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.