alone can do.

The untold crisis of what used to be called Western Civilization is that we have not yet found a way to revive our commitment to marriage. Not to marriage as a romantic fantasy, or marriage as a civil-rights cause, but marriage as a symbol of the great truths embedded in Genesis: We are born male and female, and ordinarily called to come together in love to make and raise the next generation.

Some truths are too precious to abandon, too foundational to surrender.

Thank you for being a leader for marriage. For being one of those Americans who understands what is at stake and who will show the Daniel Glowacki's of the world: You are not alone.

You are our future.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Scandal is building over the release of one of NOM's confidential tax documents. The release of this document is due to either an IRS employee leak, someone hacking into IRS systems, or someone illegally impersonating a NOM official to obtain this confidential information—information then retailed to the public by the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post.

Let me reiterate the main point: The organization headed by President Obama's campaign co-chair knowingly retailed illegally-obtained information from the IRS—that's a felony. They did so in order to try to punish a political opponent. That's an outrage.

As I write, the Huffington Post has yet to acknowledge their potential civil and criminal liability in retailing illegally-obtained and federally-protected IRS information.

HRC acknowledged the seriousness of the situation by scrubbing every mention of the illegally-obtained 990 from its website, after NOM's lawyers demanded it do so. It's now claiming another source for the non-story it released about Gov. Romney's 2008 donation to NOM, which had already been reported in the press at the time.

But we have the evidence of what they actually said and did.

HRC has been funding people to go after NOM's donors in an explicit, open way, which contributes to the likelihood that they knowingly participated in this act.

To preface the growing coverage of this felony committed against decency and fair play, let me tell you the story of another such attempted leak back in 2009.

This story is not one I have ever told publicly.

Back in 2009, during the fight to stop the redefinition of marriage in Maine via referendum, someone released confidential information to the pro-gay-marriage camp in Maine. This group, though opposed to what you and I believe, recognized a moral wrong and a potential crime.

They forwarded the information to the pro-marriage campaign, acknowledging they ought not to have been in receipt of it, and promised that no copies had been retained. They did the right thing.

That's what a law-abiding organization does when its staff recognizes that someone is trying to commit a crime by releasing information it has no right to have.

We have sent a letter to the Treasury Department demanding an investigation. The tax returns put up on HRC's website contained special codes that only come from the IRS; the tax return we filed does not have that code on it. That's something which happens only once a return is in the hands of the IRS. That's how we know it was obtained from the IRS.
We're pleased to report that, according to the Daily Caller, the IRS is taking the allegations "very seriously."

Here's WABC's talk show host Mark Levin, calling it for what it is: "a felony."

Here's our Next Gen leader, Thomas Peters, on the Christian Broadcasting Network:

As Breitbart's Big Government reported:

"If something this obvious had happened to a liberal organization, you can bet the mainstream media would be all over it. But being a conservative, pro-traditional-marriage group, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been afforded no such luxury. ...

"A crime appears to have been committed, and an investigation is indeed in order. That this matter is not getting the attention it deserves is testament, yet again, to the left-wing bias of the mainstream media.

"As NOM President Brian Brown said in a statement last week: 'It is shocking that a political ally of President Obama's would come to possess and then publicly release a confidential tax return that came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.'"

Here's Maggie Gallagher taking the case for fairness to the media:

Lawyers for Crystal Dixon are in court this week at the Sixth Circuit, arguing that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."

Crystal Dixon was dismissed as an administrator from the University of Toledo in Ohio solely for writing a letter to the editor to a local paper objecting to homosexuality and, in particular, to the "race analogy" comparing sexual orientation with race and gay rights with the battle for civil rights for African-Americans.

No major pro-gay-marriage organization has come forward to condemn the firing of Crystal Dixon or to suggest that gay rights do not require such brutal oppression of the free speech rights of people like Crystal. That tells you a lot about where this movement is headed.

I'm grateful to every American, whatever their creed or color, willing to stand up for marriage. But this week I have to express special gratitude to Bishop Harry Jackson.

He published an amazing op-ed in The Blaze, saying:

The largest roadblock to the nationwide redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is the group of people perhaps least ashamed to voice their convictions in the matter: black Christians. In a pathetic effort to eradicate this roadblock, lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual (LGBT) activists have accused traditional marriage advocates of "creating" a division between minority Christian leaders and the homosexual community.

The truth is, few issues in American history have brought together more people from vastly different political and racial backgrounds than the fight to preserve traditional marriage. African-Americans have joined with people of all races and creeds to resist the radical effort of activists to redefine marriage and family. As a result new heroes are emerging with the courage of the Freedom Riders of the 1960s. ...

In the midst of this fight, LGBT activists have created a mythology to try to explain the fierce minority opposition to their agenda. Primary among these myths is the idea that the National Organization for Marriage, with whom I and many African Americans have been proud to stand, is responsible for dividing racial minorities against the gay community. Nothing could be further from the truth. NOM has instead provided a national platform for racial minorities to voice their heartfelt outrage at an agenda that is trying to hijack the moral authority of the Civil Rights struggle.

But Bishop Jackson also—and this is above and beyond the call—sent out a fundraising letter asking black, white and Latino Americans to stand with NOM as we are under attack:

For three years, I have stood shoulder to shoulder with Brian Brown and the National Organization for Marriage, fighting to protect marriage in Maryland and in our nation's capital.

Together—for the first time in Maryland—we have built a true rainbow coalition of Blacks, Latinos and whites, Republicans and Democrats, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons and Jews, all working together to protect and preserve marriage. It's a new phase in the battle for marriage—and critical as we head toward a referendum this fall.

The National Organization for Marriage has done so much to protect marriage, not only in Maryland, but in similar battles all across the country.

It's no wonder groups like the Human Rights Campaign and The New York Times are trying to tear our coalition apart.

My answer? Not a chance!

The ugly insinuations and outright lies I have seen over the past two weeks are nothing short of reprehensible. They're trying to create the impression that NOM is exploiting racial division—using Blacks and Hispanics to further its political agenda.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Same-sex marriage isn't about civil rights. It's about our civil responsibilities. As Americans and as people of faith, we have a duty to stand up, engage, and speak the truth about marriage. And when we all stand in unity, no one can stop us.

Same-sex marriage supporters have it all backward. It is the Democratic Party elites and gay marriage leaders that are pushing an agenda of division.

Politically, especially for Republicans, the negative repercussions of abandoning core convictions and voting for gay marriage are becoming ever more clear.

In New Hampshire, Republican legislators who voted against a bill to repeal gay marriage are reacting with great upset to an ad NOM just ran telling the truth:

"NOM-NH Runs Ad Slamming GOP Legislators for Gay Marriage Vote," as the New Hampshire Journal reports.

NOM's goal, as I made clear last week, is not to use gay marriage as a wedge issue to elect Republicans, but to actually protect marriage in law and culture—whether that requires electing Republicans, electing Democrats, or making sure those who betray marriage hear from their constituents in both parties.

The first heads to fall were Democrats in Brooklyn like David Weprin.

But we will take the case for protecting marriage to politicians in both parties.

New York State Sen. Jim Alesi, one of the four Republicans who betrayed their campaign promises and voted for gay marriage, is feeling the heat.

Curt Smith writes in MPNNow,

In 2010, [Sen. Alesi] was reelected vowing to support traditional marriage. In spring 2011, neither apologizing nor explaining, Alesi helped the Republican-controlled Senate make New York only the sixth state to let gay and lesbian couples wed, changing the historical definition of marriage between one men and one woman.

A 2009 photo shows him, head in hands, voting against same-sex wedlock, saying "I live in a political world. It's not about courage." Deeming his district increasingly liberal, Alesi changed his vote—cravenly, not courageously. The National Organization for Marriage scored his "tearing up the...contract with voters who trusted" him. In response, Alesi mocked old friends, saying "I have new friends now." Incredibly, he never considered that the old friends might laugh last."

The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that Alesi, who was boasting about how many new friends his gay marriage vote gained him, is now seriously concerned about a well-funded primary challenge:

"If there's some kind of an insinuation that money guided the vote, I can tell you that we're never going to match funding that National Organization for Marriage will spend," Mr. Alesi said, referring to an anti-same-sex marriage group. "Most of us will be wiped out financially after Republican primaries."

As Thomas Peters pointed out, this is quite a different tune from when he told local press last year that he was running for reelection to prove "you can vote for [same-sex marriage] as a Republican and you can survive."

Kudos as well to former Governor and Congressman Robert L. Ehrlich, who used his Baltimore Sun column this Sunday to predict, "Maryland will reject same-sex marriage."

"Gays deserve respect," he affirmed as we do, "but not the right to redefine society's most important institution."

He predicts that the referendum to overturn gay marriage in Maryland will succeed as "a coalition of Catholics, African-Americans, Hispanics and conservatives from both sides of the aisle send the measure to a decisive defeat. (Such a result would make Maryland the 32nd state to defeat a gay marriage referendum.)"

He points to the victories for gay rights he personally championed as a Maryland Republican and the heat he took for it, and nonetheless stands in favor of marriage:

"Many of us draw the line at marriage, however. We ask the state to defend this fundamentally important (albeit flawed) institution—not redefine it down to fit the demand of an influential interest group. Indeed, one redefinition will most assuredly beget additional redefinitions: Why not a civil right to more than one spouse? Where does one draw the line once the traditional threshold is crossed?

Traditional marriage is integral to our Judeo-Christian heritage. It is the institution most adept at the business of raising children. For many opponents, it's not a civil rights issue. It's about a foundational institution that deserves this ultimate protection."

A final word of prayer and gratitude. Prison Fellowship has released word that Chuck Colson may be on his deathbed, about to be gathered to the Lord.

He fell ill at a Spiral of Silence conference (at which both Maggie Gallagher and Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse spoke) dedicated to calling Christians to speak for life, for marriage, and for religious liberty.

I ask for your prayers for him and his family, and offer my own heartfelt ones.

The fight continues. We each have a part to play.

Praise be to God.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The scandal over the release of confidential IRS information on the Human Rights Campaign's website grows.

The more we at NOM look into this, the more it smells to high heaven.

As I told the press, "The American people are entitled to know how a confidential tax return containing private donor information filed exclusively with the Internal Revenue Service has been given to our political opponents who also happen to be co-chairing President Obama's reelection committee." It's on the front page of the Daily Caller today (Thursday)!

Just think: By next Tuesday, hundreds of millions of Americans will turn over to the federal government personal and private information on their finances and their families. This information is protected by federal law. Willfully releasing or retailing our private tax information is not just an outrage—it's a crime.

Each one of us is entitled to believe these laws will be respected as we file our tax returns by this April 17. To misuse this information for political purposes is an incredible violation of trust and law—and we are not going to take this lying down!

Joe Solmonese is the head of HRC, an organization which has just posted this illegally-obtained information and in which people are delighting in doing so, even knowing it is illegal. Joe Solmonese is also a national co-chair of President Obama's reelection campaign.

HRC is evidently counting on being politically protected—by its relationship with the President of the United States—for totally outrageous and possibly illegal behavior.

HRC has claimed it received this information from an "IRS whistleblower"—a totally inappropriate term, given that none of the individuals whose private information was released have been accused of any wrongdoing. Nor has HRC accused them, except insofar as Joe Solmonese and his organization apparently believe that opposing gay marriage is in itself justification for illegal intrusions of people's privacy.

Here are the latest developments:

NOM has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.

The document on the left is as it appeared when published by the Huffington Post. However, that document was modified in a failed attempt to obscure its source. There is a label visibly obscuring a portion of each page, and it was determined that information on the top of each page was also obscured in the version posted on the Huffington Post.

After software removed the layers obscuring the document, it is shown that the document came from the Internal Revenue Service. The top of each page says, "THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY." On each page of the return is stamped a document ID of "100560209." Only the IRS would have the Form 990 with "Official Use" information.

All taxpayers have the right to expect that their confidential tax returns filed with the IRS will not be given to their political enemies. Doing so is a felony. What makes this even more problematic is that the recipient of these confidential tax returns is a group headed by President Obama's national campaign co-chair.

This is something one might expect to occur in the old Soviet Union, not the United States of America.

Here's a copy of the letter we sent to Treasury, demanding that the Treasury Department launch a federal criminal investigation into the IRS and the Human Rights Campaign to bring the criminals to justice.

This is going to be a big fight, and it's a bigger fight even than marriage. It's a fight about whether the rule of law will prevail over politics.

There's so much else I could tell you about this week. This week we endorsed Mitt Romney for President; CNN covered the story.

Our DumpStarbucks.com campaign continues. As I write 30,934 of you have signed a pledge to send a message to CEO Howard Schulz—give us coffee, not gay marriage! This week DumpStarbucks.com goes international, with websites and banner ads in Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish and Indonesian.

And here's Family Leader's Bob Vander Plaats describing how they're dumping Starbucks.

(BTW, if you have a few minutes could you go to DumpStarbucks.com, sign the pledge, and put us over the top to get to 31,000 today?)

In Great Britain the petition opposing gay marriage has now topped 400,000, and Tory leaders are expressing consternation that Prime Minister David Cameron is pushing gay marriage on an unwilling populace and party—amid increasing doubts that he can actually pass gay marriage.

A survey found that 59% of Conservative MPs expressed doubts that the measure could pass. Even more are doubting that the push for it will help the Tories come election time.

Lord Tebbit, a former head of the Conservative party (back when it acted conservative!), said: "I doubt if Mr Cameron's new-found enthusiasm for 'gay marriage' will make it any more likely that he will lead the Conservative Party to a majority in 2015 or add greatly to the sum total of happiness and contentment in our society."

The so-called "conservative" case for the radical redefinition of marriage is looking more thin and tattered every day, including politically and electorally.

GOP elites thinking through this issue should learn from Cameron's experience. Politico just published a story claiming major GOP donors are splitting from Romney over his opposition to gay marriage.

But while it is true that major GOP donors helped push gay marriage in New York, there are no signs yet of a suicidal (for the GOP) Cameron strategy of becoming the party of gay marriage, against the views and values of millions of voters.

All the major GOP candidates for president signed NOM's Marriage Pledge (except Ron Paul) because they know marriage matters, and matters to millions of Americans.

HRC and Freedom to Marry jointly signed a letter to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, describing NOM as a "fringe" group which divides Americans. This is going to be an increasingly prevalent meme from them—no matter how many elections we help you win.

Last week, Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz said about NOM:

Brian Brown and NOM have done something that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate.

 

You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage—a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us.

This week I'm proud to tell you that a truly major religious leader, Bishop George McKinney, published an op-ed. Yes, he defended NOM, but more importantly, he defended the right of the black church to speak for marriage.

It's called "Black Church's Respect for Marriage Deserves More Respect from the Media."

Bishop McKinney is on the governing board of the Church of God in Christ, which is not only the largest predominantly-black Pentecostal denomination in the United States—it is the fifth-largest Christian denomination of any kind, and a worldwide church in 60 countries. Here's Maggie with the Presiding Bishop, Bp. Charles E. Blake:

I'm very proud of the the work NOM has done with great men and women of every faith and color who stand for marriage. But I also want to make it clear, in case I haven't yet in the smoke and roar of battle, that I genuinely regret the language in that memo—not the part that says we will work with leaders of every race, creed, and color, but any language which suggests that we believe we can manipulate or provoke either African-Americans or gay-rights advocates.

It is wrong to think we have the power to do so, and wrong to try. And it's not what NOM does.

We also do not use the marriage issue to elect Republicans. Our goal is to build a rare thing in America: a genuinely interfaith, interracial coalition of Americans across both parties, who are willing to stand for God's vision of marriage—no matter what heat that brings.

Bishop McKinney explains it this way:

This idea of marriage has roots not only in the great, stirring words of Genesis, but in the human heart across time and diverse cultures. Marriage is a virtually universal human social institution because every society has recognized the need to bring together man and woman in order to encourage and protect the next generation. Both our faith and our reason direct us to this understanding of marriage.

About 10 years ago, gay marriage advocates decided to overturn this historic and religious understanding of marriage and insist that unions of two men or two women were the same as a marriage and must be treated as such by the government and society. They created out of whole cloth the idea that gay marriage was a basic civil right and that dismantling the public meaning of marriage was somehow akin to overturning racist bans on interracial marriage. Misusing the sacred value of equality, they began insisting that all opposition to their new morality was "bigotry" or "hatred."

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," wrote "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

But Bishop McKinney, a man of God, also says something else that all of us who oppose gay marriage need to keep in our hearts:

The actual natural rights of homosexual people, rooted in God's laws and the moral order, must be respected and protected. These include the right to vote, the right to earn a living, the right to be free from harassment and/or violence and the right to visit loved ones in the hospital, etc.

Let me echo the words of this great man of the cloth. Even as I fight with every fiber of my being for marriage, I remember that gay people are our fellow citizens, our neighbors, and in many cases our friends and family members. More importantly, each is a child of God, infinitely precious to Him. We must never let ourselves become the caricature that Joe Solmonese apparently carries around in his head about us. (BTW, gay-marriage advocates are not all gay—and the few brave gay people who oppose gay marriage deserve our special thanks).

Each of us has the right to live as we choose, but none of us has the right to redefine marriage, which was created by God not government.

Bishop McKinney ends with this simple, powerful truth:

"To suggest the prominent leaders of African-American churches are in the fight for marriage as the result of 'race-baiting' is unjust and indeed patronizing on the part of media elites at MSNBC.Marriage, and the black church, deserve better."

NOM's website, Twitter account, blog, and Facebook page were all illegally attacked and briefly shut down this week. Thanks to all of you who have responded by reaching down and helping us pay for the expensive job of fixing the problem and protecting NOM's voice from attacks like these.

They are becoming increasingly bold in taking illegal action, because gay marriage advocates don't believe that you and I have a basic moral and civil right to disagree with their views and stand up for marriage.

Nothing else explains how the single most "establishment" gay-rights organization, whose head serves in the Obama campaign as a major fundraiser, has no problem posting on its website illegally-obtained tax information.

You are being attacked in this way not because you are hateful or bigoted—but because you, the decent, loving, law-abiding majority in this country, have through NOM exercised your core civil rights to participate in this great democracy of ours.

NOM is under attacks like these not because we are the most hateful, or even hateful at all, but because we are the single most effective single-issue national organization fighting to protect marriage.

Thank you again for all that you've made it possible for NOM to do. To be your voice for your values is something I treasure.

Please pray for every leader, black or white, Christian, Jew or atheist, brave enough to stand up for something as good as the idea that in order to make a marriage you need a husband and wife willing to give themselves to each other and their children.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I've just released a statement to the press. NOM is demanding a federal investigation of the possibly criminal act of releasing private tax return information, information which was posted by the Human Rights Campaign this week!

Here's the background. You've probably followed some of the media brouhaha over the release by Maine's courts of some in-house documents which the Left is trying to use to paint NOM as racist. More on that story in a minute.

Also this week, HRC posted on its website a copy of NOM's 2008 Form 990 with the names of donors and their addresses. We don't release that information because this is private, legally-protected IRS information, not public information. We don't release this information about our donors, the Heritage Foundation doesn't release this information about their donors, and the Human Rights Campaign doesn't release this information about their donors. The names are given to the IRS but they are not revealed to the public and they are legally protected, making it a federal crime for the IRS to release this info.

So legally-protected, confidential IRS information was just put up on the Human Rights Campaign's website. There is no allegation that any individuals on that list committed any wrongdoing. "Whistleblower" laws do not apply. HRC has never explained or been asked to explain by the press how it got this legally-protected private tax return.

Here's what I can tell you definitively: This private IRS return was NOT released by the Maine courts. So as I just told the press, "Either the HRC got NOM's tax return from someone with the Internal Revenue Service, or they got it from a hacker who stole it. Either way, it appears that a federal crime may have been committed."

The privacy of your tax returns is one of the most important privacy rights the federal government promises: Nobody will misuse your personal and private information for political purposes.

I repeat, we do not yet know how HRC got this information, because HRC has not publicly fessed up. That is why we are demanding a federal investigation. But it is clear the document was stolen.

If a clerk in the IRS accessed and released this information, it's a federal crime and a crime against every decent, loving, law-abiding American, whether they favor or oppose gay marriage.

What does HRC know about this federal crime and when did they know it? We want answers.

As a supporter of traditional marriage, you have a right to know that your opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't justify illegal intrusions upon your privacy. We won't back down on this.

It's an outrage!

Another outrage: President Obama is shocked, shocked, at the idea that the Supreme Court would overturn a duly-enacted law passed by a majority in Congress.

Whatever you think of Obama (and I should say that we treasure the brave Democrats we work with, who both support Obama and oppose gay marriage!), the chutzpah to claim that he opposes federal courts overturning law has to be a little much. As Brian Bolduc writes for National Review Online:

On Monday, President Obama admonished the Supreme Court to uphold his health-care law, lest it overturn the legislation in a fit of "judicial activism." The president told reporters: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Last year, however, the president took the "extraordinary step" of declaring "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" unconstitutional. In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder sent Speaker of the House John Boehner a letter notifying him that the administration would no longer argue on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. It passed both houses of Congress by wide margins (342–67 in the House and 85–14 in theSenate)—much wider margins than Obamacare got (219–212 in the House and 60–39 votes in the Senate). The problem, of course, is that the administration disagrees with DOMA: The law enshrines traditional marriage in federal law and allows states to ignore same-sex marriages approved by other states.

We aren't the only ones wondering about Pres. Obama's disingenuousness in this regard. You might miss this delicious little story if I didn't point it out, but a federal judge just smacked down the Justice Department, which is in court arguing a totally unrelated case, by asking for a 3-page memo on whether the White House believes the Supreme Court has the power to overturn federal law backed by a majority.

Drawing the line between the legitimate exercise of judicial review and judicial activism may be hard, but here's a clue: It starts with the idea that words—whether it's the word "marriage," or the words of the Constitution—have meanings. You can't just make stuff up and put it in the document.

On the good news front, in Great Britain more than 300,000 people have signed a petition protesting the Conservative Party's attempt to redefine marriage. And less than two weeks ago the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex marriage is not a human right.

Closer to home, there's more good news: Frank Schubert, the Prop 8 campaign manager, just announced that he is leaving his existing firm to start a new firm, Mission Public Affairs, which will allow him to devote his considerable political genius to the causes of protecting life, marriage and religious liberty full-time!

From his press release announcing his decision:

Schubert, a conservative Catholic, said he would build a new national consulting practice focused on social issues such as protecting life, strengthening families, preserving traditional marriage and protecting religious liberties, along with pursuing conservative public policies that promote prosperity and liberty. A 30-year veteran of public affairs, Schubert has twice been named the nation’s most valuable political consultant by the American Association of Political Consultants, and received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Association of Business Communicators (Sacramento Chapter).

"My conservative ideology and my faith have been major guiding forces in my decision to work on some important but controversial issues, including life and marriage," Schubert said. "But the firm has become much bigger than me personally. I don't want my work on social issues to continue to overshadow the people who work for me, or the clients we serve. By stepping away from the company, I will be able to continue to work on the issues I care about while allowing the remaining leadership and staff of the firm to pursue the excellent work they are doing for clients, and to continue to grow the business going forward."

One small step for a man—one giant leap for life, marriage and religious liberty!

And finally, in Alaska, voters defied polls to reject "Prop 5" in Anchorage. Prop 5, which would have established gender identity and sexual orientation as protected legal categories, was defeated by voters 58%-42%.

We don't usually cover campaigns like this because NOM as an organization is focused on the marriage issue, not gay issues generally. There's a power in being a focused single-issue organization which undergirds the victories we've helped you win for marriage.

But what caught my eye was the huge gap between the expectations from polls that this law would pass and the actual verdict from voters in the polling both.

Now the ad campaign defeating Prop 5 emphasized that Alaska was already a tolerant place and that the new law posed threats to liberty—both gay bar owners and Christian book store owners might face criminal penalties for understandably wanting to hire people like themselves.

Opponents were outspent 4-1 and in the end the polls meant little. "'It's amazing what happens when the curtain closes behind you in a voting booth,' Jim Minnery, the chairman of Protect Your Rights Campaign—Vote No on Prop. 5, said Wednesday morning in an e-mail," as reported by The New York Times.

Marriage supporters like you and me will remember this phenomenon too, from Maine and California: Polling on gay marriage is often dramatically different from actual results of elections. Voters are sensitive to how questions are phrased. They value tolerance and support the legitimate rights of gay people to be free from fear, harassment, and violence, to vote, and to participate in the democratic process on an equal basis.

But fundamentally, the majority of Americans see a difference between tolerance for gay people as their neighbors and fellow citizens, and the equation of gay marriage with civil rights.

Do not be discouraged!

Remember that, when you read headlines like those in The New York Times, "Divide and Discriminate," calling on everyone—but especially Republicans—to disaffiliate from NOM because of our alleged "racial politics."

(Anyone surprised—really—that the New York Times editorialized against us?)

The conservative Washington Times just posted a column by R. Clarke Cooper that basically retweets The New York Times' message points: "NOM's Racial Politics Leave A Bitter Taste."

Reasonable people can and do disagree about gay marriage, but Americans stand united against the failed politics of discrimination and division. As recently revealed, NOM has sought to divide Americans based on race, and is dividing our attention away from the issues that matter most to our nation today. NOM has rejected the American motto of "e pluribus unum"—out of many, one—and their politics of division should be rejected by all Republicans in return.

My response to this meme? Well, I just sent this letter to the Washington Times, which will be published on Friday:

R. Clarke Cooper urges Republicans and conservatives to refuse to associate with the largest and most effective single-issue organization standing for marriage on the grounds that NOM is engaging in racial division by recruiting Black and Latino spokespeople for marriage. NOM did not create the divide between African-Americans and gay marriage advocates, standing for marriage is not standing for division or discrimination, and it is patronizing for media elites to treat the heroic stand of the Black church as a product of hateful politics. Reaching out to black and latino supporters who share our view is something conservatives do and should do more of and NOM will continue to do so.

The current round of media attacks on NOM for one line in a 3 year old document reflect the basic tactic of the Left: use government to push a new moral norm; when Americans with more traditional values object, attack them mercilessly. Then blame conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) for being "divisive." End game? Shutting down the voices of millions of Americans.

NOM is proudly going to continue to stand up for marriage as the union of husband and wife, and reach across lines of race, creed, color and party to do so.

And here's Maggie versus a hapless MSNBC anchor, who first blamed her on-air for not showing up to an interview, and then had to tweet an apology because it was MSNBC's own scheduling error:

More signs that gay marriage is not a civil right, in the views of the majority of African-Americans:

The Coalition of African American Pastors just released a press release announcing a campaign to get 100,000 signatures for marriage, led by the Church of God in Christ, America's largest black Pentecostal denomination, with members in 60 countries, and the 5th largest Christian denomination in the U.S. According to this press release:

Bishop George D. McKinney, Bishop Felton Smith and Rev. William Owens will lead in ensuring the 100,000 names for the marriage campaign around the nation. They plan to travel to various cities around the country to gather signatures, but the thrust of the campaign will begin in North Carolina where there is a marriage vote slated for May 8, 2012.

Rev. Owens stated that the civil rights he marched and fought for in the late 50s and early 60s is being seized by the radicals who want to take advantage of a long and hard fight for civil rights and use it for their own agenda on same-sex marriage.

In North Carolina, where voters will vote on a marriage amendment on May 8, even the Daily Tarheel report on a debate at Meredith College notes that African-Americans have something to say for themselves when white liberals claim gay marriage is a basic human right:

The front of the room, reserved for students, was mostly white, young and female. They cheered for Eichner's arguments about the amendment denying benefits for domestic partnerships....the rest of the first floor was dominated by members of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ—mostly black and middle-aged—and vocally opposed to same-sex unions.

Patrick Wooden, the pastor at Upper Room, was a panelist at the event who had members of his congregation present in support.

But their views reflect a larger demographic of the state: black, Democratic and opposing same-sex marriage.

... [Panelists] referencing past laws against interracial marriage, [hoped] to frame the issue in a civil rights light.

But Wooden's reply, redirecting the argument back to religion, showed the stronger influence for many black voters in the state.

It is insulting for the elite media to imply that these marriage supporters are NOM puppets, just like it would be arrogant for anyone at NOM to imagine we are responsible for this show of support.

We are grateful to people like Pastor Patrick Wooden for their courage and leadership.

We are grateful to each and every one of you who has dared to stand up for God's first institution, marriage.

But I have to give an extraordinary shout-out, one I hope you'll share with me, to Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz. That New York Times editorial, "Divide and Discriminate," alleging that NOM is racially divisive, apparently touched his heart.

Díaz is a Latino Democrat from the Bronx, who worked with NOM opposing gay marriage in the New York legislature.

He had this to say about this media meme, writing as both a state senator and the President of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, which represents tens of thousands of Hispanic and black Christians in New York City:

On behalf of all those churches, I am here to say: I have worked closely with the National Organization for Marriage and I have marched with NOM's President Brian Brown to defend our civil right to be heard in the debate over the meaning of marriage.

Brian Brown and NOM have done something, that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate.

You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage—a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us.

A voice for the voiceless. Unity not division. Respect for views the mainstream media ignores.

I'm so grateful to each and every one of you who has refused to yield to the contempt the media elites display for the good sense of the American people.

As Winston Churchill said, "Never give in—never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"Gay marriage has backfired on the Democratic Party."

With those words one of my personal heroes, New York State Sen Rev. Rubén Díaz (a Democrat from the Bronx) opened his press release titled, "What you should know."

"You should know that since Governor Andrew Cuomo pushed for gay marriage in the State of New York and convinced the Democratic Party in the Assembly and the Senate to follow his lead to legalize gay marriage, the Democratic Party in New York City has not won a single victory.

"Starting with the defeat of David Weprin by Bob Turner for the Congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner, and most recently with the embarrassing defeat of Lew Fidler by David Storobin for the Senate seat vacated by Carl Kruger, the Democratic Party lost. In each special election, the Democratic candidate was expected to win handily given the composition of registered democrats in each district, and given the low turnout expected in special elections."

Gay marriage hurt Democrats in each of these races, he points out, and there is no way to spin it:

"For a time, the Democratic Party was key in New York City politics, and it was virtually impossible for a Republican to win a seat in the State legislature in New York City. That was before gay marriage. ...This has shown to be destructive for the Democratic Party and I hope that elected officials in other states are paying attention."

Of course the Democrats were not alone in bringing gay marriage to New York. Republican majority leader Dean Skelos volunteered to bring the bill up for a vote—he did not have to. And four Republicans provided the crucial margin of difference.

Sen Rev. Díaz goes on to point to the other side of the aisle:

"Now we can all wait and see what happens to the future of the four Republicans who supported gay marriage when it was forced to the floor of the Senate for a vote, because the way I see things, The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its Executive Director, Brian Brown has been active and instrumental in contributing and supporting with financial resources those individuals who run against gay marriage supporters. So far, Brian Brown has been very effective and it might happen, that the four Republicans, might lose their Senate seats solely because of their vote on gay marriage."

NOM is not a partisan organization or a stalking horse for either party. We are a movement of people of every race, creed, color—and party—willing to stand up for marriage.

Sen. Rev. Díaz happened to speak out the same week that the mainstream media decided to pick up on a story that the National Organization for Marriage is playing racial politics "dividing gays and blacks."

It's a media brouhaha based on language in a three-year-old in-house document that was released by the Maine courts describing a number of NOM projects for 2009 and 2010.

Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here's something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle—and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen. We did not cause it, nor can we claim credit for these men and women's courage in standing up in defense of our most fundamental institution: marriage.

To Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry I would say: This is your movement. You are its leaders. Only you can hope to change the vicious attacks being made on Black and Hispanic Democrats (or white Republicans for that matter!) who don't agree with you on gay marriage.

We had another small example of the kind of vituperation gay-marriage advocates are generating when a woman wrote a letter to her local newspaper in Syracuse politely supporting our DumpStarbucks.com campaign:

I have just learned that the Starbucks Corp. has begun a public campaign to rewrite our marriage laws and to recognize same-sex marriage. I was shocked to hear of a major corporation willing to alienate such a large portion of their constituents in favor of a political agenda.

I have decided that I will no longer buy my coffee at Starbucks—there are plenty of community coffeehouses that both support my values and need my business. ...

It's time to dump the Starbucks habit, at least for my family. And I invite others to join me by learning more at DumpStarbucks.com.

On the newspaper's website, an advocate of gay marriage threatened to go after her job as a result:

"As a gay man I actually have to question your ability to provide fair and balanced judgement and therefore treatment to gay people in your job as a nurse. For this reason I am sending a letter to Crouse Hospital detailing this and asking that they look into it."

Now you and I know he's probably just spinning hot air. But the NOM Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance was launched to give a voice to people who have actually lost their jobs because they oppose gay marriage.

But another blogger on the site noticed how unusual and ugly that kind of attack is:

"Someone is going to go to their employer and put their job at risk, because they have a belief that differs? Are we in second grade? Talk about hatred, discrimination and lack of respect for the feelings of others! If one can't have, or does not possess, the attributes they demand of others, what does that make, or say about, them? There are plenty of people, in life and on this site, that disagree, wholeheartedly, with many of the things I believe and post. ... Never, ever, have I dreamed of, or been tempted to, curtail their right to their opinion, their ability to state that opinion or 'go after' their employment, their families or any other personal aspect of their lives."

It would be wrong for anyone to try to generate that kind of hatred against good people who disagree on important moral issues like same-sex marriage Right, Joe? Right, Evan?

This is your movement, Human Rights Campaign. The ugliness it is generating is not consistent with the civil rights movement you claim to want to represent.

The underlying narrative of the MSM attacks on NOM generated by this document's release is absurd: The guts of the "Not a Civil Right Project" was to reach out across lines of race, creed and party to work with great heroes like Sen. Rev. Díaz, Bishop George McKinney and other pastors at the Church of God in Christ (the largest black Pentecostal denomination), Bishop Harry Jackson, and other leaders in the black and Hispanic churches.

Moreover, we at NOM are not the only people who have noticed this split over gay marriage in the Democratic Party. The Atlantic reports that Pres. Obama refuses to endorse gay marriage because of the strong opposition to gay marriage among African Americans:

"The conventional wisdom has been that supporting gay marriage would alienate blue-collar whites, and that's been the main reason he's [Pres. Obama has] been hesitant to come out in favor before the general election. But in this case, it's a crucial element of his own base that's preventing the president from taking bolder steps to advance a cause that he seems to believe in, but hasn't publicly embraced."

According to The Capitol Tonight, Albany political elites have reportedly responded to the political fallout of gay marriage vote by trying to limit the power of Orthodox Jews—by splitting up Ramapo Jews into multiple districts to dilute their influence, and taking black churches out of the Buffalo district of GOP marriage-betrayer Mark Grisanti:

The black churches that used to be represented by WNY Republican Sen. Mark Grisanti are none too pleased that they've been drawn out of his new district—a move seen as done in part to insulated him against backlash for his "yes" vote on same-sex marriage, and also to make his district less Democrat-dominated.

As for the kind of hatred directed against African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage? Don't believe us. Believe the Washington Post, which published a front page story on Feb. 23, "Black Pastors Take Heat for Not Viewing Same-Sex Marriage As a Civil Rights Matter."

"All of a sudden, they are bigots and haters—they who stood tall against discrimination. ...They are black men, successful ministers, leaders of their community. ...Sometimes, the pastors say, the name-calling and the anger sting."

This is your movement, guys, only you can change its tone.

Meanwhile, in just a few weeks people of every race, creed and color will come together to decide the future of marriage in North Carolina. If you want to know why we stand up to the attacks, it's because I know we are speaking for so many good people like you.

Here's a few of many voters in North Carolina, talking about why they will vote yes on the Marriage Amendment.

Last week we launched our Dump Starbucks campaign, and boy have you responded!

As I write this Thursday morning, 23,585 people have signed the petition, promising to dump Starbucks. (The neat thing about the website is that if you put in your zip code, it will pull up for you the number of the local Starbucks so you can also call and make your voice heard.)

If you haven't done so yet, can you please take just 30 seconds, go to DumpStarbucks.com, and add your name to the petition? My goal for this week is to get to 25,000 signatures. We are so close—can you help?

Rich white guys like Mayor Bloomberg, Tim Gill and Howard Schultz are determined to push gay marriage on us "whether we like or not!" Here's your chance to fight back!

We are in this for the long haul. We know the left is far more organized online. This is our chance to not only speak back to Starbucks but build the infrastructure we need to make sure your voice is heard.

Next week, and for weeks thereafter, we'll have important news on widening the reach of the Dump Starbucks protest campaign. Thanks to the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, CatholicVote.org, and every other group—and person!—who has promoted Dump Starbucks.com on their blogs or in their newsletter. Shane Vander Hart, an influential Iowa blogger at Caffeinated Thoughts, for example, wrote this:

...Starbucks has claimed to be "post politics and post partisan" nevertheless decided to jump into the political fray back in January in order as a corporation throw its support behind same sex marriage legislation in Washington State. They are obviously free to do that, and we are free to demonstrate our disapproval. It seems to be a odd business decision to make a decision that will alienate roughly half of your customer base.

And yet they did. Voluntarily and apparently enthusiastically. ...

If the CEO, Howard Schultz, decided to just personally get involved that's a completely different thing, but they decided as a corporation to get involved—shareholders, employees, and customers who believe differently be damned.

Until they shift back into a neutral position, while I'll miss my French Roast Coffee Beans and Café Americanos, I can get my coffee elsewhere.

Here's how Christian Broadcast News reported it.

And here's the head of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project, Jonathan Baker, in an interview with the Christian Post.

The debate over gay marriage in Great Britain, which is being promoted by the once-Conservative party there, has brought some interesting new voices into this fray.

Brendan O'Neill is a self-described libertarian and humanist who once wrote for a Marxist publication.

I want to leave you with this thought from his incredibly insightful essay, "Why Gay Marriage Is a Very Bad Idea":

"The reason the gay-marriage issue can feel like it came from nowhere, and is now everywhere, is because it is an entirely top-down, elite-driven thing. The true driving force behind it is not any real or publicly manifested hunger amongst homosexual couples to get wed, far less a broader public appetite for the reform of the institution of marriage; rather it is the need of the political and media class for an issue through which to signify its values and advertise its superiority. Gay marriage is not a real issue—it is a cultural signifier, like wearing a pink ribbon to show you care about breast cancer."

A new morality is being created and fobbed off on the American people, complete with "enforcers" to "stigmatize" good people who disagree. At the end of his press release, Sen. Rev Díaz said "Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, friends and foes: Fasten your seat belts, because I am afraid that it's going to be a very bumpy ride."

Thank you for being there with NOM, every step of the way.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Tuesday I was in Des Moines, Iowa, where a huge rally took place to try to push Democratic Senate leader Mike Gronstal to permit a marriage amendment to come up for a vote.

Family Leader, along with NOM and CatholicVote.org, hosted the rally—called the "LUV Iowa rally"—(LUV=Let Us Vote!) at the Capitol.

Family Leader has up a photo of me, along with a crowded room of Iowans wearing red shirts who came to say, "Marriage matters and let the people vote!"

It was an amazing and energizing experience—especially meeting the young people. A teenager, maybe 14 or 15 years old came up to me. He had brown hair, brown glasses, and a red LUV-Iowa shirt on.

"I just want you to know how excited I am and so thankful to be here today. This is very important—we have to let people know how important protecting marriage is! Thank you!" he told me.

This teenage boy said it was a message for me, but really his thanks is for you—you are the people who make what NOM does possible.

In New York on Tuesday there was a special election for the seat of flip-flopping state Senator Carl Krueger. This was a race that was supposed to be easy for the Democrats. A shoo-in for Lew Fidler.

"Most people from the get-go thought Fidler's a shoo-in," Community Board 15 chair Theresa Scavo admitted to the New York Daily News.

"It's a bad omen," said Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island). "We should not be having to compete for races in Brooklyn. It's the most Democratic county in the state."

From Capital New York:

"On paper, the race wasn't supposed to be this close. Fidler is a three-term Democratic councilman and Storobin is a 33-year-old attorney and first-time candidate for public office. According to the state Board of Elections, the district has 89,670 registered Democrats, compared to 26,994 Republicans."

This district is one of the most Democratic in the state of New York—-and yet as I write Republican pro-marriage newcomer David Storobin appears to have beaten Democrat Lew Fidler.

It's close. Very close. Storobin is leading by less than 200 votes, with absentee ballots yet to be counted.

But already the political establishment is rocking—and there is no way to deny that Fidler's support for gay marriage hurt him badly here.

"This is one community where these kinds of concerns, whether they're real concerns or exploited concerns, they apparently have some legs," admitted Bob Liff, a Democratic political consultant.

NOM invested in robocalls and advertisements, especially in the heavily orthodox Jewish sections, making sure voters knew that Lew Fidler supports gay marriage.

As I told the press, "One thing is certain—supporting same-sex marriage is a loser. This election marks the second consecutive one where a supporter of same-sex marriage was defeated. We have avenged Carl Kruger's despicable vote for same-sex marriage."

In a historic partnership, NOM teamed with the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn in support of Storobin. We spent more than $25,000 on independent expenditures and ads which ran in every major Orthodox Jewish publication in the area, an automated call within the district from Rabbi Eliyahu Brog of Mirrer Yeshiva, and a direct-mail piece.

I have to express particular appreciation to Joseph Hayon, president of the Brooklyn Tea Party, for Hayon's outstanding grassroots leadership during Storobin’s campaign.

This is really a historic occasion for us at NOM and for our country. Marriage is bringing together, across lines of race, creed and party, some extraordinary people.

It helped enormously that Storobin never ran from the issue, never downplaying the "social issues," as so many pundits observed. Brooklyn Republicans watched Bob Turner's surprise victory, they are watching the troubles of the pro-gay-marriage Republicans in New York, and they are learning—or relearning—some important lessons.

The "social issues" are what originally turned Reagan Democrats into Republicans, and the same thing is happening in the most Democratic place in America!

Politicker covered the election-night party for Storobin:

Mr. Storobin's campaign was seen as a longshot, but he had heavy support from the local and state Republican Party, which was betting a campaign focused on Mr. Fidler’s liberal positions on social issues, specifically gay marriage...

"The truth is, the representatives in Albany let us down, they let us down. They were bought off on this issue by a very strong lobby," Rabbi Isaac Levi said. "We're going to take corrective action, we're going to go out against all these State Assemblymen in our area of Brooklyn that voted for gay marriage. They're going to face primaries or elections and they're going to rue the day that they ever voted for gay marriage."

Republican City Councilman Dan Halloran chimed in:

"I think we need to start sending messages. Respect for God is part of the American tradition, however you choose to see God. I think a lot of people feel that we've moved so far towards a secular state that we've forgotten that this is one nation founded under God."

While New York Republicans are beginning to acknowledge support for same-sex marriage is a loser, it is with a heavy heart that I must report that New Hampshire Republicans, who swept control of the legislature in 2010 in part on a promise to repeal the same-sex marriage bill rammed through by the Democrats (with a major flip-flop from their governor), just sided with Democrats to defeat a measure that would repeal same-sex marriage, by a vote of 211 to 116.

There is a major push behind the scenes from inside the Republican Party to accept and promote same-sex marriage. We saw this pattern first in New York state, where Republicans took control of the legislature and yet agreed to bring up a same-sex marriage bill. Four Republican defectors provided the key margin for victory.

I do not yet know all the facts, but I do know one thing:

Republicans (or Democrats) who betray the core values of their constituents will face consequences.

Ask Mark Grisanti.

Meanwhile, as I was flying to Iowa, Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Baker (head of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project) were flying to Seattle for the annual board meeting of Starbucks. In late January Starbucks announced it was endorsing gay marriage in the state of Washington. An executive, claiming to be speaking for the company, announced that henceforth gay marriage is "core" to Starbucks values.

We went to the opera house of Seattle with a genuine question: Is promoting gay marriage really the policy of the whole corporation?

We wanted to know, before taking action, because I find the tactics of our opponents really reprehensible. They have been willing to target whole business enterprises if any one individual partner exercises his or her personal right to donate or to speak for marriage.

Businesses can only work well when people of diverse views come together to work for the good of the company—in this case: making a great cup of coffee!

But when Jonathan Baker asked Howard Schultz the question, he said, in essence, yes: The decision to promote gay marriage was the policy of the corporation.

Schultz seemed nervous when asked by another shareholder how this is possibly prudent, how it is in the best interests of the shareholder, especially overseas in countries where same-sex marriage is unthinkable.

Schultz nervously replied that since Starbucks endorsed gay marriage in the state of Washington in late January, he hadn't had any negative reactions.

So after the meeting we launched DumpStarbucks.com.

We are asking thousands of Americans—including you!—to reach out to Starbucks. Go to the website above and you can call your local Starbucks. Call the corporate headquarters, and let them know that millions of their customers—decent, law-abiding, loving people—do not support gay marriage.

If you haven't yet gone to DumpStarbucks.com can you please do so? And spread the word to a friend or family member: Let Howard Schultz know that endorsing gay marriage is not good for business! As of this writing, over 3,000 of you have already taken action!

Already the news of our engagement with Starbucks is spreading:

• "Anti-gay marriage group wants Starbucks boycott" — Associated Press, USA Today, Etc.
• "National Organization for Marriage to Launch 'Dump Starbucks' Campaign" — FoxNews
• "Dump Starbucks" — RealClearPolitics

A company built on conscience ought to respect the consciences of all its customers, employees, and vendors. Corporate America needs to know: We are here, we buy coffee, we believe in marriage, get used to it!

NOM's protest against Starbucks is not just a national one—it's an international protest, because we are going to reach out to customers in the areas where Starbucks is seeking to expand: to China and the Middle East.

Stay tuned!

Why do we fight so hard?

I get asked that question a lot. With seven children, these kind of multi-state battles against a seemingly implacable foe are never easy.

NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance just released another video that reminds us why we fight—because it reminds us what kind of America many advocates of gay marriage are seeking.

We interviewed former GOP candidate for governor of Minnesota Tom Emmer, whose teaching position at Hamline University was stripped from him when faculty learned he opposed same-sex marriage.

Take a few moments and hear Tom Emmer's story:

More and more Americans are recognizing gay marriage is a crucible—a test of our courage to speak and to act for the values we hold dear.

Thank you for being one of those Americans.

Dear Friend of Marriage,

The national fight to protect marriage is heating up!

Here's how the Associated Press reported it:

"Foes and supporters of same-sex marriage are gearing up for five costly and bruising statewide showdowns in the coming months on an issue that evenly divides Americans. It's an election year subplot sure to stir up heated emotions—even beyond the confines of North Carolina, Minnesota, Maryland, Maine and Washington state. National advocacy groups will be deeply engaged, and advertising is likely to surface from each side that outrages the other."

But here's how I responded:

"'It's crunch time,' said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, the paramount fundraiser for opponents of gay marriage. 'We view it as a massive opportunity for a national referendum.'"

A big challenge is also a massive opportunity. The voters of this country have been given a huge new opportunity to visibly send a message to the Supreme Court, to the pundits, and to the President: When it comes to marriage there is no red state/blue state divide. People believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.

In Washington state, Preserve Marriage Washington is out collecting signatures to put gay marriage on the ballot. Maryland Marriage Alliance is busy doing the same in Maryland. The battle for North Carolina is heating up for a May 8th vote. Minnesotans continue to organize for that state's fight.

Here's Kalley Yanta with the latest in a series of Minnesota Marriage Minutes:

I'm in Iowa next week for the well-named LUV rally (Let Us Vote!) to push for a state marriage amendment which would give Iowans the right to decide the future of marriage.

These are all tough fights, but eminently winnable. And remember, in the tough fights there is a huge opportunity—to show once again that we can stand up for what's right in this country, and win.

Our own founding Chairman of the Board, Prof. Robby George, was in federal court this week seeking a win for marriage. He is asking a judge to uphold marriage as the union of husband and wife—including the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which governs (or ought to govern) federal pension law.

In 2006, a woman named Ellyn Farley went to Canada and had a same-sex marriage ceremony. That ceremony was not legally recognized in the state where she lived at the time (Illinois), nor in Pennsylvania, where she later died of cancer. Ellyn designated her elderly mother the beneficiary of her life insurance and retirement packages, and left her partner Jennifer Tobits her Jeep, the condo they shared, and the cash in her bank account. But Tobits is now suing to take away from Farley's mother the benefits Ellyn left her, using the Canadian same-sex marriage to challenge not only Farley's last wishes, but the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

As Peter Breen, executive director of the Thomas More Society (which is representing Ellyn's mother in court) said, "The reason this case is so important is that the 3rd Circuit has not decided some of the key legal issues around same-sex marriage, relationships and DOMA."

Meanwhile, what's next for the progressives who want to raise your kids and grandkids in their morality?

If you need a little extra motivation in the face of great challenges, take a peek at this new children's book, "What Makes a Baby." It will probably be coming to a school near you soon, at least if the author has his way.

The author, Cory Silverberg, says this picture book will include information on all the (30!) ways parents can get a baby, including "a doctor, fertility clinic, adoption or foster agency; it might be a turkey baster and a friend; it might be a sperm donor or a surrogate."

According to Lifesite News, "The author intends that his 'book for kids about sex,' aimed at pre-schools through to 8-years-olds, will also be accompanied by a teacher's resource to assist its implementation in a school setting."

Pope Benedict spoke this week to the bishops of Minnesota, and North and South Dakota. He called on them to keep standing up to the secularist culture on marriage, because the issues as stake are so foundational:

"[P]articular mention must be made of the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage. The Church's conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage. Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike."

The idea that we are made male and female for a reason, and called to come together in love in this thing called "marriage"—to give ourselves to one another, and to the children our unions can make—is too precious and too foundational to be surrendered without a fight!

My wife and I recently learned we have yet another reason to rejoice and to fight the good fight: We are expecting our eighth child!

Thanks for all that you've done to sustain the National Organization for Marriage in the great battle—and me personally.

Thank you for your cards, your emails, your prayers, your phone calls and your financial support.

I'm humbled and in awe of all that you've made possible.

God bless you!

Dear Friend of Marriage,

What is a "sacred value"?

I got to thinking about that after this interview with the Los Angeles Times on the changing message of advocates of gay marriage:

The message "used to be one that focused on rights, parity in benefits," said Fred Sainz, vice president of communications and marketing for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group based in Washington, D.C.

Since about 2008, Sainz said, same-sex marriage activists have begun "talking about love, honor and commitment."

Then the LA Times quotes my response:

"Our messaging hasn't changed because it's based on truth and reality," said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "It's not that complicated. You don't need sophisticated talking points to present a common-sense truth."

What gay-marriage advocates are now doing is trying to make gay marriage into a "sacred value," something every American is bound to uphold.

The broad and deep traditions of the American republic are being co-opted into making a strange new god of gay marriage.

This is an amazing process to watch unfold, the audacity of it and, in the end, the meanness of it.

For a fine example of this strange process of transforming gay marriage into a secularist's "sacred value," watch this video:

You could call this video "A British dude at Harvard lectures Gov. Chris Christie about the sacred rights of Americans."

He's criticizing Gov. Christie for vetoing the gay marriage bill.

Now, I've had my issues with Gov. Christie—his judicial appointment of a pro-gay-marriage advocate to the state supreme court is unconscionable and will hurt him with conservatives for years to come.

But watching gay-marriage advocates go after Gov. Christie for keeping his campaign commitments is astonishing:

"Gov. Christie faced a clear moral choice that day—would he stand strong against the voices of inequality in his party? Would he finally grant equal rights?"

"Or would he buckle under the pressure of his presidential ambitions, back down in the face of bigotry and fail to take the principled stance?", the British guy went on.

The lecture continued. The British dude from Harvard quotes the Federalist Papers. He quotes James Madison. He quotes the 14th Amendment. He quotes the New Jersey constitution. He quotes the oath Gov. Christie "solemnly swore" to uphold the constitution—"so help me God"—before accusing Gov. Christie of oathbreaking and, well, something close to treason:

"When that bill crossed your desk protecting the inalienable rights of the citizens you represent—the rights you swore to protect, you had a chance to fulfill that promise. ...[T]housands of citizens who looked to you for leadership.

"Instead of leadership you revealed your cowardice. You took that pen, and with your veto, scrawled on the constitution of New Jersey and on the Constitution of the United States of America; you have betrayed your country, you have embarrassed your state, you have broken the oath you made before your God—and you are not welcome here in Massachusetts."

Here's where it gets really weird. Amid signs saying things like "Bigot go home," the high-minded rhetoric goes out the window and the British dude from Harvard descends to this imbecilic chant:

"Chris Christie, go away, you're not welcome in MA."

He seems to think that gay marriage is such a sacred right that he's entitled to purge an entire American state of anyone who disagrees with him.

Now at one level this is a ridiculous comparison, morally speaking. The 14th Amendment was designed to protect African-Americans from truly serious threats to their human rights. Black people were enslaved. After they were liberated from chattel slavery—which took the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the Civil war—a whole political system was erected in many states systematically to deprive African-Americans of genuine basic human rights, like the right not to be lynched, the right to vote, the right to be protected by law in their persons and property, and the right to an education.

Gay people in this country face real problems now. But to compare the absence of a legal basis in New Jersey to call your relationship a marriage to the profound deprivations of human rights which the 14th amendment is designed to address is just childish in the extreme. It is "fantastic" in the literal sense—rooted in fantasy, not in reality—sad and childish and in the end, mean.

But it is also part of a plan. Marriage is sacred to most Americans. As the LA Times reporter's story notes, asking for benefits proved a faint pathway to gay marriage because "sacred values" like marriage have a power over the human soul and mind that benefits packages do not.

There's actually a whole social-scientific literature on how "sacred values" affect people's decision-making processes.

When asked to trade a "sacred value" for an ordinary benefit, people find the decision-making process easy. Sacred values take precedence. But when the choice is between two "sacred values"—what one set of researchers called a "tragic tradeoff"—people find the choice much more difficult and much more painful. (If you want a peek into this research literature, one example is this 2008 study by Hanselman and Tanner: "Taboos and Conflicts in Decision Making: Sacred Values, Decision Difficulty and Emotions" [pdf].)

Emory even released a study this January which showed that "sacred values" are actually processed in the brain differently from ordinary values.

Hence the deliberate and strategic effort described by the Los Angeles Times, and evidenced by our Massachusetts anti-Christie Harvard protestor, to make acceptance of gay marriage mandatory by raising it to the level of a "sacred value."

Perverse, I know. Corrupt, I would also argue. It's part of what we are called to face and fight in these times in which we live.

The British guy from Harvard also lectured Christie, "You don't put civil freedoms on the ballot. ..You don't risk inalienable rights on a poll."

Gee, someone has forgotten to tell Equality Maine that.

In Maine, gay-marriage advocates are trying to pass gay marriage via the referendum process, reversing the vote of the people in 2009 which rejected it.

It's a big fight, one of many we face this year. But we have some good news from the latest PPP poll. The pollster, a Dem firm, tried to spin it as good new for gay marriage—but, well, judge for yourself. When the actual language the voters will see on the ballot this fall was put before voters, only 47 percent said they would vote "yes." (32 percent said they would vote "no" and a suspiciously large number of people declined to say either way—experience shows us that these people are mostly with us). It's easier to get people to vote "no" in a referendum than "yes." It's a big fight but it looks eminently winnable if folks in Maine can get their message out.

Speaking of sacred values, the media has spun a recent statement by the Catholic Bishop of the Maine diocese that he will not formally join the committee fighting the referendum as: "Maine Diocese Says It Won't Campaign Against Gay Marriage." I know Bishop Richard Malone. He told the press he means to fight hard to educate every Catholic in Maine on the meaning of marriage. He wants lay people to lead the political fight, but we expect him to be a strong and effective leader helping in this fight in a new way.

Good news too from a new public poll by Civitas in North Carolina, where the people will vote on a marriage amendment in May. Support for the marriage amendment is growing strongly:

A majority, 64 percent, of North Carolina voters say they support a constitutional amendment that establishes marriage between one man and woman as the only recognized domestic legal union in the state... Thirty percent said they oppose it and six percent are undecided or do not know.

While Black voters continue to strongly back the marriage amendment by a 40% margin the biggest move this month over last was the move of unaffiliated voters from a plus 11 percent margin in January to a plus 24 percent margin in February in support of the marriage amendment.

Why the growing support? It's partly the leadership of the black churches. The Southern Baptists have also moved strongly in support of the amendment. But frankly, it probably has something to do with the new lawsuit filed trying to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat, the pollster notes:

When asked a follow up question concerning a lawsuit filed by the Guilford County Register of Deeds seeking to declare North Carolina's current marriage law unconstitutional, sixty percent of respondents said that would make them more likely to support the Amendment, which includes twenty percent of those who say they opposed the amendment when first asked.

Finally, even the mainstream media is acknowledging this piece of good news: the Republicans who betrayed marriage in New York State are facing tough political fights as a result. Just watch this video: "Same-sex marriage vote could hurt Senate Republicans."

Here at NOM we are very busy, winning impossible victories for your genuinely sacred values—for the rights that are given to us not by government but from the hand of our Creator Himself. Thank you so much for making all these victories possible! I am so honored to be your voice for your values.

Please pray for me and my family—and for everyone who is on the front lines in this fight for God's truth about marriage.

My Dear Friends,

Votes have consequences.

We just endorsed a Democrat for the New York state Senate, Chuck Swanick.

Here's what I said in our press release:

"In response to those who say that electing Mr. Swanick could cost Dean Skelos his majority in the Senate we say, 'we don't care,'" Brown said. "Mark Grisanti's political career will be ended over same-sex marriage, and he might take Dean Skelos with him. But that is Skelos' own doing for having allowed the same-sex marriage bill to come to a vote in the Senate. We are committed to electing a pro-marriage majority, not protecting Republicans like Mark Grisanti who betray our core values."

NOM said it intends to participate in legislative contests throughout the state as part of its $2 million commitment to make sure the voters of New York are able to vote to restore marriage in New York. In addition to Grisanti, the group plans to oppose Senators James Alesi, Roy McDonald, Stephen Saland and Shirley Huntley, and support those who voted against redefining marriage such as Ruben Diaz.

"We are on a crusade to reclaim the people's right to vote on marriage. We will work with legislators of any party, like Chuck Swanick and the courageous Democratic Senator Ruben Diaz, who will stand for the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We're committed to achieving a majority for marriage, not any particular partisan majority," Brown concluded.

Votes have consequences.

That's what Buffalo Senator Mark Grisanti is learning, as one of the four Buffalo Republicans whose flip to vote for gay marriage in New York is turning into a real flop with the voters.

The Erie County Conservative Party has announced he won't have the Conservative Party's backing in this election.

(Grisanti's electoral troubles aren't helped by press coverage of his involvement in the equivalent of a barroom fight in a local casino.)

Meanwhile, NY State Sen. Roy McDonald, another Republican who betrayed his promise to the people with his vote for gay marriage, was the next to take an embarrassing hit. His hometown Wilton GOP Committee endorsed his opponent, Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, for the GOP nomination.

New York's Capitol Confidential headline sums it up: pro-marriage forces are "piling on" New York's flip-flopping senators.

PolitickerNY also noticed that NOM is helping out in the race to replace another flip-flopping (and otherwise disgraced) State Sen. Carl Kruger, in the special election for his Brooklyn seat.

Part of the amazing multi-racial, interfaith coalition for marriage swung into action, as major Orthodox Jewish rabbis came out hard against Lew Fidler, who supports gay marriage. We helped them get
their message out on marriage, as Politicker reports:

"We Need A Senator Who Supports Torah Values," the ad's headline reads, before going after the Democratic candidate. "Lew Fidler voted to support same-gender 'marriage,' a forbidden act under the Torah."

The ad's featured photo is the Republican candidate, attorney David Storobin, standing in between Majority Leader Dean Skelos and State Senator Marty Golden, surrounded by Rabbis. Below is a photo of Mr. Storobin with Rabbi Yisroel Belsky, who the New York Times once described as "prominent and influential." According to the ad, Rabbi Belsky says it is forbidden "to provide public recognition or any kind of assistance to Lew Fidler ... Rabbi Yisroel Belsky endorses David Storobin, who will support Torah Values."

New York was the springboard for a new nationwide push to impose gay marriage, against the will of the voters. We are fighting hard in Washington, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey—and more states will follow.

This is a two-step punch to try to knock marriage supporters out of the ring—fueled by Republican betrayals which are rewarded by pro-gay-marriage cash in the political arena.

But the people are fighting back with votes on marriage in Minnesota and North Carolina.

In Washington state the Family Policy Institute of Washington, led by Joseph Backholm, has filed a referendum to roll back gay marriage.

This week in Maryland the black churches fought back big time, with the Maryland Marriage Alliance filing a referendum to overturn Maryland's just-passed gay marriage law.

These black pastors are men of great courage and determination. They are fired up at this assault on Biblical values regarding marriage in the name of faux civil rights.

Even the Washington Post noticed the anomaly of these civil rights heroes being slandered as haters and bigots by white liberals:

All of a sudden, they are bigots and haters—they who stood tall against discrimination, who marched and sat in, who knew better than most the pain of being told they were less than others. They are black men, successful ministers, leaders of their community. But with Maryland poised to become the eighth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage, they hear people—politicians, activists, even members of their own congregations—telling them they are on the wrong side of history, and that's not where they usually live.

...Nathaniel Thomas spent decades as an administrator in Howard University's student affairs office, counseling young people not only about their course work but also about their personal quests for justice. He came to the ministry at the dawn of middle age, eager to help people, and especially fellow black men, discover in the word of God a path out of despair.

Over the past couple of years, as Thomas and dozens of other black clergymen in Prince George's County have stood on the front line of the campaign against same-sex marriage, he has come to see the revolution at hand—in his view, a rebellion against religion and tradition—as an assault on the sustainability of the black family.

Which is why Thomas and his friend Reynold Carr, director of the Prince George's Baptist Association, are gearing up for the next battle, a statewide ballot referendum in November to challenge the legalization of same-sex marriage, which the state House of Delegates approved last Friday.

...Thomas and the 77 other Baptist ministers in the association do not see same-sex marriage as a civil rights matter. Rather, they say, it is a question of Scripture, of whether a country based on Judeo-Christian principles will honor what's written in Romans or decide to make secular decisions about what's right. In Maryland, as in California and New York, opinion polls have shown that although a majority of white voters support recognition of same-sex marriage, a majority of blacks oppose it, often on religious grounds.

It takes real courage to stand up for Biblical values against the forces now geared to redefine our society. I am humbled at the honor of fighting shoulder to shoulder with giants such as these.

Meanwhile up north, we are helping out big-time with a push to take back territory in New Hampshire.

Here's how the Manchester Union Leader covered the story:

"I think the Legislature has a chance to right the tremendous wrong of forcing this thing through a few years ago," Brown said.

Asked what the $250,000 will be used for, Brown said: "We'll expose those candidates who decided to undermine marriage."

Plans include running independent TV ads as well as donating directly to legislators' campaigns this year.

"There are limits on what we can do with direct contributions, whereas with independent expenditures or issue ads, we can spend unlimited funds," Brown said.

In 2010, NOM spent more than $1 million, including running ads critical of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Binnie. NOM expects to spend about $15 million nationally this year, backed by donations from 60,000 supporters.

"We're a national group, but we've got thousands of supporters in New Hampshire, and we work hand in hand in New Hampshire," Brown said.

Then the New York Times reports on February 29 on pro-marriage chances: "A repeal bill appears to have a good chance of passing in the state House and Senate, which are both controlled by Republicans. The bigger question is whether they can muster enough votes to overcome a promised veto from Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat."

Wow.

With all eyes on the GOP nomination fight, I'm grateful to be able to remind you that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the two top contenders for the GOP nomination, have both committed to being marriage champions by signing NOM's Marriage Pledge. (So has Newt Gingrich!)

National elections have consequences too. With Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act headed to the Supreme Court, the stakes this November could not be higher.

President Obama sent his Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius—fresh from her new campaign to force Christian schools, charities, hospitals and even Salvation Army soup kitchens to help fund abortion-inducing drugs—to oppose the marriage amendment in North Carolina. She said it was "hugely important" to defeat the marriage protection amendment in North Carolina—a sure sign that they are "hugely" worried they are going to lose.

Wow, is this tone-deaf on Obama's part! He sent to North Carolina a woman most known for imposing on the rights of people of faith, to headline the opposition to the marriage amendment.

When we warn that gay marriage will have consequences for religious liberty, Kathleeen Sebelius is more of a confirmation than a refutation of voters' concerns.

The campaign by Obama to redefine reality so he can impose his values on us all has just begun.

This is a fitting reminder to us all: Votes do have big consequences—for all our values.

I promise you: At NOM we won't back down from a fight, no matter how tough the going gets, or what hateful names they try to throw at us.

I know I'm standing up for millions of decent, loving, law-abiding Americans like you whose values are rooted in God's word and common sense.

At NOM we will fight for your values until we win.

My Dear Friends,

Prop 8 is headed to the full Ninth Circuit, as chief legal eagle Chuck Cooper and his crack legal team announced this week.

Here's the thing I want you to notice about how this case is unfolding.

First, as the New York Times recently admitted, even Judge Reinhardt and his liberal colleagues did not bite on the big arguments endorsed by Judge Walker and the alleged dream team of California Ted Olson and David Boies.

The majority did not accept the broadest argument pressed by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the celebrity legal team challenging Proposition 8, the voter initiative that overturned a California Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage. Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies had urged the appeals court to find that the federal Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry—a rationale that would apply in all 50 states.

Instead Judge Reinhardt went for an allegedly "smaller" argument that applies only to California and a few other states: Once a state grants civil unions, it cannot retreat from gay marriage.

The gay legal establishment applauds this decision. Why? Because they believe it makes it less likely the case will end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The New York Times lets the cat out of the bag: "Many gay rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief. They had long been wary of the Proposition 8 suit, preferring a state-by-state litigation and lobbying strategy over betting the farm on a case that was likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court. Some said they hoped the justices would now decline to hear an idiosyncratic case affecting a single state."

The gay legal establishment is desperately trying to keep the Supreme Court from reviewing their work.

Why? Because they don't really think they can win.

There is no federal Constitutional right to gay marriage. Gay people in the United States are hardly a powerless minority in need of the extraordinary special protections the Court developed, under the authority of the 14th Amendment, to prevent racial discrimination.

And they know it!

Please help us protect Prop 8 in court by giving generously to defend marriage, the rights of voters, and our Constitution from judges like Reinhardt.

Marriage in New Jersey is headed back to state court, after Gov. Chris Christie followed through on his promise to veto same-sex marriage.

This week a New Jersey judge ruled that the attorney general appointed by Chris Christie had offered arguments for marriage that were just too weak—"tradition"—and reinstated the argument made by same-sex couples that New Jersey's marriage law violates the federal Constitution—because New Jersey permits civil unions!

Marriage in Washington state is headed to the voters. Joseph Backholm is heading up the Family Policy Institute of Washington, and an initial poll from a Democratic polling firm suggests that even in this blue secular state, the people are not enthusiastic about gay marriage. Right now, voters say they are roughly divided over repealing the law—better than the initial polls out of California!

Rob Schwarzwalder, a senior vice-president of the Family Research Council, just announced a personal boycott of Starbucks over the company's endorsement and promotion of gay marriage in the state of Washington:

"[CEO Howard] Schultz's decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars. ...Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one's chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex 'marriage' is 'is core to who we are and what we value as a company' are assertions that don't quite add up.

"So, for now, at least, I will buy my overpriced flavored coffees elsewhere. I dislike boycotts for a number of reasons, but am undertaking a personal one at present. Being for marriage, as understood in the Judeo-Christian context and Western tradition, is much more to 'the core of who I am' than a Starbucks iced mocha ever will be."

In Maryland pastors are asking their flocks to think about what's really core to who they are and what they value.

The Maryland senate will probably vote today on same-sex marriage. Maryland is one of the states which permit the people to veto bills passed by the legislature.

And pastors in Maryland, especially the black church, are showing that they will not give up marriage without a fight, as even the Washington Post makes clear:

Holding a Bible and an 8-month-old baby, the Rev. Nathaniel B. Thomas stood before his congregation at Forestville New Redeemer Baptist Church on Sunday and declared that last week's vote in the Maryland House of Delegates supporting same-sex marriage will spark a new battle.

"It ain't over until God says that it is over," Thomas said. "It took one woman to take prayer out of schools. There are too many weak-knee Christians. This is bigger than same-sex marriage. It is about changing society."

"This is really a wake-up call for the faith community," agreed the Rev. Elwood Gray, pastor of the Peace in the Valley Baptist Church in Silver Spring.

Money talks in politics. Fawning media coverage also helps. But at times like these we also know: There are forces in the universe greater than money or politics; and with your help we will take the fight for marriage to the people, all across this great land, and we will win.

Thank you! I'm so grateful to the thousands of you who have fought back, spoken for marriage, sacrificed your time and your treasure in defense of something so basic, so wonderful and so good: God's vision of marriage, the natural understanding of marriage, rooted in Scripture, yes, but also in common sense, history and human nature.

In other national news this week, the Human Rights Campaign is going on TV to make the absurd argument that supporting marriage is going to hurt the GOP candidates for president. (As you know, all the remaining candidates except Ron Paul have signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, promising to fight judge-lead efforts to impose gay marriage.) Of course the media echoes that view.

In the Wall Street Journal, Bill McGurn put his finger on what he calls "the most glaring double standard" in American politics:

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.

In the media, he means. That glaring double standard "helps explain why candidates with social views that are fairly conventional among ordinary Americans—the citizens of 31 states including California have rejected same-sex marriage when put to a vote—find themselves depicted as extreme."

Here's NOM's co-founder Maggie Gallagher on Al-Jazeera taking on the Human Rights Campaign's communication director and his absurd arguments with her usual grace:

When people start down the path of pushing a fundamental untruth, it's hard for them to figure out when to stop fibbing!

Federally, the Obama administration announced once again that it's punting on the defense of DOMA, this time in the context of same-sex couples in the military. Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, read the letter Attorney General Eric Holder sent explaining Pres. Obama's position, and just scratched his head:

"It's all just made up. There's no part of the Constitution that talks about sexual orientation, the need for the government to give benefits to people," he said. "This is really troubling because it's a pattern. We're not dealing with an administration that adheres to the basic constitutional principle that the government is supposed to do only what it's given power to do by the Constitution."

Red Alert Politics, an online hub for young conservatives sponsored by The Weekly Standard and the Washington Examiner, interviewed our own Thomas Peters on using social media to fight for marriage and other good causes.

...In addition to blogging, Peters works at the National Organization for Marriage where he is overseeing a project to identify and encourage young activists who are pro-marriage.

Marriage could be a big issue this year, with a number of states—like Washington and Maryland— considering legislation to legalize gay marriage. Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, are trying to add traditional marriage to the state constitution.

As part of his work for NOM, Peters travels the country speaking to young people, and teaching them how to defend their views.

"We have to work hard at understanding our own conservative principles so we are better equipped to defend and promote them," he said.

And social media is key, he noted, "It contributes to a more robust and free democracy."

We are not giving up on any state, or any court—or on the next generation.

When the going gets tough—that's when we recognize that we have to depend on faith, hope, and above all love of our country and our Creator to see us through.

It's an honor to serve as your voice for our shared values.

My Dear Friends,

I smell victory in the air, and I am pretty sure you haven't heard the good news. (Thanks, mainstream media!)

February, the month of love, will be the month we score some major, unexpected victories for marriage.

Victory number one: taking marriage to the people of Washington. After the out-of-touch state legislature rammed through a gay marriage bill in Washington state, a citizen's coalition (with NOM's help!) called Preserve Marriage Washington immediately filed the paperwork to take marriage to the people!

Joseph Backholm is leading the effort at Preserve Marriage Washington (with your help!), as this New American piece makes clear:

Among the leaders in the fight to preserve marriage in Washington is Joseph Backholm, head of the state's Family Policy Institute, who said his group is working to give voters the final say on the issue. "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for good reason," Backholm said following passage of the homosexual marriage bill. "Marriage is society's way of bringing men and women together so that children can be raised by, and cared for by, their mother and father--the people responsible for bringing them into the world. It is the most-important, child-focused institution of society and we will fight to preserve it. Voters will have the opportunity to define marriage in our state."

Among the state and national groups that are combining forces to get the referendum on the ballot are the Family Policy Institute, Stand for Marriage Washington, Concerned Women for America, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). In addition, organizers said they expect hundreds of churches and individuals to pitch in to gather the needed signatures.

Here's our own Chris Plante predicting success:

Starbucks and other humongous Seattle corporations may now believe that gay marriage is the future, but their customers in the state of Washington will get the chance to fight back!

Victory number two: Gay marriage loses again! In New Jersey?!

In New Jersey, after losing massively in 2009, the wealthy base of gay-marriage donors decided once again this year to take up the time and energy of legislatures in pushing through a gay marriage bill. But in the vote this week in NJ, they failed to get enough votes to override Gov. Christie's announced plans to veto, leading Christie to call the effort political "theater."

The Governor also added: "Democrats assume that the Republicans who voted no [on same-sex marriage] didn't vote their conscience. I assume the Democrats who voted no last time [same-sex marriage was up for a vote] ... and voted yes this time I guess had a change of conscience
or maybe their arms got twisted a little bit harder...."

Today, I'll be linking arms again with my personal hero, Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz, who was invited by fellow Pentecostal ministers to join the fight in New Jersey to protect God's truth about marriage.

Senator Rev. Díaz stated: "I am honored that Rev. Jose C. Lopez, the President of the Evangelical Pastors Association of Hudson County, has invited me and my ministers to join him along with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, to once again unite in prayer for the protection of the traditional family." For a guy from suburban Orange County, California, let me tell you, this is a real honor--and a real trip!

Victory number three: The black church in Maryland stands up for marriage!

African-American Democrats were the key to the legislature's decision to reject gay marriage in Maryland last year. The Governor's wife called them and others "cowards" for refusing to accept gay marriage's inevitability.

But marriage is a cause which brings together people of every race, creed and color, as my friend and hero Sen. Díaz can tell you. And in Maryland, a key delegate in the Maryland House just announced he's still a "no" vote on gay marriage:

"While I do believe that the law should afford the same protections to all couples in Maryland, I do not believe we need to use the word marriage to do that," Delegate Patrick Hogan said in a statement.

Meanwhile, a really notable thing happened at the hearings on the Senate side. You didn't hear about it in the mainstream media, but one brave gay man actually showed up to testify against same-sex marriage:

The Maryland Gazette reports:

...[A] gay man from Potomac asked the committee to defeat the bill, saying the proposal by Gov. Martin O'Malley would undermine one of society's most basic principles, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"I'm gay and I'm opposed to this legislation," said Doug Mainwaring, a divorced father of two who works for the National Capital Tea Party Patriots.

"I totally believe in civil unions, but I would like to see marriage preserved for one man and one woman. Marriage is the building block of our civilization," he said.

Will the Democrats continue this rash effort to divert time and attention to a low-priority item in the middle of a huge economic crisis?

Stay tuned, but we're fighting hard for your values in Maryland and I smell victory!

Victory number four: Will the New Hampshire legislature repeal gay marriage?

In New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Journal's online survey may be a harbinger of yet another unsung, hard-fought victory. It's not a scientific poll, but it's a measure of intensity that over 1100 New Hampshireans recorded their vote and more than 70 percent said they applauded the legislators' efforts to repeal gay marriage.

We expect a vote to repeal gay marriage in New Hampshire could happen soon. Don't miss another chance for celebrating unexpected victory!

Meanwhile Republican state Rep. David Bates, the author of the repeal bill, led a recent rally on the Statehouse steps.

"I think it's time to move back, back to the true meaning of marriage," Bates said.

Victory number five: A new marriage amendment in May for North Carolina?

Meanwhile the next state to vote for a marriage amendment will be North Carolina in May. A new Civitas poll (yes, this is a scientifically-valid one!) released this week shows massive support for protecting marriage as one man and one woman: 62 percent yes to 30 percent no. When you look at the "strongly support" it's even more encouraging (if possible), as 57 percent say they "strongly support" the measure. That's going to be hard for even Tim Gill or Paul Singer's money to overcome!

These victories are possible, under the grace of God, only because you and others like you chose to put your faith in hope, not in the argument for despair, and stand up for what's right instead of supinely accepting the Left's view of history.

It was your prayers, your encouragement, your work, your votes, and your financial sacrifices which made this possible. Thank you in advance for all that you have done, against all odds, to protect God's
truth about marriage.

Meanwhile in national politics, a couple of interesting developments.

Nancy Pelosi, who is, after all, the congresswoman who represents San Francisco, just endorsed plans for a messy platform fight to put the Democratic Party on record supporting gay marriage, according to Politico.

"...The proposed plank states: 'We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry.'"

Gee, will Pres. Obama have to come out of his closet and admit he's in favor of gay marriage?

We hope so, since he's done more than any voter could have imagined to undermine our right to vote for marriage in federal courts.

Meanwhile all the major Republican presidential candidates (Gingrich, Romney and Santorum) have signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, which includes a promise to fight for the Defense of Marriage Act in court and for a federal marriage amendment in Congress.

The same day that Gov. Gregoire signed a same-sex marriage bill in Washington state, Rick Santorum was in Tacoma, meeting with pro-marriage leaders and taking the fight to the people! Occupy Tacoma tried to silence him, but he stood tall. Watch:

Meanwhile, Gov. Mitt Romney is also standing up for marriage, as this press report makes clear:

Romney ran through a laundry list of accomplishments from his tenure as Massachusetts governor, including everything from balancing budgets and improving the school system--to more controversial battles like those over illegal immigration and same-sex marriage, which Massachusetts' Supreme Court legalized during Romney's term.

"I led the fight to get an amendment to our constitution to reverse that ruling," Romney said of the court's decision to allow same sex marriage, echoing his CPAC speech. "We missed by one vote. Even in a legislature that's 85 percent Democrat. But we went to make sure that we didn't have our same sex marriage go throughout the country and we were able to enforce--I think it was a 1913 law--that kept Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of same sex marriage."

Both Romney and Santorum understand that marriage is an important issue--and that it is a winning issue!

Thank you for all the "impossible" victories we've already won together, by standing up for first principles and for common sense. Thank you as well for the victories we are about to win! Now is the time to stay engaged!

God bless you and your family. Please pray for all those on the front lines of this epic fight for marriage!

My Dear Friends,

The fight is on!

In California, two judges on a divided Ninth Circuit panel just decided to take away the right of 7 million California voters to determine their own state's constitution, correct an out-of-control state supreme court, and restore the public meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

What is the evidence these judges offer that Prop 8 violates our beloved federal Constitution?

In a decision that NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher rightly called "ill-natured and illogical," the Ninth Circuit actually said that the evidence that the 7 million Californians who voted for marriage are irrational bigots who hate gay people is: Prop 8 didn't take away any practical benefits from same-sex couples.

That's right, because Californians decided to focus on protecting the idea and the ideal of marriage, without restricting gay people from doing things like seeing one another in the hospital—that is the proof that they were motivated by unreasoning hatred towards homosexuals.

Ill-natured, illogical, and, I, would add: totally illicit. These were two judges with no empathy for those who disagree with their own liberal values, with a predetermined agenda they wanted to enact, with no respect for the original text or meaning of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, put in place to correct the serious evil of slavery, is not a license to import into the federal Constitution any vision of "equality" invented by Harvard faculty and do an end run about basic principles of democracy.

As for the idea that marriage is and always has been a union of male and female for a reason—that these unions are different than any other kind because they make new life and connect children to their mother and father—what did the Ninth Circuit say about that?

These two biased judges rudely dismissed these core concerns by claiming no rational person could imagine that publicly redefining marriage could affect the public meaning of marriage, or the way the next generation thinks about marriage:

"Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties."

Really?

Courts threaten to take away the roadmap to marriage. Rewrite the institution's public meaning. Brand traditional ideas about marriage as uniting male and female in love so children can have mothers and fathers as irrational bigotry. The public schools will teach the government's newly redefined marriage ideas to your children and grandchildren.

Gee, how could any reasonable person committed to our marriage tradition believe such a radical redefinition of marriage could matter?

The Ninth Circuit's opinion striking down Prop 8 is government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges, and I promise you it will not stand.

Here I am debating one of the leading architects of the campaign to impose gay marriage by judicial tyranny, Evan Wolfson, on ABC 7 News:

Thanks to the hundreds of you who responded to our "money bomb" request to raise $100,000 for the defense of Prop 8. We helped get Prop 8 on the ballot. We helped form and fund the winning coalition that passed Prop 8. And we are going to see this fight through to the sweet victory at the end!

If you haven't yet had the chance, click here to help defend marriage, democracy and the rule of law!

Between now and the Supreme Court decision that will (or will not) impose gay marriage on all 50 states, there is an important election for president of the United States.

Three GOP candidates have not only responded to NOM's Marriage Pledge, they quickly spoke out against federal courts redefining marriage, and taking away the sovereignty of We the People:

Newt Gingrich said on Twitter, "Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy."

Mitt Romney: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

And Rick Santorum on Facebook: "Today, activist judges in the 9th Circuit stripped away the rights of 7 million California voters by striking down Proposition 8. These judges inserted a right into our Constitution that isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The radical actions of the 9th Circuit underscore the need for a constitutional amendment which would define 'marriage' as between one man-one woman. Study after study shows that traditional marriage, as it has always been defined—one man and one woman—creates the best possible environment for our children. And strong families are a key part of a strong America.

"This issue is far too important to allow for 50 different definitions of marriage at the state level. And this issue should certainly not be decided by a few activist judges..."

(In our press release we also noted that Rick Santorum has been an early and staunch supporter of the National Organization for Marriage, signing fundraising letters for us, among other good deeds.)

We are very proud that the three leading candidates for the GOP nomination are all willing to speak up for marriage.

NOM is a cosponsor at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) this year, serving as a proud voice for marriage within the conservative movement as well as outside. Maggie is moderating a panel on the importance of uniting social and economic conservatives and NOM's new Chairman of the Board Prof. John Eastman will be speaking there too.

The battles continue: Washington state just passed a gay marriage law, weeks before they found the time to close a humongous budget gap. It will take a tough fight to get a referendum to the people. In New Jersey and Maryland, liberal legislators promise to impose gay marriage without a vote of the people.

In two states this year, the people will have a chance to pass state marriage amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman.

In New Hampshire, a vote to repeal same-sex marriage takes place soon.

The fight continues. The rewards for fighting the good fight are not supposed to be felt in this world.

But the chance to be your voice for your values is the benefit I most cherish in earthly terms—the chance to put my shoulder to the wheel, to work and to fight and to link arms with loving, decent, law-abiding Americans of every creed and color on behalf of something so important, and so good, as marriage. That's what no one can ever take away.

Thank you.

There's a profile of NOM's co-founder Maggie Gallagher in Salon by a New York Times columnist who favors same-sex marriage. He tries, but he can't make head or tail of Maggie's principled defense of marriage—or yours either!

At the end he reports being befuddled by Maggie Gallagher's strong and idealistic belief that gay marriage is not the future:

"I have no doubts who will win in the end," Gallagher says. "One hundred years from now the globe will not be full of societies that endorse same-sex unions as marriages. What happens between now and then is going to be less certain and full of struggle. In the long struggle, I'll bet on human nature to overwhelm ideology. The thing about same-sex marriage is it's based on a fundamental untruth: same-sex unions are not the same as opposite sex unions. They are not marriages."

Thank you for making this fight possible, with your prayers, with your words, with your financial sacrifices, with your friendship.

God bless you,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Remember that we are fighting for the future of marriage! We will win, but we need your help to do it. Can you pledge $100 or $150 today for marriage? Or can you make a monthly donation of just $15? Every dollar makes a difference as we work to secure marriage for you, for your children, and for your children's children.

My Dear Friends,

She Called You a "Coward"!

This is the week the gay-marriage movement is trying to break you and me. Pushing forward full-bore in Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire—NOM has never had a week where we've sent out so many action alerts to so many people.

This is the week we take up the gauntlet laid down by the First Lady of Maryland, who had the nerve to tell a gay rights group that those who oppose gay marriage are "cowards." (The governor had to go on an apology tour for that remark).

Even as they threaten the jobs, the businesses, and the livelihoods of people willing to stand for the great truths of Genesis—even as they bask in the accolades of Hollywood and a complacent media—even as they wallow in the silver coins flung into their campaign chests by billionaire gay-marriage backers—they call you and me "cowards"?

Here's how the people of Maryland responded, at a rally you'll never see on Fox News or ABC News—thousands, led by the black church, flooded Annapolis to make it clear that they will never give up the fight for what's right.

Listen as a brave clergyman stands up to government power and the epithets of the governor's wife:

"Never in human history has marriage been defined as two men. Never in human history has marriage been defined as two women. Who has the right to redefine it?"

The crowd shouts: "No one!"

"This is reckless social experimentation. Marriage is the fundamental cell of society. If you mess with marriage, you threaten the very future of humanity. We ask our government to do their job. Fix the problems we already have. Don't make new ones! Do your job!"

Do your job. Fix the budget. Get the economy back to work. Solve problems, don't create them, and don't blame the people for refusing to accept your insults or your epithets as a substitute for rational argument.

Up in New Hampshire the same spirit of courage was demonstrated by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, who takes the gay marriage activists to task for what he calls "usurpation by redefinition":

We all know that the New Hampshire Supreme Court did a great disservice to the people of the state in their Claremont education opinions when they redefined out of thin air the word "cherish" in our Constitution (Part II, Art. 83) to "must fund." We've been paying the price ever since for that unconstitutional redefinition. Part of that price is that it encouraged the Democrat majority's willy-nilly usurpation-by-redefinition of the Constitution's word "marriage" in their "gay marriage" legislation a couple years ago.

Since 1784 the New Hampshire Constitution has included Marriage in Part II, Art. 76. Because that article includes the word Marriage, its required meaning is the 1784 definition. (Some would argue that since the word is capitalized, the actual definition precedes our Constitution.) In any case, the Constitutional definition of Marriage in New Hampshire has been, and still is, the 1784 definition: one man and one woman. In an arrogant "usurpation-by-statute" the Constitutional definition was altered two years ago.

Both Maggie Gallagher and Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse have penned eloquent responses to the claim that libertarians should support same-sex marriage. These are being distributed to legislators in New Hampshire now as we help the people of New Hampshire fight to overturn gay marriage in New Hampshire. (You can read them here [pdf] and here [pdf]).

Reading these state constitutions, which were drafted by men who founded our Republic, is an education in itself.

Here's how the drafters of the New Hampshire "live free or die" state constitution understood the grounding of religious liberty—in morality and piety:

"As morality and piety, rightly grounded on high principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society, therefore, the several parishes, bodies, corporate, or religious societies shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both."

The Washington state senate just passed a gay marriage bill, which is being railroaded through without a vote of the people. In Washington, as in Maine and California we will fight for the people's rights by overturning this unjust law.

Meanwhile in New Jersey, even as Gov. Christie bravely promised to veto a same-sex marriage bill he undercut his own claim to be standing by his campaign promises by appointing to the New Jersey Supreme Court an outspoken advocate of gay marriage who equates traditional views of marriage to slavery.

In 2009, Bruce Harris sent an email to State Senator Joe Pennacchio urging him to vote for gay marriage:

When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that's the way it's always been, I think of the many "traditions" that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these "traditions."

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman's letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you'd explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates—and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.

These are not the words of a judicial conservative, a man who believes in common sense, strict construction of the state constitution—in other words, the kind of judge Gov. Christie promised to appoint to the court.

A man who cannot tell the difference between supporting our traditional understanding of marriage and wanting to enslave a people lacks common sense and judicial temperament.

Please use the form below to urge Governor Christie to fix this terrible mistake by withdrawing the nomination of Bruce Harris for the New Jersey Supreme Court. Then tell your friends, and ask them to send a message of their own.

That message—marriage equals hatred and bigotry—is now being used against Gov. Christie for his support for marriage. The campaign to vilify and exclude millions of Americans from the mainstream because we stand up for marriage is ongoing and intensifying.

Ted Olson, the formerly conservative legal eagle who is now in court fighting to overturn Prop 8, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling attention to the unjust attack on the Koch brothers by the President of the United States.

Here's the letter I would like to write in response: "Ted Olson is right about the Kochs and the misuse of government power by Pres. Obama 'to damage or demean one's political enemies.' It's ironic that this call to decency comes from a man who went to court to get the government to demean 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8 as irrational bigots."

This is a spiritual battle. That's why, even when as in this week, the times look tough, our opponents try to overwhelm us with insults and defeats—we know this is temporary. We know Who will win this fight, in the end.

It was Dostoevsky who wrote, "Beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man."

For the beauty that is marriage, for the idea that we are made male and female—for a Reason—for these deep and great truths about who we are as people, and as a People—we will never give up. We will never stop fighting.

And we will, with the grace of God and your help, win.

My Dear Friends,

This Baptist Press story is right on the money: "2012 could be make or break year for future of gay marriage."

So much is happening.

First, nationally. As I told the press after the roller-coaster South Carolina primary, "It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

With your help (thank you!), "We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race."

The Associated Press notes: "With a flurry of coast-to-coast developments this week, same-sex marriage is back in the political spotlight and likely to remain there through Election Day as a half-dozen states face potentially wrenching votes on the issue."

And they quoted me saying this: "Brian Brown predicts his side will continue its winning streak and prevail in any state referendums that are held this fall. 'There's a myth that history is on a trajectory moving toward same-sex marriage.There is no such momentum.'"

I don't know if you've had a chance to encounter Thomas Peters, the young writer and activist who is organizing a Next Generation for Marriage project for NOM (more on that down the road). But on the NOM blog he asks a very astute question.

"If gay marriage is so popular...why didn't the President endorse it in his State of the Union address?"

Pres. Obama didn't even mention his ongoing effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Gay-marriage activists want to tell us that gay marriage is popular, and that DOMA is unpopular. "What does the President know that gay marriage activists don't want to admit?" Peters asks.

You and I know the answer to that question.

So does Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who told the New York Times why he is unwilling to let the people of New Jersey vote: "It's a hard dynamic to win at the polls," adding, "At the end of the day, gays are a minority and they can't match the crazies, who are out there and really motivated to vote against it."

It isn't very kind or respectful for a sitting politician to describe so many New Jerseyans as "crazy" for disagreeing with his position, but it's increasingly par for the course.

That kind of rhetoric is one reason the American people are digging in their heels and rejecting gay marriage when they are trusted with the choice at the polls.

Monmouth University pollster and political scientist Patrick Murray admitted as much to the Philadelphia Inquirer when he said that Democrats "don't want to put it on the ballot and have it fail because that would probably end the debate over this for quite some time.... It really is a very complex calculation that supporters of gay marriage would have to do before deciding to put this on the ballot." After the experience in California, Democrats may be wary of polls showing popular support for gay marriage.

The Inquirer noted, "Gay marriage there was banned, Murray said, in part because it was opposed by socially conservative African Americans who turned out in large numbers to vote for Barack Obama."

Meanwhile, gay-marriage activists—in the middle of a huge economic and budget crisis—have launched a calculated effort to try to quickly push gay marriage bills through the legislatures in Washington state and New Jersey.

Why? As I told the Philly Inquirer, "There's one reason why they're putting this bill forward: They want to raise money on it."

Our own Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute testified in Olympia, WA, as the Seattle Times reports: "Marriage attaches mother and fathers to their children and to one another."

As Christopher Plante added: "This is a decision to be left to the people."

Here you can see Christopher Plante fighting back on the Christian Broadcasting Network against 70 big-city mayors pushing for gay marriage.

NOM today released a statewide survey which shows Washington voters are not in favor of redefining marriage and want the Legislature to be working on other problems.

"Governor Gregoire is leading legislators off a political cliff with her focus on redefining marriage in Washington," I told the press. "Having approved civil unions, voters do not support redefining marriage and clearly do not want legislators doing so."

In fact, when reminded that Washington State has a civil union law for gay couples, 57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage. 72% of voters think state lawmakers should work on other issues rather than same-sex marriage. A nearly identical number—71% of voters—believe the people should decide the marriage issue; only 9% think legislators should decide the matter.

The survey found low job approval for both Governor Gregoire and the state Legislature. More people view Gregoire's job performance as only fair or poor (56%) as compared to excellent or good (34%). The numbers are even worse for the Legislature—66% say their job performance has been only fair or poor while just 17% say they have done an excellent or good job.

NOM has promised at least $250,000 to defeat any Republicans who vote for gay marriage, but let me tell you, the Democrats are going to face some pretty cranky voters too if they keep pushing pet personal priorities over the people's business.

Meanwhile, New Jersey's plain-spoken, outspoken Gov. Chris Christie astonished the media—but not us!—by doing what an honest leader should do, following through on his campaign promise and reiterating that he would veto a gay marriage bill.

Gov. Christie says, emphatically,

"I support giving New Jerseyans the ability to give voice to their support or their opposition to this issue.

"...I would hope that the legislature would be willing to trust the people, the way I'm willing to trust the people.

"This issue is too big and too consequential not to trust the people who will be governed ultimately by any change in law or maintenance of the current law."

We salute Gov. Christie and echo his call to trust the people of New Jersey with a decision so profound as the fundamental revision of our marriage laws.

Can you take a moment to thank him here?

When our guys stand tall for marriage, they need to hear our appreciation!

Thank Christie here!

Thank you for all you make possible.

Please pray for me, and for all the people and pastors and other leaders who are fighting for marriage in the states of Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Minnesota—and all across this great nation.

Together, we will never stop speaking the truth in love, and fighting for God's truth about marriage.

God bless you,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Now is not the time to stand on the sidelines! When you give to NOM you are playing a role in the crucial, ongoing fight for the truth about marriage and family life. You are helping to secure marriage for your children, your grandchildren, and the generations to come.

My Dear Friends,

Game on!

In New Jersey, politicians are trying to rush through a gay marriage bill.

They claim that civil unions have failed—even though there's not one document-substantiated complaint upheld by the civil unions commission designated to investigate compliance with the civil union law.

Advocates of gay marriage are counting on Gov. Chris Christie, the truth-teller, the straight talker whom we all love for his candid fearlessness—to renege on his clear campaign promise to veto same-sex marriage.

It would break a lot of hearts to find that Gov. Christie is really a conventional kind of politician, one who bends and sways in the wind, one who goes against his word if the big-dollar Republican money guys (who swayed New York's GOP to pass gay marriage) push hard enough.

Don't you believe it! Gov. Christie is a man of his word and in this case his words could not be clearer.

During the campaign, he said he opposed same-sex marriage. And after he won the election he spoke to New Jersey Republicans to confirm: "If a same-sex marriage bill comes to the desk of Governor Christie, it will be returned to the legislature with a big red veto across it because, one, I believe that and I made it very clear to people during the entire campaign that that was my position and so there will be no surprise for the 1.2 million people who voted for me that that was and that is my position."

The video we have comes from a NOM supporter who was there. It's got that homemade quality but I still think you'd like to see it, to see for yourself Gov. Christie's firm pledge:

He continued: "We'll continue to stand for those things and many others that I won't continue to interrupt your dinner with, but those issues—making New Jersey more affordable, less taxes, less spending, and standing up for the values we believe in so strongly as a society and setting an example at the top for saying those things, even at times when they may be politically unpopular, is what I think people expect of leaders."

I have to be candid with you: We are facing a series of very tough fights, not only in New Jersey but throughout the country, as gay-marriage advocates push to replicate what happened in New York, and hope to persuade the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.

In Washington, they claim to be just a few votes short of passing a gay marriage bill through the state senate, without a vote of the people. In both Washington and New Jersey the Democrats have decided, in the middle of an economic collapse causing budget crises, to make pushing a gay marriage bill their number one priority.

It was announced this week that the vote to repeal gay marriage in New Hampshire takes place on Feb. 1. And we will find out shortly whether gay-marriage advocates will try to reverse their loss in Maine this November.

Under these circumstances I have to thank you again for the amazing response to NOM's Year-End Million Dollar Match money bomb. A generous donor pledged to match every dollar you gave if we could raise $1 million by New Year's Day.

And guess what? We did it!

Impossible victories have happened again and again during NOM's tenure. I can't promise you what will happen in all these close fights, but I can promise you this: Thanks to you, NOM will be in this fight. I will never give up, as long as I have the comradeship and support and prayers of good people like you.

We cannot cravenly surrender the truth about marriage, or justice for children.

We cannot and will not. We will fight this good fight, and in the end we know Who wins.

God bless you and keep you. Thank you for your prayers and your support.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. As these fights unfold, will you stand beside us? When you give to NOM you are standing up for your values and making sure that your voice is heard in the corridors of power.

My Dear Friends,

This is the week that marriage and religious liberty became national issues.

I don't know if you watched the New Hampshire debates over the weekend. I did.

And I saw two things:

For the first time, the mainstream media has decided to echo and push the idea that support for marriage makes you a bigot.

And I also saw major political figures magnificently rebut these attacks.

As you know, the National Organization for Marriage launched a Marriage Pledge last summer, asking major candidates to commit—to sign their name on paper—to five specific things:

• To support a federal marriage amendment
• To defend DOMA vigorously in court
• To appoint judges who will not impose gay marriage on all 50 states
• To investigate the increasing reports of threats to the liberty of traditional marriage supporters
• To restore to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry all agreed to be marriage champions.

(Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman refused.)

Because we adopted the Marriage Pledge as a strategy for identifying marriage champions, NOM will not be making an endorsement.

Instead, we've sought to become the voice for all marriage voters, and to make sure marriage remains a visible issue in this campaign, as in this country.

And wow, this week our marriage champions were magnificent!

ABC News's George Stephanopolous and Diane Sawyer tried to "grill" the candidates on their supposed bigotry on gay rights, and the same questions came up at the debate on NBC as well.

Here are Romney and Santorum responding on NBC.

And here's an extended exchange on marriage.

But I want to call your attention to something important which happened this week: The same-sex marriage attack on religious liberty became a campaign issue.

I have to give credit to Newt Gingrich for first bringing up the issue, receiving wild audience applause, and to Gov. Romney, who quickly stepped in to validate and affirm Gingrich's critique from his Massachusetts experience.

Gingrich jumped in to point out media bias: "You don't hear the opposite question asked: Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples? ...Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and bigotry of the Administration? The bigotry question goes both ways... and none of it gets covered by the media."

(He's right about that. That's why we launched our new Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance, to bring you the news the media is not covering. More on that in a second.)

Romney stepped in to strongly affirm that Gingrich was right about what happened in Massachusetts. "This decision about what we call marriage has consequences," Gov. Romney said. "...Calling it marriage creates a whole host of problems for family, for the law, for the practice of religion, for education. Let me say this: 3000 years of human history shouldn't be discarded so quickly."

Kudos to both men for braving the media firestorm, and to Rick Santorum for bravely defending marriage as well.

Here's one last video you'll just enjoy: Newt Gingrich the next morning, beating back a CNN anchor who tries to embarrass him on his position:

Do you know who else just jumped in to validate our concerns about marriage and religious liberty?

The US Catholic Bishops just released this morning an important letter from an interfaith group of religious leaders from the "Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, and Pentecostal communities" calling on people of good will to reject efforts to equate traditional views on sex and marriage with racial bigotry.

These leaders point out that the real danger is not that clergy will be forced to perform same-sex marriage: "While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts."

Instead, they point out, "the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct."

Can we really create an America where people who believe sex should be confined to the union of husband and wife are treated like racial bigots?

These leaders say the answer is yes, and the threat is "urgent":

"In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists."

They conclude with this call: "Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined."

For an example of the future Human Rights Campaign is working hard to create for religious people and our institutions, look no further than the state of Washington. There, Mary Margaret Haugen, a Democratic state senator who told her constituents that gay marriage would not happen in that state without a vote of the people, met with this over-the-top response from an angry pro-gay-marriage activist, according to news reports:

"One constituent likened denial of marriage rights to gays and lesbians to racial apartheid in South Africa. 'I saw apartheid, I was in South Africa and I can tell you this is different,' Haugen shot back. She recalled the 'necklacing' practice in which victims were stuffed in a tire which was then set afire."

Let's get real here!

No major spokesman or leader in America wants to hurt gay people, or deny them the civil rights we all share.

The right to redefine marriage is a made-up right, it's not real; it has no roots in our constitution, our history, our traditions, or common sense.

Being denied the right to call a same-sex relationship a marriage is not like what happened to South Africans, or African-Americans.

A movement which makes this argument is rooting itself in wishful self-aggrandizing fantasies which will backfire in the end.

The great thing about working for marriage is that it is an issue that transcends the usual political divides—of creed, of race, and of party.

Democratic leaders are stepping forward on the local level to stand proudly for marriage and we are very grateful to them for their courage!

Another such hero is Maryland Senate President Mike Miller, a lifelong Democrat, who firmly announced he opposes same-sex marriage and predicts the people of Maryland will reject it if the legislature tries to pass it.

And, of course, this week another strong voice made one of his most powerful statements on the need to protect marriage.

According to Reuters, Pope Benedict told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."

"This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," he said.

Wow.

We have fights bursting out all over in the next few weeks. Gay-marriage activists are trying to block the GOP from reversing gay marriage in New Hampshire, and push through gay marriage bills quickly in New Jersey, Washington state, and Maryland, and possibly Maine. They are laying the groundwork for a fight to push gay marriage in Illinois. We have a chance to pass a marriage amendment in Minnesota in November.

The fight is heating up all over this country, in states and on the national level:

Are we going to discard 3000 years of human history, and redefine our country's Biblical traditions on sex and marriage as the equivalent of bigotry?

Or are we going to fight for marriage—and win?

Thank you for all the victories you've made possible in this good fight.

How bad can things get if we do not show courage now?

NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance just released this incredibly moving—and yet chilling—video interviewing Eunice and Owen Johns, a black Pentecostal married couple in Great Britain whose own government told them they were not fit to foster a child unless they were willing to advocate for gay sex.

Mrs. Johns is especially tender and moving, about how much she wanted to love a child, any child—gay, straight, black or white.

The empty spare room in their modest home filled with love is a distressing example of how far government may go, in some cases, in condemning traditional Christian views on sex and marriage as bigotry and discrimination.

It's an outrage because just as with Catholic Charities and other religious adoption agencies, the true victims are some of our most vulnerable children in need of care.

Pray for me and for everyone on the front lines of this great and good fight.

Blessings,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Our fight for marriage is your fight! When you donate to NOM, you're making sure that your voice is heard. The year ahead will bring many challenges, and many new opportunities. Why not take this time to help ensure that marriage is protected—in the new year, and in the generations to come?

My Dear Friends,

What a night in Iowa!

The top two winners in Iowa—separated by a hair's breadth—were both men who signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, frontrunner and winner Gov. Mitt Romney and the incredible, surprise come-from-behind (to within eight votes) Sen. Rick Santorum.

Congratulations to both of them, and to all the other candidates who agreed to be marriage champions.

Which means, I hasten to remind you, everybody but Ron Paul, at this point. More on that in a minute.

I was there at the caucus in Waterloo, Iowa, watching democracy happen. It's an incredible experience! I wish you could have been there with me.

If you don't follow politics all that closely you might not know how close Ron Paul came to winning the Iowa caucuses.

Ron Paul was holding at a steady 16, 17, 18 points in Iowa polling, up until support for frontrunner Newt Gingrich collapsed. I started becoming concerned because I began receiving calls from many of the good people—including pastors—with whom we worked in the campaign to defeat Iowa's activist judges. These people, who opposed same-sex marriage, were searching for a candidate and were actually beginning to gravitate to Ron Paul. By mid-December, three separate Iowa polls were showing Ron Paul as the winner, with his poll numbers going as high as 28 percent of the vote.

I knew we had to act. Can you imagine the field day the liberal mainstream media would have had if Ron Paul won the Iowa caucuses?

"Look, even evangelicals in Iowa don't care about marriage any more," they would have lied, and they would have used that lie to try to persuade Republican legislators in gay marriage battles across the nation.

Ron Paul, to his credit, has always been a stalwart pro-life vote, and at NOM we know from our past experience in other elections that faith-based voters who see a strong pro-life candidate often just assume he or she is good on marriage too.

In Paul's case that's just not true, and we had to let Iowa voters know the truth.

Ron Paul's a good man, but he's just wrong on marriage.

We put up a TV ad that Time's Joe Klein called "very effective" (even though he didn't catch that it was NOM's ad):

"I saw a very effective anti-Ron Paul ad on the air last night, but I don't know who was responsible for it. It was about gay marriage, which Paul tolerates because he doesn't believe the state should involve itself in marriage. This is somewhat akin to supporting human sacrifice among the Christian Conservatives out here, and I suspect it will move some votes away from Paul over the next 24 hours," Klein wrote.

Klein was right. It was a very effective ad. Combined with strategically-placed internet ads which drove voters to a website where they could view the ad, and the outreach with our newsletter (which reaches 12,000 Iowan households each week) and more than 580,000 phone calls we made to social conservative voters, we made sure evangelicals and others in Iowa who care about marriage were informed that Ron Paul's not with them.

And they responded!

And once again a truth we prove over and over again became clear: It's a really bad idea to be for gay marriage (or, in Ron Paul's case, just to avoid opposing it) if you are a Republican.

Ron Paul's surge, as Gingrich's polling numbers fell, was stopped in its tracks.

Paul did end up with a respectable third place finish in Iowa, with 21 percent of the vote, but here’s the kicker: That third-place finish by Ron Paul was largely fueled by the large turnout he got from non-Republican voters, a large plurality of whom went for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul also grabbed the lion's share—40 percent—of votes from self-identified moderates and liberals in the Iowa caucus vote.

I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, but I don't think it was his libertarian budget-cutting ideas which were pulling his voters into places like Waterloo that chilly night. I suspect a big chunk of Paul's vote was anti-war Democrats attempting to sabotage the GOP's message. Of course we can't know that for sure.

Guess who emerged as the favorite of Tea Party voters—those whom the media says don't care about the social issues? No, it wasn't the libertarian Paul. It was Rick Santorum.

The New York Times' political blog also noticed NOM's ad, crediting us with putting marriage front and center to likely GOP caucus goers—only 22 percent of whom a December New York Times poll noted said they supported gay marriage. (These were probably the moderates and liberals planning on voting for Paul!)

"But the National Organization for Marriage ad injects a new and volatile issue into the race, one that has so far largely remained on the sidelines. Same-sex marriage has been a contentious issue in Iowa—voters have removed some of the state judges who paved the way for its legalization—but it has not been a major factor in the presidential campaign."

Not until you helped us put it front and center, educating the public so they could make an educated choice.

As I wandered the halls in Waterloo, I met many wonderful Iowans, many of whom came up to thank me for NOM's ad campaign. (Two of the people I met on election night in Iowa were Mr. and Mrs. Duggar, stars of hit TLC reality show "19 Kids and Counting.")

Here's the important thing I want to tell you: Those people who came up to thank me? It was you they were really thanking.

You and the hundreds of thousands of other good people who make our work here at NOM possible.

In just a few short years NOM has become the nation's leading pro-marriage organization, your voice for your values.

And we have a lot more good fights to fight in 2012, which I can't wait to share with you.

But I keep thinking back to those early days with Maggie—just a few short years ago, New Year's in 2007, when we were a tiny new organization which nobody yet took seriously, deciding to take on what seemed like the gargantuan, impossible task of getting Prop 8 on the ballot in just a few short weeks.

One of our dear friends and supporters at that time in San Diego, seeking to cheer us all on to tackle the impossible, quoted Mother Theresa: "We are not called to be successful, but we are called to be faithful."

True. Very wise and very true.

But as Maggie quickly added, "Personally, I feel called to be successful."

So do I, with the grace of God!

Thank you for the joys of fighting the good fight with you. God's blessings on you and your family.

And Happy New Year!

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. As we begin a new year, full of new challenges, consider whether you can stand with us. When you give to NOM—whether you can give $20 or $200—you are helping to forge a future in which marriage is protected, for your children, grandchildren, and the generations to come.

My Dear Friends,

In a few weeks the people of Iowa will actually vote for the man or woman who will become the Republican candidate for President of the United States, and Leader of the Free World.

Wow, what a roller coaster-campaign of surprising twists and turns it's already been, with three or four different dark horses coming to prominence.

I've been reflecting with gratitude that, with the powerful exception of Ron Paul, most of the men and women who have led the field are firm defenders of marriage.

Here's Michele Bachmann, a NOM Marriage Pledge signer, defending marriage on Fox News.

Rick Santorum, a NOM Marriage Pledge signer, has been a hero of the movement.

Mitt Romney, a NOM Marriage Pledge signer, has always stood up for marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and in TV debates has demonstrated a calm comfort with speaking up for marriage and against gay marriage as a constitutional right.

(For Maggie's personal defense of Mitt from the charge that he's "flipped" on gay marriage, see her recent column: "Romney Never Flip-Flopped on Marriage.")

Newt Gingrich has supported a federal marriage amendment and has offered innovative solutions for the Supreme Court's tendency to usurp its own authority by inventing new constitutional rights on abortion and marriage.

Ron Paul's position on marriage, by contrast, is increasingly incomprehensible. One the one hand he's for "traditional marriage"; on the other hand he's for abolishing marriage as a legal status altogether. The one thing he's been clear about is that even though gay-marriage activists are now in court asking the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states—he won't support a federal marriage amendment. I do not understand how that is a coherent "leave it to the states" position.

In the middle of a campaign we all naturally get heated about our own preferred candidate, but to me, as a movement leader, the most important thing to remember is that in two months we will likely know who the nominee is, and then the biggest fight really begins.

Marriage is going to be a bigger factor in this campaign than in 2008 because the differences between the candidates are more clear, the starkness of the choice facing us more evident:

If President Obama is reelected then gay marriage is likely to be imposed on all 50 states by the Supreme Court. If he gets one more Supreme Court appointment then our generation's Roe v. Wade will become a reality.

Just last night the Ninth Circuit considered oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, Perry V. Schwarzenneger. Our own Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, head of the Ruth institute, was in the courtroom. You can read her live updates at Prop8case.com.

In another state fight, Evan Wolfson, one of the chief architects of the gay marriage movement, recently shocked the gay community by announcing to a gay newspaper that his group "Freedom to Marry" was refusing to join a coalition to push gay marriage in Maryland.

His reason? Wolfson knows that unlike in New York, any gay marriage bill in Maryland will have to be defended at the ballot box. The people will have a chance to vote, and right now he sees no reasonable chance of victory.

"We are deeply committed, as we have been for years, to ending exclusion from marriage in Maryland and throughout the country," Wolfson told the Washington Blade in an email.

But he added, "In Maryland, because of the likelihood that marriage legislation can be forced onto the ballot, the key question is not just passing a bill in the legislature, but defending it against an attack campaign via ballot measure."

"Freedom to Marry has made it clear to members of the coalition and to lawmakers that our goal is to win, not simply to pass a bill, if there is not sufficient groundwork and investment in a campaign to win at the ballot," he said.

Meanwhile, in nearby D.C., the gay press is admitting that claims of an economic bonanza from gay marriage were "unrealistic." According to the Washington Blade:

"...[The District of Columbia] Council testimony and media reports during consideration of the modern marriage bill touted extraordinary local economic benefits to come once gay and lesbian couples were permitted to marry in Washington.

"Unfortunately, although no commercial benefit was—or should be—required to justify the expansion of the civil right to marry, those projections have proven overstated and the level of anticipated revenue for local businesses has not materialized.

"The shortfall is due to both unrealistic economic forecasting by some marriage equality advocates and a notably lower number of same-sex marriages performed in the District than projected."

I'd add that the idea that gay marriage is good for the economy is not only unrealistic but absurd!

We hear the most fantastic arguments trotted out as excuses for redefining marriage, but of all the fantasies of this movement, the idea that gay marriage will somehow help the economy is the most absurd.

Consider the "Small Business Survival Index 2011" just released by the Small Business Exchange council.

Only six states have same-sex marriage. But of the 15 states with the worst business environment for small business (the incubator of job growth), fully five have gay marriage. All but two of the top 15 states, by contrast, have constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman—and none have gay marriage.

A movement that cared about truth would not push absurdities like this!

A group of 100 Orthodox rabbis had to push back against a similar attack on truth—the idea that an "Orthodox Jewish rabbi" could possibly perform a same-sex wedding, as the media tried to report.

"In response to a recent 'Orthodox' same-sex marriage ceremony conducted in Washington, D.C. by Rabbi Steve Greenberg—who is openly gay, and married Yoni Bock and Ron Kaplan at the 6th & I Synagogue in Washington in November—over 100 Orthodox Rabbis—among them some of the most prominent rabbinic figures in the Orthodox Jewish world, including Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Hershel Reichman of Yeshiva University and Rabbi Elie Abadie of the Safra Synagogue—issued a statement declaring that, 'By definition, a union that is not sanctioned by Torah law is not an Orthodox wedding, and by definition a person who conducts such a ceremony is not an Orthodox rabbi.'"

The "public should not be misled into thinking that Orthodox Jewish values on this issue can change, are changing, or might someday change... any claims to the contrary are inaccurate and false."

Once you believe that by redefining words you can change reality—you do not accept any constraints on power.

"If it sounds good, say it" seems to be the rule; and the amazing thing is the way the mainstream media retells these intellectual absurdities without any pushback.

Par for the course, and part of what makes what you do by reading this newsletter, passing it onto friends, and supporting the work of NOM so important.

Thank you.

I'd like to end with a small post on the Minnesota Catholic Conference's "Why Marriage Matters" website, from a woman who spent ten years in an exclusive relationship with another woman. She rediscovered her faith, left that relationship, now supports the traditional understanding of marriage—and through the painful breakup process, perhaps most amazing of all, her former partner also rediscovered faith.

God works in mysterious ways but always calls each of us back towards Truth itself, to be united with love, which is who He is.

God bless you and keep you and your family always safe. Pray for all those standing up for marriage, keep love in all our hearts—and pray for those who disagree with us, that they may find a pathway to truth.

Yours, faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Will you stand with us to defend marriage today? Whether you can give $15 or $150, your donations to NOM help to build the future—by protecting the truth about marriage for your children, your grandchildren, and this great country.

My Dear Friends,

So Prince Andrew gets a handsome Hollywood payoff. No, I'm not talking about the second son of Queen Elizabeth, but about Andrew the son of Mario Cuomo. He's flying from his throne in Albany to a fundraiser in Hollywood next week to hear the golden chink-chink-chink of cash raised by his decision to arm-twist the legislature into passing gay marriage, without a vote of the people.

Don't take my word for it. "Gov Cuomo set to cash in on gay-marriage success with LA fundraiser," says the New York Post:

"Gov. Cuomo will be heading to Hollywood next week to take a bow for his successful role in passing same-sex marriage—and he'll bring home a fistful of campaign cash from grateful glitterati.

"Cuomo is scheduled to jet to Los Angeles next Friday for a fund-raiser co-hosted by big Hollywood names including Rob and Michele Reiner, Steve Bing, Katie McGrath and J.J. Abrams, Candy Spelling, Darren Star, Chris Albrecht, Kevin Huvane, Vanessa Williams and Laura and Casey Wasserman."

The event is hosted in the Bel Air home of "White House decorator and interior designer Michael S. Smith and his partner, HBO executive James Costos" for a price of $12,500 per person for dinner and $1,000 per person for cocktails.

(Just in case you'd like to see what a Hollywood glitterati payoff preparatory to a presidential bid looks like, Smith and Costos hosted a fundraiser at their home in June for Michelle Obama, and one guest thoughtfully posted photos on her blog. But I kind of prefer the mug shot of White House decorator—and Cuomo host—Michael S. Smith, posing as a British country squire in his Bel Air home.)

According to the NY Post, Cuomo is now the "national darling" of rich gay donors whose "deep pockets" may "pave the way" for a Cuomo run for the White House.

Okay, so at least now we know why Andrew Cuomo did it.

A guy living with his girlfriend in the governor's mansion naturally thinks it's no big deal to twist arms and break rules and ride roughshod over voters in his rush to redefine marriage—not when he can cash in on the proceeds and ride that gravy train to the White House in 2016.

In case you think I'm being too hard on the guy, read this opinion from a New York judge who this week ruled that New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms' lawsuit—alleging the gay marriage bill was passed illegally—was allowed to proceed.

Judge Wiggins's opinion of Cuomo's behavior was blistering.

First, he noted he was powerless to stop Cuomo from ramming through legislation without the normal three-day period for public review of the language, because the Senate had voted to accept Cuomo's explanation for the "emergency" which required violating normal Senate rules, an explanation the judge called "disingenuous."

"The review of such concept-altering legislation for three days after generations of existing definitions would not so damage same-sex couples as to necessitate any avoidance of rules meant to ensure full review and discussion prior to any vote," Wiggins wrote in his decision, dated Nov. 18 but sent Monday night to lawyers in the case.

The Buffalo News reported that "the judge harshly slapped Cuomo" for pushing the bill without offering the text three days in advance.

This was not a minor tactic on Gov. Cuomo's part. By misusing the "necessity" clause Andrew Cuomo prevented—by deliberation and design—any review of the religious liberty clauses by independent scholars or legal experts to see what effect they might have. In other words, the GOP senators who voted for this bill (along with the Democrats) had no real clue what the bill did and did not do.

As Maggie recalled when she and I were reminiscing about the night of June 24: "I remember this vividly. The text of the bill was released late on a Friday afternoon. I scrambled hard to find a legal scholar who could review it before the vote scheduled for a few hours later. The expert I found just a few minutes before the vote told me he could not actually tell how much religious liberty protection the bill would provide, because New York law is complex and interwoven."

There wasn't possibly time, in other words, for ANYONE to know what they were voting for.

But Judge Wiggins didn't stop there in his Cuomo slapdown:

"It is ironic that much of the state's [legal] brief passionately spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches, and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process," Wiggins wrote.

He said that the private meeting between senators and Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg may well have violated the state's open meetings law, and allowed that part of the lawsuit to continue.

Lying, arm-twisting, rule-breaking, spinning. That's not me talking, it's a judge.

And now Cuomo's rewarded by Hollywood tinsel.

As my friend Rev. Jason McGuire told the press, "In the end, the process is not right. Something has to change."

Something has to change. Not only among Democrats who care more about Hollywood's values than yours, but among Republicans who sold out marriage to cash in on big-buck Manhattan fundraisers hosted by Mayor Bloomberg.

Thanks to each of you who responded to our alert on the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that thousands of American voters have written to their senators, the odds that the Senate will take up a repeal of DOMA have gone way down. We will continue monitoring the situation and reporting to you—whose government this is—what your representatives are doing on behalf of the values you and I hold dear.

Kudos to Rep. Steve Drazkowski in Minnesota, who publicly countered the simply ludicrous idea that a vote for the marriage amendment will interfere with economic development in that state:

"To the contrary, the facts show that states with a marriage protection amendment are our top performing economic states. For example, eight of the top 10 'best states for business,' according to a survey of 556 CEOs by Chief Executive Magazine, have a state marriage amendment in their constitution.

"Nor will the amendment hurt our economy. According to a new study by the Social Trends Institute, marriage and family have a tremendous effect on the economy—and government and corporations should take bold steps to encourage each if they want to remain economically fit."

(For more data take a look at Maggie Gallagher's take on the NOM blog last March.)

Bottom line: If your state's leaders are trying to push gay marriage as an economic development plan—you are in trouble.

The good news is that gay marriage advocates are getting pretty desperate for winning arguments if they are pushing laughable stuff like this in Minnesota and elsewhere.

Let me close with a small and telling bit of good news. A leading Democratic polling firm asked the people of Pennsylvania whether they they thought gay marriage should be "legal or illegal."

Now I've told you before why I think this is misleading wording designed to confuse voters and pump up support for gay marriage. "Illegal" suggests we are going to go out and throw Adam and Steve in jail in they have a commitment ceremony, which nobody I know is proposing or supporting.

But in spite of efforts to "pump up" the pro-gay-marriage vote in the swing state of Pennsylvania with deceptive wording, the latest poll shows that the people of Pennsylvania overwhelmingly reject same-sex marriage, 52 percent to 36 percent. Experience shows that the 12 percent who say they are "undecided" would probably vote for a marriage amendment if they got the chance.

That's why advocates of gay marriage are once again in court trying to do an end run around the voices and values of you and me and the majority of the American people.

Kudos to Michael Geer and the Pennsylvania Family Institute for standing up for marriage in that state.

Together, working with good people in every state, we are going to win this fight!

Thank you for all that you've done to make our victories possible.

Yours faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Will you stand with us to defend marriage today? Whether you can give $15 or $150, your donations to NOM help to build the future—by protecting the truth about marriage for your children, your grandchildren, and this great country.

My Dear Friends,

As I write these words, the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee is about to vote to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

I know that many of you, Democrat and Republican, will be appalled to learn what your representatives in Washington are doing—in your name.

The Associated Press story on today's action is called "Democrats push repeal of Defense of Marriage Act."

Why, oh why would Senate Democrats do this?

The bill's chief sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, is acting in direct contradiction to the will of the people in her state, who voted to reject same-sex marriage. She admitted "she doesn't have the votes for Senate passage." Her bill has just 31 Senate sponsors, all (sadly) Democrats.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on Judiciary, remains a staunch and articulate defender of marriage: "Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of our society for 6,000 years. The Defense of Marriage Act protects this sacred institution, which I believe in, and attempts to dismantle this law are likely to be met with a great deal of resistance."

Thank you, each and every one of you, who have already responded to our call to let Senators know you oppose the repeal of DOMA. Thousands of you have already clicked the link and taken a moment to defend marriage.

I'm grateful to you. I cannot thank you enough.

If you haven't yet asked your Senator to stand for marriage, and oppose the repeal of DOMA, do so now!

Why are the Senate Democrats pursuing a suicide strategy on marriage—a proposal they know will fail?

In part it is a sop to their base, an acknowledgement that the influential LGBT lobby is more important than the views and values of many others—Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

But I believe we need to stand for DOMA strongly because this is in part a play to the Supreme Court.

The message advocates of gay marriage wish to send is that no one really cares about marriage, so the Court is free to overturn DOMA, and/or impose gay marriage on all 50 states, including yours.

You and I stand in the gap. By raising our voices, by exercising our core First Amendment rights today, we can change history.

Click on the link. Tell your senator, "I oppose the repeal of DOMA, and I vote!" And send this link on to one friend today.

Obama, by the way, according to the Associated Press, said recently he is "still working" on gay marriage.

Wow. What an acknowledgement that the mainstream media's claim that gay marriage is now the majority view is clearly false. The president is clearly being held back by political considerations.

And as a political matter, he's right. Supporting same-sex marriage is a losing issue.

How do I know that?

Well, consider the breaking news, just out this morning, that Basic Rights Oregon, after investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a media campaign, has decided NOT to try to repeal Oregon's marriage amendment.

As the Oregon media put it, "After a three-year campaign to build support for legalizing same-sex marriage, Oregon's largest gay rights group has decided against putting the issue up for a vote in 2012.

"Feedback from an online survey of over 1,000 people, door-to-door canvassing, community meetings and two statewide television advertising campaigns overwhelmingly say, 'we must allow our education work to continue,' Basic Rights Oregon announced Wednesday."

Translation? Even in the most secular state in the country, they cannot win a vote of the people for same-sex marriage.

Similar good news out of Minnesota this week. Two polls, one by the incredibly left-wing Star Tribune, and one by marriage amendment proponents Minnesotans for Marriage, show that only about 4 in 10 Minnesotans say they will vote "no" to a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

The Minnesotans for Marriage poll shows support for the Amendment topping 50 percent, very encouraging news at this stage in the game, especially (as you may recall) early polls in California and Maine both suggested marriage amendments there would lose:

"The Minnesota for Marriage campaign today released the results of a survey showing that the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman enjoys a solid lead among voters. The survey found that 51% of voters would vote for the amendment, while 40% would vote against it. Further, 56% of Minnesotans agree that marriage should be between only a man and a woman."

Election news was mixed this week. In Iowa, Democrats retained control of the Iowa Senate after the special election in District 18—meaning that they can continue to block the people of Iowa from deciding the future of marriage.

In the waning days of the campaign, the Republican Cindy Golding was hurt by a sudden influx of really nasty calls purporting to be from a pro-marriage group. I know most of the pro-marriage groups in the country and none of them would fund such calls. Dirty politics at its worst, I’m sad to say!

From NOM's press release:

"Neither NOM nor Family Leader had anything to do with these calls and we decry them. We call on the Attorney General to launch an investigation into this dirty trick to determine who is behind the calls, which are designed to steal the election from Ms. Golding."

On the good news front, Rose Marie Belforti handily won re-election as New York town clerk. Rose is the New York town clerk who has bravely refused to resign her job, and is thus testing the conscience protections provided by New York law in the wake of same-sex marriage. Handing out marriage licenses is something she does only a few times a year. The effort to make her give up her job, rather than permitting accommodations, is a sign of the extreme desire of gay-marriage advocates to use the power of government to exclude, marginalize and stigmatize traditional supporters of marriage.

More good news: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that gay marriage is not a basic human right, according to Mercator Net. This is just one of many courts that have rejected the idea that opposition to gay marriage is somehow the moral or legal equivalent of discrimination.

And one final bit of great NOM news, in case you missed it:

"Bank of America and Cisco Pledge 'No More Discrimination Against Marriage Supporters.'"

NOM's new Corporate Fairness project announced that both Bank of America and the Cisco Corporation have promised not to discriminate against employees or vendors who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.

"After interviewing Frank Turek about the abrupt cancellations of his seminar by both Cisco and Bank of America, we wrote to the board of each company raising our concern and asking if company policy really permits otherwise qualified employees and vendors to be punished for speaking out on a public issue like same-sex marriage," said Jonathan Baker, Director of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project.

"We also reached out to 10,000 customers of Bank of America in Charlotte, North Carolina, who in turn generated 1,400 calls to the corporate complaint line asking the board to promise they would not discriminate in the workplace against supporters of traditional marriage. We received assurances from both corporations that this kind of discriminatory treatment violates corporate policy and will not happen again," continued Baker.

In a November 4, 2011 letter to the National Organization for Marriage, Cisco Corporation Senior Vice President for Legal Services Mark Chandler agreed that, "Cisco was incorrect in dealing with Dr. Turek and the Austin Group. Specifically Cisco concluded that the Austin Group's contract should not have been summarily ended."

Further Cisco attributed the situation to "an unfortunate, but isolated breakdown in Cisco's process, and have taken steps to ensure it does not happen again." Most importantly Cisco has clarified that voicing a traditional view on marriage is not an acceptable reason to fire an employee or discriminate against a qualified vendor. "It is not Cisco's policy, nor is it 'acceptable to discriminate against vendors such as Frank Turek or employees who, outside the work context, have taken a position supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman,'" wrote a Cisco executive in a letter to NOM.

The Senior Vice President of Global Human Resources for Bank of America also quickly distanced Bank of America from the firing of Dr. Turek, stating:

"We recognize that our differences—in thought, style, culture, ethnicity and experience make us stronger as a company," and that "we have taken the appropriate measures within our organization to address this matter. Dr. Turek remains a vendor in good standing with us."

As our new Corporate Fairness Project director, Jonathan Baker put it, "We're grateful these two companies have made it clear they will not tolerate discrimination against employees or vendors based on their views on same-sex marriage. As Frank Turek said, it's simply un-American as well as unwise for anyone to say you have to share one politically correct viewpoint in order to keep your job."

This is not the end; it's the beginning of NOM's campaign to make sure that decent law-abiding people who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman are not treated as outcasts or racists. It is not bigotry to say that marriage is the union of a husband and wife, it's common sense.

Personally, I respect the work of corporations like Cisco and Bank of America. Corporations should not be dragged into cultural or political wars on either side. Respect for diverse moral views is the hallmark of pluralism—and demanding that respect for people who have Biblical views on sex and marriage is NOM's abiding mission.

Thank you for making our work possible. It's exciting how much we can accomplish together!

Yours, faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. The defense of marriage is not just about one vote or one day. It's about the future, for our children, our grandchildren, and the generations to come. When you give to NOM—whether it's $20 or $200, or a monthly donation of just $10—you're fighting for their future.

My Dear Friends,

This week the Senate Dems began to debate a bill repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

And this week 86 House members have stood up to ask that the Defense Department authorization re-affirm DOMA. Missouri's Todd Akin leads the charge, saying, "The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. Unfortunately, this current administration is now directing the Department of Defense to ignore this law and perform gay marriages on military bases. I think this is wrong, which is why I offered an amendment to the House-passed defense bill making it clear that DOMA applies to the DOD. This letter calls for the Senate to add a similar amendment to their version of the bill. The Department of Defense should not be allowed to simply ignore laws they do not like."

Obama's essentially post-modern lawlessness is on display. Laws all consist of words. If you can redefine the meanings of words you need bow your head to no law, making a mockery of the rule of law itself.

Speaking of mockeries, what do you think of Kim Kardashian's announcement that she is ending her 72-day "marriage" to NBA player Kris Humphries? For many this is just the latest example of the degree of disrespect and indolence which Hollywood and the cultural elite in this country show for the institution of marriage.

Kim Kardashian makes untold millions being, well, a Kardashian. From reality TV shows to special appearances, fashion bags, a fragrance line and even paid Twitter posts, she's become Kardashian, Inc. It's said she spent $10 million on her "dream" wedding to Humphries, but reportedly collected $17 million from sponsors who purchased the exclusive TV and magazine rights to cover the event.

Perhaps it's not surprising that someone who sees her wedding as a money-making opportunity doesn't really mean it when she vows, "until death do us part."

Funny how so many of these Hollywood celebrities support gay marriage, as Ms. Kardashian does.

The two most prominent straight guys I know of pushing for gay marriage, Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg have one thing in common: Neither of them apparently want to marry the person they love.

It’s probably no accident. Just as the same people who advocated gay marriage in Mexico City now advocate for something called time-limited marriage. Rather than pledging "til death do us part," these activists for gay marriage now urge redefining marriage to a vow of "two years perhaps" (which is, of course, longer than some celebrity marriages!).

From Manhattan to Hollywood and Mexico City, too many of these "marriage equality" activists make it clear by their actions that their intent is not to bring marriage as we have traditionally known it to same-sex couples, but to fundamentally change marriage itself into a completely new institution which does not value monogamy, does not value a life-long commitment, does not view childbearing and child-rearing as a primary purpose, and replaces the concept of mutual sacrifice with self-love.

In other words, it doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the institution of marriage which God authored and which virtually every human society has endorsed since the dawn of civilization.

There's no question that the institution of marriage has taken some hits. It needs to be strengthened. Too many people enter into it casually and leave just as casually. Too many children are born out of wedlock. We ought to have a national conversation about laws and policies which will reinvigorate a true marriage culture. Those of us committed to preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman must make just as strong a commitment to strengthening the institution we are trying to preserve.

But to make the case, as advocates of gay marriage do, that because marriage has been weakened in today's society means it should be further warped beyond recognition, makes no sense.

We all agree that marriage should be strengthened, particularly in its capacity to bring children the love and care of a committed mom and dad. Same-sex marriage leads us in the opposite direction.

Thank you to each one of you who viewed NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance's latest shocking and heart-rending video.

When I first learned that the gay-marriage movement is right now actively working to shut down religious foster care and adoption agencies in Illinois, my heart dropped. I could not believe it. So I sent a crack filmmaker out to Illinois to investigate, and above you can watch the new video which tells you the unvarnished truth: The new gay "rights" agenda includes the right to deprive children of loving foster homes, if those homes are found by religious adoption agencies which refuse to do gay adoptions.

Wonderful folks like Randi Craigen, who with her husband Clive fostered and adopted Zeb and Trinity: "I felt that was a place I could serve God and help a child."

Now that Evangelical Child and Family Agency is shut out of working with foster children, Randi is really, really concerned about the impact on her own foster kids and others like them: "It's bad for children first of all because now there's an agency that is not going to be able to provide families for them, and there are already not enough families," Randi tells us. Foster father Mike adds, "If those [Christian] people don't have a logical place to go there will be less parents helping these children."

Fewer parents helping abused and orphaned kids?

You and I should be very concerned too.

I'm the father of seven children myself. As a Christian I know we have a special obligation to the orphaned and abused child.

If you haven't yet seen this video, please go there now, and also pass it on to your friends!

It's on the front page of http://www.marriageada.org.

The intentions of too many in the gay-marriage movement are becoming crystal clear. This kind of shutdown of Christian foster agencies is not a side effect of "equality," including "marriage equality"— it's part of the point.

That was proved this week in Michigan where Democrats, prompted by gay rights groups, vigorously contested the passage of an anti-bullying bill because... hold your hats... because it specifically protected teens' First Amendment rights to express moral and religious views in appropriate ways.

"The law includes a section noting it doesn't abridge First Amendment free speech rights or prohibit expression of religious or moral viewpoints—a provision Democrats fear could be used to justify harassment of gay, lesbian or transgender students," the Detroit News reports.

Has it come to that? Are some major political players openly now asserting that protecting gay children from bullying—a worthy goal—requires giving the government the right to prohibit thoughtful and civil expressions of religious or moral viewpoints?

What would become of our democracy if we accepted this reckless premise?

I hope Michigan's effort to civilize children by repressing bullying becomes a landmark of a new effort to genuinely address the legitimate concerns of parents—including parents with gay teens—without heavy-handed use of government power to repress and exclude Christian views on sex and marriage.

Let me finish with a bit of underreported good international news: Chile's high court rejected a constitutional right to gay marriage by a vote of 9-1.

The majority of courts as well as the majority of people have rejected Ted Olson's and David Boies's insane claim that nothing but bigotry and hatred explains our marriage tradition.

Until next week, stay strong (and stay sane)!

Blessings,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. You can act now to defend marriage! When you donate to NOM you are fighting for the future of marriage—not just for yourself, not just for your children, but for your grandchildren and the generations to come.
]]> http://www.nomblog.com/15387/feed 1 http://www.nomblog.com/15138 http://www.nomblog.com/15138#comments Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:45:48 +0000 Brian Brown http://www.nomblog.com/?p=15138

My Dear Friends,

Is gay marriage inevitable? Someone forgot to tell New Hampshire, where Democrats railroaded a gay marriage bill through the legislature in 2009, before losing an election to GOP legislators who ran promising to restore marriage.

The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted 11-6 THIS WEEK to send a bill restoring the definition of "marriage" as the union of one man and one woman to the full House after Christmas.

"I have no apologies for my current efforts to correct a bad policy decision," the bill's sponsor, Rep. David Bates, said. "I, and many people in New Hampshire, believe that those who pushed through this law in 2009 simply did not have the right to redefine marriage for our entire society."

As Citizen Link reports,

"Approximately 75 percent of the 400 legislators in the state's House of Representatives are Republicans—many of whom ran on platforms of restoring the definition of marriage. Given that, HB 437 has good prospects of eventually landing on Gov. John Lynch's desk next year."

You don't often hear about the many signs there are showing that the American people are not on board the "inevitability" train. But the people have reversed gay marriage before, in California and Maine.

And it's looking as though New Hampshire will likely be the next state to step back from gay marriage and restore our traditional understanding of marriage. (Online polls are notoriously unscientific, but if anyone wants to weigh in on one such poll, you can do so here. As of mid-day Thursday, 55% of respondents agreed that New Hampshire should repeal same-sex marriage—although that percentage was reversed in a couple of hours as hundreds of gay marriage supporters inundated the site Thursday evening.)

Advocates of gay marriage know they are not really winning the battle for hearts and minds, and so they are unleashing a new set of arguments.

Meanwhile, Democrats who control the U.S. Senate are meeting in committee to vote on repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the one federal law which protects marriage as the union of husband and wife!

Our thanks go out to the hundreds of you who responded to our email alert asking you to let Senators know: You oppose repealing DOMA!

If you haven't yet sent an email, go here, right now, and speak up for marriage!

New meme alert!

A gay-marriage activist group has issued a "report" which, naturally, was carried by all the mainstream media.

It claims that gay marriage is necessary to protect children. Two million children, it claims, would benefit if we redefine marriage.

Redefine marriage for the children! I expect you will hear that claim a lot, especially in any states considering marriage definitions.

Meanwhile the Census Bureau says that there are just 112,000 same-sex couples raising children in the whole country. And 80 percent of those children, according to the leading gay demographer, the Williams Institute, are the product of previous heterosexual relationships.

There's no particular evidence that the so-called "legal benefits" of marriage protect children. (We know this because children with remarried parents do not do any better, on average, than children of solo mothers.)

Social science evidence tells us that marriage protects children to the extent that marriage makes it more likely children will be born to and raised by their mom and dad in the same family.

No same-sex marriage does that.

There's not even an iota of scientific evidence that civil same-sex marriage makes it more likely that a gay couple will stay together (compared to either domestic partnerships or private and personal commitment ceremonies).

Gay marriage is being advocated as a personal and individual "right" in the gay community, not an authoritative moral norm.

Is gay marriage a serious proposal to protect children? Let's go through the numbers.

Let's assume that half of 112,000 same-sex couples raising children would be interested in marriage (a random but generous guess). That's 56,000 same-sex couples. Let's assume that each of these couples is raising two kids (again probably a very generous assumption), or 112,000 children. Eighty percent of these children are the product of a previous heterosexual relationship, meaning if the child's gay parent married their lover, that would be a stepfamily with no known benefits to the child.

That leaves 20% of 112,000 children who might be in some sense the child of both members of the same-sex couple: about 22,400 children.

In 2010, the Census reported that there are about 75 million children under the age of 18 in this country.

So how many kids might potentially benefit, if it turned out to be true that gay marriage has any benefit at all for children (a proposition for which there is no scientific evidence)?

0.03 percent!

That amounts to three-one hundreds of one percent of all American children.

Gay marriage is about the desire of adults, not a serious proposal to address the needs of children.

That much is very clear!

Gay marriage results in the exclusion of people and religious institutions who believe most strongly that children need a mom and dad.

The longing of children for the love of their mom and dad gets subordinated to the desire of adults to have the equality of their sexual relationships affirmed by government.

That much too is very clear!

That's what keeps me, and you, and millions of other decent, loving, law-abiding Americans from hopping aboard the gay marriage train.

Too much of this movement is grounded in fantasy, in the idea that they can make up any message they want and transform it, with the imprimatur of the mainstream media, into "truthiness"—a secular Gospel.

You and I know that cannot happen.

The voices of reason, experience, and faith come together in the marriage movement: in the common-sense understanding that marriage is unique for a reason.

God bless you for your courage in standing up for God's truth.

At NOM we will keep fighting for your rights, and for the rights of children to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their mom and their dad.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. What can you do today to protect marriage? Whether you can give $20 or $200, or a monthly donation of just $5, you can make a difference in our world!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Coming to a public school near you?

Just when you think it can't get any weirder or more disturbing, an Oakland public school decided to teach grade-school children about multiple genders, under the banner of preventing bullying.

[Correction: The Oakland class in multiple genders was addressed to fourth-graders, not kindergarteners, and this post has been update to correct the error.]

Watch that video. Look at the children's faces. And then look at the activist from a group called "Gender Spectrum" who wants to embed in these children's minds the idea that we all have a right to make up our own gender(s).

"People can be girls, feel like girls, they can feel like boys, they can feel like both, and they can even feel, like I said, kinda like neither," he teaches them.

This is a movement that knows what it is doing.

This has been our busiest and (so far) most successful spring ever! We've seen victories in Rhode Island, Maryland, Minnesota, and next (we hope) New York.

But this week I want to step back from the incredible flow of events to focus on the great, great challenges we are facing ahead.

I mean what we are facing as a nation, as a civilization founded on moral truth, "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

As our Founders understood it, that equality rested on the self-evident decrees of nature and of nature's God.

Could Christianity, which gave birth to America, become an illegitimate stepchild in our own nation?

The evidence is mounting this week that too many advocates of gay marriage aim at nothing less than a revaluation of all values—to create a new, government-backed sexual morality in which those who adhere to traditional views of sex and marriage are demoted to second-class citizens.

"Marriage equality," in other words, means some people will be more equal than others.

I do not believe that most ordinary gay people, or gay-marriage advocates, intend to do harm. Most ordinary Americans are good people, for whom "live and let live" is good enough.

But the architects of this movement, it is increasingly clear, know exactly what they are doing, and why.

What is the evidence?

In Illinois this week, the Rockford Catholic Charities shut the doors to its adoption and foster care program, because a new civil unions bill with the Orwellian title of the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act" failed to explicitly protect religious liberty. The threat of litigation made continuing to help these children too risky—to the rest of the good work Catholic Charities continues to do.

The state legislator who sponsored the bill says that was not his intent, but too bad. He tried to go back and add specific religious liberty protections later, but too late.

He has regrets, but Illinois activists (who understood from the beginning that religious freedom would NOT be protected) are loud and proud about it.

Benjamin Wolf, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois who represents juvenile wards of the state as part of a court-monitored consent decree with DCFS, even noted that children would be the losers because of the special difficulties in finding good child-welfare organizations.

"Rockford would not be the place I would've chosen to start these transitions," Wolf said. "I am very sorry that they would give a greater priority to their commitment to continue discriminating than the health and welfare of Illinois children."

In other words, drive Christians and other traditional faith communities out of the public square, and then blame the victims for your own intolerance.

In Rhode Island, GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) has actually and actively opposed language in the House bill designed to protect religious institutions like Catholic Charities.

Karen Loewy, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD, called the exemption "unprecedented," and designed only to inflict "gratuitous harm on Rhode Island's gay and lesbian families."

What about the gratuitous harm inflicted on children when religious adoption agencies are told they are no longer welcome unless they agree with the government's views on adoption? What about the gratuitous harm inflicted on every member of a traditional faith community in Rhode Island, when they are told their institutions and their beliefs make them second-class citizens?

Surely we can find a way to help same-sex couples make medical decisions for each other in hospitals, and fulfill other similar needs, without doing that much gratuitous harm?

But what if it's not gratuitous to the activists proposing these same-sex union bills? What if inflicting that kind of harm on religious institutions and people is part of the point?

It's not the details of religious liberty protections which bother these folks, it's the idea that there is anything worth protecting in the great faith traditions' views of sex and marriage.

The crisis in Illinois was precipitated by the conscious decision of same-sex couples not to go to the many agencies known to do same-sex foster care and adoptions, but to seek out religious agencies so they could lodge discrimination complaints.

A modus vivendi that finds room for all is not their goal. A new government-backed morality, which punishes and stigmatizes dissent and dissenters, is the goal.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island is actually now insisting that the Rhode Island senate revise its own civil unions bill to strip it of religious liberty protection, which in the eyes of these advocates is just a "loophole." Religious liberty—a loophole?

In Great Britain this week, another huge step down that road was taken. A gay man asked a Christian counselor to help him change his orientation, or at least live in accordance with his alleged religious beliefs. But this gay man was a liar. Excuse me, an "investigative reporter." He did not want her help, he wanted to punish her for being willing to help.

One need not agree with reparative therapy to see that this tactic represents a deeply troubling attempt to prevent anyone else from getting a kind of help that you don't want for yourself.

And it worked. This week a disciplinary panel found Mrs. Lesley Pilkington guilty of "professional malpractice," according to the Telegraph: "The ruling stated that her accreditation to the organisation will be suspended and she will be ordered to complete training. If she fails to comply she will be struck off the register."

In his newspaper article, Mr. Strudwick said: "I am an out, happily gay man. I was undercover, investigating therapists who practise this so-called conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy)—who try to 'pray away the gay'.'I asked her to make me straight. Her attempts to do so flout the advice of every major mental-health body in Britain.'"

Folks like Mr. Strudwick are loud and proud and utterly convinced that "live and let live" is a one-way street that ends with his power to punish and hurt those with whom he disagrees. And in Great Britain he can!

Here in the States, for the first time in recent memory a major newspaper has begun to cover the kind of open, ugly hatred that is directed against anyone who dares to stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife.

The New York Daily News, to their credit, reported, "Same-sex marriage foe State Sen. Ruben Diaz & family hit with death threats over stance on issue":

[Sen. Diaz's effort to protect marriage] has also drawn the Pentecostal minister into venomous, online clashes and spawned death threats called into his office. Now a Brooklyn gay bar will host a "F--- Ruben Diaz Festival."

"I have never preached hate," Diaz told the Daily News. "They're showing that they're the ones that are doing the hateful things."

Diaz said he and his family have received death threats due to his vocal stance on keeping gay marriage unlawful in New York State. They were reported to the FBI and Albany police, he said.

"We are in America; we are supposed to agree to disagree and respect each other's positions," the senator said.

On May 10, tweets by opponents of Diaz's May 15 rally included one in which the sender expressed the desire to sexually assault Diaz's daughter.

(Yes, that's me there standing proudly by Sen. Rev. Díaz's side at his rally in May.)

"Be not afraid," I tell you, as the Lord told us. In every crisis there is opportunity, and out of this civilizational crisis, if we come together and stand with courage and love, will come something great.

Let me close by pointing you to a column Maggie published in Patheos, in response to a young Catholic writer who said our fight for marriage is doomed.

Maggie called it "Why Life is Winning," and she pointed out, "Some say that no one will oppose gay marriage a few decades from now. They used to say the same about abortion":

When I was, well, a few years younger than Tim Muldoon is today, the message of despair now directed at marriage was directed at the pro-life movement. All the powerful elites favored abortion. Media coverage of anyone who was pro-life was dreadful. All the wives of Republican power-brokers favored abortion rights. If you said you opposed abortion, people would shout, "You are calling my sister a murderer!" They informed me that by the time I turned 50, the pro-life movement would be dead because young people were so pro-choice.

I'm 50 now, and yet the pro-life sentiment is surging as today's young people are more pro-life than their elders.

How did that happen?

There are many ways to answer that question, and what I offer here is more of a missing piece—the role of politics in cultural change—than a comprehensive theory. ...

By the 1990s, both sides agreed (at least publicly) that pro-life values should be respected, even if they continued to disagree on the specific legislative strategies for reducing abortion.

That political accommodation created a new cultural space for pro-lifers. The pro-life position became "respected" by both sides in the public square, rather than relentlessly de-legitimized by elite organs of culture.

Politics and culture are not separate activities. Sometimes culture determines politics. But sometimes politics, by raising the costs of demonizing pro-life positions, and raising the profile of the issue in the public square, serves cultural change as well.

Speaking of politics changing culture, we just helped form a new ballot initiative committee, Minnesotans for Marriage.

In 2012, we hope, pray and expect that the people of Minnesota, after a dignified and civil debate, will join 31 other states in voting to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

They will give a visible rebuke to those who claim that the majority of Americans support gay marriage, and rebuking the voices of despair who claim that the fight for marriage cannot be won.

Thank you for all you make possible. At NOM we want no less than to be your voice for your values—and for the truth about the human person: We are born male and female, called to come together in love so that the future can happen.

God bless you; and please pray for Sen. Rev. Díaz, and for everyone on the front lines of this great battle for God's truth about marriage.

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. For the sake of the next generation, marriage must be defended and the truth about marriage must be proclaimed in the public square. But for us to get that message out, we need your help. Please consider what you can give, whether it's $15 or $150. We will do everything in our power to make your voice heard, to win more victories for marriage.

The people in Minnesota will now have the chance to decide the future of marriage in their own state, thanks to the brave bipartisan group of legislators who voted to put a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2012.

The marriage amendment in Minnesota is simple and clear: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."

It takes the future of marriage out of the hands of activist judges, like those in neighboring Iowa who imposed same-sex marriage against the will of the people, and gives it to Minnesotans generally.

Already the angry campaign to label the good people of Minnesota who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife as haters, bigots, and worse has begun—and let me promise you that it will backfire.

Gov. Mark Dayton symbolically tried to "veto" the bill, slamming millions of Minnesotans by calling it a "mean-spirited, divisive, un-Minnesotan and un-American amendment."

Legislators who voted for the marriage amendment were slammed with thousands of emails generated by the Human Rights Campaign, calling them bigots and other hateful insults because, as Rep. Tony Cornish said, "From the start, right after my vote, I received e-mails calling me a 'bigot' and much much worse, describing in detail horrific things that I should do to my own body, and people talking about my 'obituary.' It wore on me, so about the 300th letter I got like that, I replied, 'Give it a rest!'"

Millions of good, loving and law-abiding Americans have voted to protect marriage as one man and one woman, including in nearby midwestern states like Wisconsin and Michigan, and in deep blue states like California and Maine. Just this spring, Democratic states like Rhode Island and Maryland have rejected same-sex marriage. Protecting marriage is not un-Minnesotan or un-American and no amount of name-calling or insults is going to change that reality. In fact, name-calling and insults will not be a pathway to victory in Minnesota, or anywhere else.

As I write, a new Survey USA poll shows Minnesotans favor the marriage amendment 51 percent to 40 percent.

Exactly what kind of person stands up for marriage?

Take a look at NOM's just released video "People Need to Speak the Truth," interviewing folks who attended Sen. Diaz's rally for marriage in the Bronx.

"If we don't speak up for truth, people will believe a lie." Well, you and I won't let that happen, will we?

A reporter for a local news site interviewed people on the streets of Bed-Stuy, a Brooklyn neighborhood. "Most Bed-Stuy residents we spoke to were in favor of traditional marriage," according to the Bed-Stuy Patch:

Jason, a 26-year-old computer tech walking along Fulton Street back to work, concurred. "I don't care what the next man does, but God didn't intend for two men to get married nor two women. That just makes everything untraditional. After you pass same-sex marriage you're just throwing religion out the door."

"I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but to each their own. If that's what the people want to do... but I don't believe that it should be a law," said another Bed-Stuy resident who declined to give her name.

The truth is the movement for marriage is the most unlikely coalition ever, of Democrats and Republicans, of Catholics, Protestants and Jews, of people of every race, creed, color and party coming together to stand in love—against the torrent of hatred and abuse now directed against folks who dare to say marriage is and should remain, as God intended, a union of husband and wife.

Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz's latest press release asks Gov. Cuomo, the media and the public to pay attention to the increasingly uncivil rhetoric which those who support gay marriage are heaping upon those with whom they disagree.

"I urge Governor Andrew Cuomo along with my colleagues in the legislature, the media, and all New Yorkers to take a close look at the hard core and vulgar tactics that are being used to change a law in New York State. I urge all to compare my non-violent, peaceful and prayerful rallies to protect marriage and the attempts to humiliate me because of my one vote in the State Senate. Add to that the intolerant onslaught of hate-filled phone calls to my office. Add to that to the death threats and threats against my family that have been duly reported to the FBI and the police departments of New York and Albany."

Leaders like Rev. Díaz are attracting this kind of abuse because they are making a difference, thank God!

Our great campaign for the truth about marriage is having a huge impact in New York, clearly, as we work with great people like Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz, Rev. Jason Maguire and New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom and many others.

A May 21 Associated Press story detailed the growing gloom among gay-marriage supporters in New York that a high-profile and well-funded push for gay marriage was falling short, as the latest polls show support for gay marriage dropping and opposition growing:

Just a couple of weeks ago, the momentum to legalize gay marriage in New York appeared to be an irresistible force. ...Since then, the conservative and religious opposition has struck back in a big, unexpected way.

Now the opposition has a $1.5 million fund of its own from a national group. There was even some shakiness in the ranks of gay marriage advocates, while Republican senators on the other side, rather than wilting, appear emboldened. ...

Opponents of gay marriage are also bolstered by defeats of similar bills this year in Maryland and Rhode Island. Same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., a list unchanged since New York's Senate rejected the measure in 2009 in a surprising blow to the national movement. ...A month ago, support in the Siena poll was four points higher and opposition was six points lower. It was a rare setback in polls that for months have repeatedly shown growing support.

You can read the story here.

The fight is not over, but victory is within our reach!

Yet another surprising victory against powerful elites when the pundits told us victory was impossible!

Many of you have written concerned about the latest Gallup poll. Gay-rights activists are trumpeting the idea that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

Let not your heart be troubled. Americans, faced with a barrage of abuse and insults, are becoming less willing to tell strangers on the phone what they really think. But it is impossible to square poll results like that with what is happening on the ground, in state polls, or in actual elections.

If the majority of Americans now favor gay marriage, why is it that Equality California is reporting its own polls show just 45 percent of Californians want to repeal Prop 8—a drop from its 2009 poll on the subject?

Equality California is now hesitating, unsure if it will try to repeal Prop 8 in 2012, as a result of this news.

If a majority of all Americans now favor gay marriage, why is it that in a very blue state like Washington, the latest poll shows people split almost evenly on the issue (and within the margin of error)?

If a majority of all Americans now favor gay marriage, why is it that in Ohio, a swing state, voters who were asked, "Do you you think gay marriage should be legal or or illegal?" responded "illegal" 53 percent to 31 percent?

Public Policy Polling has been doing state polls that are wildly out of synch with some of the national polls.

Now, many people criticize PPP's polling methods as leaning too Democratic. They also do not use live interviewers but ask people to respond by hitting their phone buttons. This may be one reason their polls show much stronger opposition to gay marriage: It's less intimidating for Democrats and Independents who oppose gay marriage to admit their views to a machine than to a person.

Not only do we at NOM not believe polls reporting a majority of all Americans now support gay marriage, but it is crystal clear that gay-marriage advocates don't believe those polls either.

How do I know this? Because in the deepest, bluest states in the nation, they would rather lose a gay marriage bill altogether than accept the idea that the issue should be referred to a popular vote. Rhode Island, the most Democratic state in the nation, was the clearest example of this.

If gay-marriage advocates don't believe they can win a majority vote on this issue in Rhode Island, they know they can't win it anywhere.

We'll find out in 2012 in Minnesota whose polling is the most accurate.

By the way, the fact that good people feel unsafe saying marriage is the union of husband and wife is a change that we need to face and find a way to deal with.

We at NOM are looking for new ways to protect decent and honorable people from threats to their livelihood and person if they speak for marriage.

We will need to come together in dramatic new ways to stop the abuse, the insults and the threats. But with your help and God's we will win this fight, too.

In January of this year, I became aware that we would have to suddenly fight hard on multiple fronts for marriage, and in the deepest blue states.

The fights have strained our resources. Each one was supposed to be impossible to win. And yet we've won each time—thanks to you.

Thanks in part to NOM's work in the elections of 2010, there were also some new opportunities—votes for marriage in Indiana and Minnesota are just the beginning.

Thank you and praise God for your support—for your emails, for your prayers and for your fellowship.

Thank you for your courage and your decency. Thank you above all for standing with us and with millions of other good Americans for marriage.

Take care and keep those emails coming!

Semper fi,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S.. The fight is not over—we have just begun! We will fight and we will win, but we need your help. Be a part of the next victory for marriage! Your donation to NOM will help make those victories possible. We can't do it without you.

On Sunday, I locked arms with Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz and marched through the streets of the Bronx.

It was like nothing I've ever done or seen before: thousands of people, of every race, creed and color, but heavily Latino, with balloons, salsa music, and Bibles, determined that their voice will be heard in New York!

The festive atmosphere and the warm response of the people in the Bronx made it seem like, well, a ticker-tape parade, if the Bronx had ticker-tape parades.

As we marched, people waved to us from the their apartments buildings, signaling, with thumbs up and high fives, their agreement with the message of the march for dignity—we march in love to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife.

On the steps of the courthouse our thousands met a tiny counter-protest—a few dozen at most—but one of them was Rev. Díaz's granddaughter, who wishes to marry a woman.

I urged the crowd not to be silenced, but to stand for marriage.

One of the most touching moments came when Rev. Díaz called his granddaughter up to our side of the podium and kissed her.

She told reporters that she respected her grandfather even though she disagrees with him.

The only TV news station to cover what the Daily News called a "massive" rally on our side was New York 1—but they captured the touching exchange.

Respect, and love, in the midst of serious and important moral disagreement. That's the way this good fight should be fought!

The powers that be are unleashing an all-out push for gay marriage in New York which is like nothing we've ever seen before.

When Gov. Cuomo decided to barnstorm the state, raising public pressure on legislators, he declared that gay marriage was one of the top three issues he was trying to push this session. The New York Times editorialized that legislators should be "shunned" if they do not pass gay marriage (with a scarlet "M" maybe?).

This week, Mayor Bloomberg went to Albany to lobby and declared that passing gay marriage was the most important issue facing New York.

I'm scratching my head thinking, huh? Do these powerful pols really think that will play outside a small narrow circle? (Call it Manhattan!)

New York's economy is in the tank, housing prices continue to fall, taxes are rising, schools are failing, there's no budget in sight, and state pols keep getting locked up for stealing from the people's purse—but the most important issue facing New York is passing same-sex marriage?

Mayor Bloomberg also promised to support any GOP senator who voted for gay marriage in the next election—and of course that means big bucks.

The irony is that while Gov. Cuomo says he makes "ethics reform" one of his other top issues, we're watching spectacularly wealthy men try to pressure legislators to vote for something their constituents don't want.

The signs show that despite this incredible pressure, it's not (yet) working.

The blog City Hall News reported this week: "By the end of yesterday, none of the missing votes [for gay marriage] had yet materialized. And with only 14 days left in the legislative session, one Democratic Senate insider acknowledged that passing a gay marriage bill may not end up viewed with the same time pressure as renewing rent regulations, which must be completed by June 15."

Not a single Republican in the senate has come forward to say they will vote for gay marriage. Dean Skelos, the GOP senate majority leader, is backtracking from an earlier promise to put gay marriage to a vote—saying this week that he will caucus first with his conference before deciding whether to vote on the bill.

This is the same bill that died 38-24 just two years ago, remember.

Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long's announcement that the Conservative Party will not endorse any Republican who votes for gay marriage helped. As the New York Times reported in a profile this morning of Long and his influence: "'He's a man of his word, and his handshake is one of the last handshakes completely trusted in New York politics,' said Bruce N. Gyory, a Democratic political consultant and adjunct professor of political science at the University at Albany. 'And when he makes a threat, it counts.'"

The Conservative Party released this print ad this week, to remind squishy Republicans what happens to Republicans who vote for gay marriage:

NOM has pledged $1 million to inform voters about any Republican senators who votes for a spokesman for gay marriage (and to help brave Dems who oppose gay marriage too!).

We can't possibly match Bloomberg's money but we don't have to. All we need is enough money to get our message out.

As Maggie told the New York Times in this May 18 story, "The Republican base is incredibly united on this issue. . . .It's a really bad idea to be for gay marriage if you're a Republican, and I don't think Mayor Bloomberg's money is going to change that."

It's a tough fight, and it will go down to the wire.

Meanwhile, we're momentarily expecting good news from the formerly blue state of Minnesota. And in North Carolina, 3500 people rallied to demand the same right to vote for marriage. Kudos to Bill Brook and the North Carolina Family Policy council, Tony Perkins of FRC and all the good people who came together for that impressive rally.

Let me close with some words of encouragement. Over at Patheos, Maggie Gallagher responded to a Christian who wanted to give up on the fight for "civil marriage":

"Once we decide to give up on the public fight on marriage, what's next? What's next is shaming, punishing, and economically harming those who speak up for the biblical view of marriage—as the fates of Peter Vidmar and Damian Goddard have recently illustrated. What's next is the use of government, through the public schools and other avenues, to teach that the biblical view of marriage is discredited bigotry. See 'Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want to Indoctrinate Kids' for evidence."

She goes on, "Gentlemen may cry truce, truce, but there is no truce. Those who decide to submit or withdraw or to mute themselves and their beliefs, under the heat now being generated against those who stand, will find it hard to find a principled place, later on down the very short road, on which to stand."

Maggie's always eloquent, but I also resonate to the gruffer wisdom of Mike Long, who explained to the New York Times:

"I can't go around life making everything a deal breaker. But there are certain things that you have to stand for. If we don't stand for this, then why are we in business?"

Thank you for helping us make victory possible, in His name,

Semper fi,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Every victory we win is really your victory, because we rely on your support. With every dollar you donate we help make your voice heard so that your values are upheld. Whether you can give $20 or $200, or perhaps a monthly donation of just $10, you can contribute to these great victories for marriage!

Several supporters of gay marriage, in what is, sadly, becoming a too-common recurring theme of lack of respect for the democratic process, started screaming from the gallery, “Stop hating, stop dividing, stop pandering.” The Senate had to actually close the gallery and remove all spectators in order to permit the debate to progress. Classy act, that one.

We published a full-page ad in the Columbus (Ind.) Republic going after Cummins, Inc. for its ludicrous claim that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman would somehow interfere with its ability to compete. A Cummins exec actually threatened to punish the people of Indiana by failing to expand jobs if they passed the marriage amendment--even as the company was announcing plans to expand in nearby Tennessee, which HAS a marriage amendment.

(Thanks to Micah Clark and the American Family Association of Indiana for co-sponsoring the ad.)

The amendment, identical to amendments passed in nearby states, says simply:

“Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Congrats to the people of Indiana! Kudos to all the groups in Indiana who worked so hard for so many years to make this great victory possible. And thank you, my friend, for all that you've done to make this new victory possible. You are the reason NOM is able to win incredible victory after incredible victory.

In Indiana, this is only the first step. After an election, both the House and Senate will have to pass this resolution again--and then the future of marriage in Indiana will go to the people in 2014.

Only one Republican jumped ship, believing the opposition's line: Rep. Ed Clare, a new member. He's the only Republican in about six votes in the last ten years to come out against protecting marriage.

And the Democrats who voted to protect marriage will, no doubt, face attacks from within.

Indianans will have to work to protect and extend this victory in 2012--and not only in Indiana!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates of gay marriage have stopped persuading the American people that homosexual unions are marriages, so now the activists' goal is to suppress, mislead, and depress the American people.

What's the definition of victory in war? It's not when one side annihilates the other. It's when one side no longer has the will to fight. That's when a war is over.

Culture war, too.

The arguments from despair they proffer to us have no rational basis. They are not about what is true, good, or beautiful. And the future hasn't even happened yet!

The world they want you to believe in--to believe is a fact--is one where those who say, “To make a marriage you need a husband and wife because children need a mother and father” are viewed as irrational bigots.

The amount of money being thrown at creating this world is fascinating. I would call it frightening if I did not believe there are things in this universe more powerful than money.

Take this little story that showed up in the Harvard Crimson. The Ford Foundation is giving $730,000 to a group studying why people believe children are best off with their own mom and dad. The researcher in charge of this allegedly academic and scientific enterprise is startlingly open about the purpose of this research: to figure out how to wean Americans from this stubborn attachment to the natural family. “This grant allows us to really understand what is it about children in relationship to gay people that translates into a perception of harm, and investigate how can we translate that to positive association,” said the Executive Director of Face Value Julie R. Davis. “Homophobia is the thing that harms children, not homosexuals,” said Timothy P. McCarthy, (who will oversee the research).  [Continue reading.]

(FYI: The Public Religion Research Institute, which offered “research” showing that Catholics support gay marriage, received a grant of $107,500 from the Evelyn and Walter Haas foundation, “To survey California religious communities and help develop religious education strategies supporting gay equality.” None of which prevented its research from being widely retailed as fact in the mainstream media.)

-END-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story is from NOM's weekly national newsletter.  To read the whole newsletter, please click here.

MARYLAND VOTE FOR SSM - NOT A DONE DEAL!

As I write, the Maryland House Judiciary Committee has still not been able to vote to pass same-sex marriage, despite threats and arm-twisting from leadership.

In Maryland, the House of Delegates was supposed to be an easy vote for gay marriage. Done deal, they all said, like they always do. (Continue reading.)

MARYLAND SSM SPONSORS JUMP SHIP

Meanwhile the press and the pols were shocked this week to find suddenly that black Dems were jumping ship.

Melvin Stukes (a black Democrat from Baltimore), a co-sponsor of the bill, pulled out. (Continue reading.)

MARYLAND LAWYER ERIKA COLE WARNS MD HOUSE AGAINST SSM

Here's another thing you didn't see on the mainstream news coverage: a respected church lawyer, Erika Cole, testifying at the House hearings, in which gay marriage advocates repeatedly urged legislators to exercise "leadership" by voting for gay marriage, whether their constituents want it or not. Click here to see Erika's testimony and get the rest of this story.

PRES. OBAMA'S DOMA DISASTER

Nationally, the biggest issue is Pres. Obama's DOMA "Disaster," as Maggie calls it.

Obama's refusal to defend DOMA is already backfiring on him.

At NOM we try to stay ahead of the curve. (Continue reading)

DEFENDING DOMA – WILL THE HOUSE INTERVENE?

Now the big question is: Will the House intervene to protect DOMA?

Thousands of NOM's supporters have petitioned the House leadership. Thank you—keep it up—we're on the verge of winning a great, great victory!

PROP 8 CASE NEWS: COUNTY CLERK SEEKS STANDING IN CASE

On the Prop 8 case, this week saw another very important and totally underreported development too: Chuck Storey, the newly elected county clerk of Imperial County, is back in court, asking the Ninth Circuit for standing to intervene to uphold Prop 8! (Continue reading.)

ILLINOIS B&B OWNERS SUED FOR REFUSING SSU CEREMONY

Two bed-and-breakfast owners in Illinois are being sued after refusing to host a same-sex civil union ceremony. The harm to the gay couple is simply their emotional distress, not the lack of a nice place to hold a ceremony (because already another bed-and-breakfast has offered to host their ceremony). (Continue reading.)

CHRISTIANS NEED NOT APPLY—FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO ILLINOIS

In our sister democracy in Great Britain, a truly shocking example of how far gay-rights advocates will go to shut down religious people came to light this week: The British courts ruled that Christians can be excluded from fostering children unless they affirm that homosexual sex and marriage is good... (See the video and read the rest of the story.)

...And this morning I woke up to read this ominous Chicago Tribune headline: "State probes religious foster care agencies over discrimination."

ANGRY SSM PROTESTERS TARGET RELIGIOUS SERVICES FOR PROTEST/DISRUPTION

Meanwhile, I wanted to make sure that in the big Obama DOMA news last week you didn't miss the latest installment of our Breaking News videos. This one is on a new tactic launched by the Gay Liberation Network in Chicago: organized protests during religious services.

Watch the video and continue reading this story...

Let me end on a happy note: Check out this video, the winner of the Ruth Institute's Reel Love Challenge contest, which asked college students to answer the question: Is Lifelong Married Love possible?

Gotta get back to work. We have so many good fights to fight! And thanks to you, very soon we'll have so many victories to celebrate!

The Human Rights Campaign, a $40 million dollar-a-year organization dedicated to striping America of a feasible definition of marriage, set its sights on the National Organization for Marriage through a video “exposing” their true ambitions.

A laughably spooky voice begins the video by asking, “Ever heard of NOM?” The voice, which sounds like it’s right out of murder investigation television show, then goes on to give NOM (the National Organization for Marriage) free ad space. Continue reading.

The author concludes by noting that HRC’s media coordinator has not responded to requests about the video and its claims.

“I’m proud that Mississippi cast the highest percentage of its vote of any state in the country for the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

You can read his entire speech here and watch it on Youtube here.

We just received an e-mail from SSRN with the following message: "Your paper entitled, "What is Marriage?" was recently listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list for All SSRN Journals. As of 01/12/2011 your paper has been downloaded 24,013 times. You may view the abstract and download statistics at the URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1722155."

National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown believes the renewed push for redefining marriage in both [Maryland and Rhode Island] is a reaction to pro-values gains throughout the country.

“In most states we have positive legislation to protect marriage,” stated Brown.

So far, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota and Wyoming are all working to repeal or ban same-sex marriage. Maryland Republican lawmakers are also introducing an inclusive civil union law as an alternative to same-sex marriage.

Brown said gay rights advocates are now desperate. “I think supporters of redefining marriage are looking [at] any place they can gain ground,” he shared.

Brown believes attempts in both Rhode Island and Maryland will come up short. In Rhode Island, Brown said, “The people just don’t want same-sex marriage.” Brown pronounced the same sentiment to be true in heavily Democratic Maryland.

In the event that the Maryland state legislature tries to approve a gay marriage bill, he said NOM will work with advocates on the ground to collect the signatures necessary for a referendum.

“In every state where the people had the chance to vote, in both deep blue and deep red states, they have voted against same-sex marriage,” Brown emphasized.

You may also view the various topics they discuss here.

Google can provide a (limited but helpful) translation of the site into English here. Please feel free to share this site with your Spanish-speaking friends!

“Lawmakers are set to introduce and sponsor a marriage protection amendment to the state constitution during the upcoming legislative session, according to a press release issued by the West Virginia Family Foundation.

… “We call on the Legislature to stop obstructing the people's right to join 30 other states in constitutionally protecting the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman," [said Kevin] McCoy.”

Judge Stephen Reinhardt also issued a concurrence in which he called the argument Proponents for Prop 8 had made for standing "strong." He also criticized the lawyers in this case for the "inexplicable" choices that have made orderly review of Judge Walker's decision so difficult.

"Judge Reinhardt clearly agrees with us about two things: First, a federal trial court judge cannot possibly have the last word about whether the U.S. Constitution requires gay marriage; and second, super lawyers Olson and Boies are working overtime in tricky ways to make sure their supposedly invincible case for gay marriage does not get reviewed by any higher court," said Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage

"We are confident Judge Walker's ruling will not be permitted to stand without challenge, and that Olson and Boies' tactics will backfire"

Excerpt from Judge Reinhardt's concurrence:

"Although that matter must be decided by the Supreme Court of California, Proponents advance a strong argument on this point. Thus, in the end, there may well be standing to maintain this appeal, and the important constitutional question before us may, after all, be decided by an appellate court-ours, the Supreme Court, or both-and may apply to California as a whole, instead of by being finally decided by a trial court, or by default, in only two counties, or in none. As a result, the technical barriers and the inexplicable manner in which the parties have conducted this litigation may in the end not preclude an orderly review by the federal courts of the critical constitutional question that is of interest to all Americans, and particularly to the millions of Californians who voted for Proposition 8 and the tens of thousands of same-sex couples who wish to marry in that state."

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, or Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

download this banner and post it.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today launched a nationwide video entitled “Protect The Kids: Stop the Exploitation” in response to and exposing a fundraising effort by angry gay marriage activists that sells T-shirts and uses young children shouting obscenities to raise money for their cause.

“The American Foundation for Equal Rights, Equality California, Courage Campaign, and Lambda Legal have certainly reached a low point displaying a poor lack of judgment for refusing to disassociate themselves from this video of real children shouting angry profanities as props to raise money for their cause,” stated Brian Brown, President of NOM.

“We call on responsible LGBT organizations to return any donations raised as a result of this shock video, in which adults put profanities in the mouths of children and encourage what can only be called open hatred of their friends, neighbors and fellow citizens who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.”

NOM is asking these gay marriage activists to reject all funding from this profane campaign and calls on the video’s producers to end immediately this organized effort to exploit children. “No matter how much we may disagree with each other, ads like these that promote incivility and hatred leave no room for discourse,” Brown added. “By signing NOM’s Kid Petition, you are asking the above activists to stop using innocent children shouting obscenities to make your case. Is that too much to ask?”

Words fail me in trying to describe it . . . it’s vile, sickening and incredibly sad to see the way these children have been exploited for cheap shock value. I find myself thinking – is this the kind of thing they want to teach our children?

This video has been produced by a handful of radical gay marriage activists – but it’s being used to fund some of the nation’s largest same-sex marriage groups. NOM is calling on these same-sex marriage organizations – including the Courage Campaign, Lambda Legal, Equality California, and the American Foundation for Equal Rights – to reject these ads by their supporters. We call on them to reject all funding from this obscene campaign, and to demand an immediate end to this angry and hateful effort that is degrading our conversation and exploiting young children.

Click here to sign the petition urging these major same-sex marriage groups to publicly reject this hateful effort.

Then invite five friends to join you in signing. There is simply no place in American dialogue – no matter how much we may disagree with each other – for such filthy and exploitive ads. Ever.  Much less during this season of Christmas as well celebrate the birth of the Holy Child.

As we approach Christmas on Saturday, I ask you to consider a gift for marriage this year. We are on the verge of unprecedented opportunities – and great risks as well – that will shape the future of marriage in our nation. Our opponents certainly understand the stakes, and are raising millions to force their agenda on an unwilling nation.

But apparently Olson and Boies didn’t appreciate the truth.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) – the name chosen by the Hollywood insiders who teamed up with Olson and Boies to bring the Prop 8 lawsuit – is sending a fundraising email around to its supporters, calling on them to "fight back against NOM’s discriminatory and divisive efforts to uphold Prop 8."

And get this, AFER, a group backed by millions from Hollywood insiders, is worried over our current $1 Million Marriage Challenge Campaign! They know our track record – that we were the largest single donor to the Prop 8 campaign, and have committed at least $1 million to protect Prop 8 in court. And they know we don’t have to match their millions dollar for dollar. As long as we have the resources to keep on fighting and make sure the truth is heard, we can be confident that truth and love will ultimately prevail.

With your help, NOM will be there every step of the way. Getting you the unvarnished truth on what’s going on. Defending Prop 8 all the way to the Supreme Court. Lobbying for marriage in statehouses and local legislative offices, and reaching out to grassroots supporters who are not yet involved in this nationwide struggle to protect marriage.

Will you join us today? Your financial gift this time of year will mean so much as we look to make 2011 our most successful year yet!

It's been really fun showing this ad to people. I just got off the phone with a friend in New York--he's a major business leader--who told me, "I almost fell off my chair when I saw this ad--it's spectacular!"

You remember the back story, right? The Manhattan Declaration is a thoughtful and civil statement calling on Christians to defend life, marriage and religious liberty as core values. NOM's founding chairman Robby George helped draft it, alongside Chuck Colson. I signed it. Maggie signed it. So did major, mainstream religious figures like Archbishop Wuerl and about 500,000 Christians.

Apple's own reviewers certified that the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app was free from offensive content. But then 7000 LGBT activists signed a position saying they considered the Manhattan Declaration offensive. Steve Jobs pulled it, and his rep called it "offensive."

Now, it's Steve Jobs's company, we understand that. We are not asking the government to intervene. When Steve Jobs donated $100,000 to defeat Prop 8, we didn't try to hurt his company or boycott his products, as so many gay rights groups did to pro-marriage donors. We never organized to try to prevent Planned Parenthood or pro-gay-marriage groups from posting their own apps, however personally offensive we might find them.

But Apple has always positioned its brand as the champion of free thought, creativity and free minds. So it's pretty hypocritical and jarring now for Steve Jobs to make Apple into the new thought police, protecting customers from ideas he considers "offensive."

Steve Jobs issuing what his own iconic ad once called "information purification directives" to protect Apple customers from "contradictory and confusing truths." Pretty ironic, huh, for the spunky little company which saw itself as taking on Big Brother?

NOM's dynamite new ad calls Steve Jobs out for being untrue to his own values, and to the company's brand.

I need your help spreading the word--and this "spectacular" ad which makes people fall off their chairs!

Go to view it on NOM's website. Next to the title there's a button that says "Share This." Click on the "Share This" link and send it to your friends!

In the tech and business world, people are sitting up and taking notice.

"NOM does have a point," said Advertising Age's reporter-blogger. "Let's not mistake the clever '1984' for anything more than slick marketing."

Business Net's columnist Jim Edwards says we are making "Steve Jobs look ridiculous":

"Thus, Apple's policy of approving--or rejecting--apps based on their content has managed to make an anti-gay group look like it's standing up for freedom, and Jobs look like someone who doesn't want his customers to access anything he disagrees with."

But we have to keep the heat on. Right now the Manhattan Declaration sponsors, like the good Christians they are, are working overtime to meet the unfair objections of their critics. They've removed a questionnaire some found offensive and resubmitted the app.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Charisma News, which kindly posted a link: "Apple was not immediately available for comment." No, not immediately, but we'll keep the pressure up!

So far, as I write, more than 12,000 of you have viewed the "Ironic Steve Jobs" ad on YouTube. If you haven't yet, do something for me: Can you go there and watch it? (And remember, click the "Share This" link to spread the word to your friends!)

Tell your friends they have to go and watch this great video! 90 seconds of pure unadulterated pleasure wherein you and I hoist Steve Jobs "on his own petard," as the Business Net reporter put it.

The internet was supposed to launch an information revolution for freedom. Can we stand by and let one incredibly wealthy man use his market share to try to squeeze thoughtful debate from the public square?

Now you know me: I like to think big. Wouldn't it be great if Steve Jobs woke up every morning for a week seeing that ad as he sipped his morning cup of joe?

To make that happen, we need to find at least 483 people today willing to donate $10 to turn this internet ad into a TV ad in Silicon Valley. Would you be one of those? Remember, anything you donate between now and the end of the year will magically double, thanks to a generous donor who's offered to match, today, anything you give. $10 to put this ad in Steve Jobs's breakfast nook--and to support all of NOM's important work.

(Of course if you can give more--$20, $50, or even $100--that too will double. Steve Jobs may have billions of dollars, but you and I have truth and justice on our side--let Steve Jobs know what you think of his attempt to repress Christian thought!)

More amazingly good news. Two of NOM's key founders were just named to Newsweek's list of the "New Faces of the Christian Right." Number one was NOM's founding Chairman, Prof. Robby George. And Number 4 was NOM's current Chairman Maggie Gallagher.

Maggie wrote about it in her column this week, which you can find below.

It was a little strange that so many key figures of the religious left also made that list. But we appreciate the recognition of NOM's growing role in helping you fight for marriage and religious liberty!

Prof. Robby George is truly an amazing man. And along with two of his students, he has published a most amazing defense of marriage in the Harvard Journal of Public Policy called "What is Marriage?" You can read the full copy here as PDF.

I was particularly tickled to find this passage, during these scholars' serious discussion of the ways gay marriage will harm marriage and the common good:

"The idea that support for the conjugal conception of marriage is nothing more than a form of bigotry has become so deeply entrenched among marriage revisionists that a Washington Post feature story drew denunciations and cries of journalistic bias for even implying that one conjugal-marriage advocate was 'sane' and 'thoughtful.' Outraged readers compared the profile to a hypothetical puff piece on a Ku Klux Klan member."

Remember? That was poor Monica Hesse's profile of me (!) in the Washington Post last year.

(Also, I'm going to go tell my wife I have a new job title: "Conjugal marriage advocate.")

Next week, I’d like to share more of this important essay--and the public debate it has sparked. For now, let me just mention that when a former Yale Law professor named Kenji Yoshino attempted to take on "What is Marriage?" at Slate, Matthew Franck over at National Review's Bench Memos described it as "A Swing and a Miss in Marriage Debate":

"Bottom line: Yoshino provides nothing--nothing at all--by way of an argument for including gay couples in the institution of marriage. For he provides no alternative answer to the question Girgis, George, and Anderson propound: What Is Marriage? Is this the best pro-gay-marriage folks can do?"

Wow. I've got so much more to tell you. But how much of your time can I take?

There's Newsweek's "Uncivil Rights" story, which questioned whether African-Americans' fight for civil rights can truly be equated with gay rights:

"Gays and lesbians 'may want to cast their fight in civil-rights terms, and a lot of people are buying it. But not the faith community and especially not the black community,' says Bishop Harry Jackson, whose Hope Christian Church has a flock of 3,000 in the Washington, D.C., area. Indeed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted yes on California's Prop 8, and polls found similar levels of opposition among blacks for a marriage initiative in Florida that same year. After the Washington, D.C., City Council last year approved gay marriage in the District, Jackson joined forces with the National Organization for Marriage in petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to allow voters to decide on overturning the law. 'Many African-Americans believe gays are discriminated against, but they don't believe marriage is a civil-rights issue,' says Jackson, who says his father was threatened at gunpoint in the 1950s by a state trooper while working on a voter-registration drive. 'There are issues of acceptance, but there is no back of the bus. . .'"

There's Iowa, where pro-gay-marriage forces are now trying to invalidate another election: the judicial retention election in which three judges lost their seats. The argument rests on the most specious technical grounds. They say the state constitution requires a "separate ballot" and the sheet of paper voters received also let them vote in other elections. So now they are back in state supreme court, asking the three justices to vote to re-install themselves on the court until a new election can be held.

Will they never respect the democratic process?

Of course, if these lawyers' theory is right and the election was invalid, then these three judges have not been retained either. They lack the authority to continue on the court. And a fourth judge who was retained two years ago, before the Iowa court decision, would have to face the voters again too, right away. Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea!
But this does goes to show that we need need a marriage amendment in Iowa to settle this question, and we also need to fix a judicial process which has been hijacked by partisan Democrats in Iowa. Kudos to Bob Vander Plaats and Gov.-Elect Terry Branstad for fighting together on that one!

One final note on the court battle. Did you see on your nightly newscast the dramatic way Prop 8 litigator Chuck Cooper called out Olson and Boies at the press conference after oral arguments? ...No, neither did I. No news outlet saw fit to report it, so that's why I'm reporting it to you now. Click below to hear him!

Here's what he said:

"I want to pay our respects to our opponents in this case, who have presented their case with skill and with sincerity and we respect that. I regret in all candor that our opponents do not return that respect ... but rather have seen fit to demean and to ridicule those arguments.

"Our opponents ... believe that everybody on the other side of them in this debate is behaving irrationally, that no defense, no good-faith belief, can be entertained in defense of the institution of marriage which has existed, as we pointed out in the court earlier today, in every place and in every time in recorded history."

Then Cooper wound up with a swing that could not fail to miss; he batted it way over the fence:

"For the plaintiffs to prevail in this case they have to show not only that all the state and federal appellate courts that have addressed this issue, all of whom, by the way, that have upheld traditional marriage and rejected the arguments advanced today, that all of those judges rendering those decisions were irrational, that the Congress that enacted the DOMA--that all of those people were irrational, that a large majority of the population of this country is irrational and behaving not in good faith, and that Pres. Obama, for that matter, must presumably be irrational."

Cooper paused and then said, "That position, we believe, with all due respect to our opponents, is not sustainable and is not valid."

Thank you for all you do to sustain the work of NOM--and, more importantly, the fight for God's own truth about marriage.

Until next week, please pray for me, and for Chuck Cooper and for everyone who is standing tall against the campaign to brand civilized discourse as hate, to re-brand Christianity as bigotry, and to silence and marginalize millions of Americans with whom they disagree.

As Maggie said in her debate with Andrew Sullivan at Georgetown last week, "In the end truth and love will prevail over lies and hate. Not love without truth. Not truth grounded in hate, but together, I promise, in the end truth and love will prevail."

God bless you and keep you always this Advent season,

"This hearing makes a mockery of the federal judiciary," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "Citizens are entitled to a guarantee of impartiality from their judiciary. Yet here we have the spectacle of a federal appeals court justice ruling on a case in which his wife represents a group that is a participant. A cynic would be left to wonder if the fix is in for marriage in the Ninth Circuit."

Help NOM protect marriage and put a stop to this abuse of the will of the people. Right now your donation of $10, $25, $100 or more will be doubled thanks to a matching challenge grant from some of our generous donors. Please give today.

See the rest of the statement here.

The November elections have brought us to a moment of unprecedented opportunities, with the chance to pass new marriage amendments, strengthen legislative protections, and even roll back same-sex marriage in states like New Hampshire and Iowa.

But it’s also a moment of profound risk. Risk of letdown. Of complacency. Of surveying our successes with satisfaction, while forgetting that all we accomplished on November 2nd only set the stage.

Now is the time that we must begin working to capitalize on those opportunities – organizing, planning, and beginning the grassroots outreach that will turn our electoral successes into lasting legislative victories. NOM poured over $12 million—everything we had—into focused, strategic initiatives to protect marriage this year. We urgently need your help to prepare for the 2011 legislative sessions.

We’ve just launched our new Marriage Challenge website. Thanks to a generous marriage challenge grant, every dollar we can raise over the next 30 days will be matched, doubling the impact.

Please take a moment to watch our new Marriage Challenge video, recapping our successes of the past year and setting the stage for 2011. Then take the Marriage Challenge with your most generous gift. Thanks to the challenge match, your $25 gift becomes $50. A $50 gift becomes $100 to protect marriage. And $500 becomes $1000 for marriage!

My wife and I were blessed with the birth of our seventh child this week—Madeleine Sophie Brown. As I look at these little ones, I am more determined than ever to do whatever lies within my power to preserve, protect and defend the institution of marriage and the religious liberty upon which our great nation was founded.

Now the question is: Are you willing to do what it takes to protect a culture of marriage and religious liberty for your children and grandchildren? Will you stand with me today? Accept the 30-Day Marriage Challenge and join us with a gift of $25, $50 or more.

Then—and this is equally important—please ask 10 friends to join you in taking our 30-Day Marriage Challenge at this all too critical moment.

-- Brian

Police stood by as protestors stormed the podium, surrounded Brian Brown and tried to prevent him from speaking. Only Brian's grace under fire, and the law-abiding, prayerful, and peaceful crowd prevented this from turning even more ugly.

Three out of 4 people described non-monogamy as a positive thing, and said it gave them a sexual outlet without having to lie. Participants reported it helped relationships survive by providing honest options and minimizing deceit, tension and resentment. Some "played" independently, others as a threesome, and about 80 percent agreed to tell all or some details of their encounters, the rest preferring a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Sexual fidelity, these "San Francisco" relationships assert is not necessary in marriage.  "At least half those interviewed were married, having taken their vows during one of the two brief times when it was legally sanctioned in the city or the state.

"It's a redefinition of marriage," Spears said.

Yes it is.

Read more.

It was wonderful to meet so many of you, and your energy and enthusiasm made for the perfect start to our 33-day, 23-city tour that will take us from the Northeast to the upper Midwest, then down to Florida before finishing in our nation’s capital on August 15th.

Take a minute to check out our tour coverage at www.marriagetour2010.com, including photos and videos from yesterday, ongoing tour coverage, and much more! Even the press is starting to pay attention, and we’ll have the media coverage posted as well.

We are simply thrilled that so many of you came out yesterday, and for those who didn’t make it, you missed a good time as we took a public stand for marriage, made new friends, and left inspired with messages from Rev. Emrich, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, and Charla Bansley.

If you’re able, in addition to standing publicly at the state house yesterday (or for those who couldn’t), please consider standing with us financially during this summer tour. Over the next five weeks, we will be meeting with thousands of new marriage supporters all across the eastern U.S. Your gift of $25, $50, or even $100 would be a great help as we take the message of marriage directly to the American people, meeting new activists, supporters and friends all along the way. Click here to make your donation today!

We can win this battle for the future of marriage in our nation. And with God’s help, we will!

Read more.

Lynch lauded by national gay rights advocates
Manchester Union-Leader, July 13, 2010
Staff Report

CONCORD —Gov. John Lynch’s support for a same-sex marriage law in New Hampshire earned him a featured position at a recent private meeting of national leaders and donors in the gay community.

The Washington Blade has reported that Lynch was among four governors and several other elected officials who attended “a closed-door conference of wealthy LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) political donors” in mid-May in Chicago. The conference was known as “Political OutGiving,” described by the Blade as “a highly confidential event for a network of more than 200 big-stakes LGBT contributors to political campaigns.”

. . .
The conservative National Organization for Marriage earlier this year spent about $200,000 on television ads claiming that “Lynch lied” on several issues, including samesex marriage, by signing the bill into law after saying in a 2006 gubernatorial debate that “I do not support gay marriage.”

Lynch said in April he was “disgusted” with the ad and accused the out-of-state group of “meddling.” The “LynchLeads” site and a related television ad were created in response.

NOM to be in Manchester

NOM will be in Manchester on Thursday as part of a “Summer for Marriage: One Man-One Woman Tour” rally at City Hall Plaza, presumably to continue to criticize Lynch.

According to a media advisory, “The tour covers many of the key battleground states in the ongoing fight to protect and preserve marriage as one man and one woman.”

The New Hampshire-based self-described “pro-family” Cornerstone Action, the political arm of Cornerstone Policy Research, e-mailed supporters yesterday criticizing Lynch’s attendance at the gay leaders meeting and asking for donations to “keep the liberals away.”

It also asks supporters to call Lynch’s office “and tell him how hypocritical it is for him to denounce the involvement of NOM in New Hampshire one month, only to fly out to Chicago one month later to meet with the nation’s wealthiest gay donors!”

The Cornerstone group also filed a right-to-know request with the governor’s office asking for “all correspondence, invitations and travel records between Lynch and his staff related to his meeting in Chicago with Tim Gill.”

Group executive director Kevin Smith said Lynch “has officially sold out to the radical gay lobby” by attending the meeting “presumably to beg for money for his fledgling campaign.” . . .