NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Politics

Did This Councilman Really Just Tell Millions of New Yorkers They're Unwelcome There? Yes. Yes He Did.

We've shared with you before this insightful article by Ryan Anderson at Heritage about the recent resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla. In it, Ryan remarked:

The debate over the meaning and purpose of marriage will continue. We should conduct it in a civil manner. Bullies may win for a while, but theirs is a scorched-earth policy. They poison democratic discourse and fray the bonds on which democracy itself ultimately depends.

Even those who disagree with each other about morally charged issues of public policy need to be able to live together.

Councilman Daniel DrommBut lest we think that Eich's ouster is an outlier, a rare case, consider this more recent news out of New York City. Via the Huffington Post, a gay city councilman is quoted as protesting the entrance of an unwanted new presence into his city. From his remarks here, who might you guess he's talking about?

"We don’t need bigots coming to New York City," Councilman Daniel Dromm, who is openly gay, told HuffPost. "They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York's diverse community, including the LGBT community."

What radical group could provoke such a fiery response and merit being slurred as "bigots", you ask? Well, unbelievable as it may seem... Chick-fil-A. And yet the company hardly seems like it should be so unwelcome to a sane observer.

Of course, the reason for Dromm's intolerance of the company is that its CEO personally values biblical beliefs about marriage as solely being the union of one man and one woman.

Chick-fil-A, NYC

But what's most horrifying in Dromm's remarks is his final say on the matter. You would think that maybe his first statement of unwelcomeness was a knee-jerk and misinformed reaction. What if he were told that Chick-fil-A's CEO has repeatedly said that he has no intention of bringing the company into the political debate surrounding the issue of marriage?

From HuffPost [emphasis added]:

... Dromm, the city councilman, said there was no place for Chick-fil-A in New York, even if it remains out of the political fray.

“We don’t need bigoted people even keeping their opinions to themselves,” he said. “They need to wake up and see reality.”

Not only is the sleight of "bigot," directed toward those who hold marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, completely unfair, mean-spirited, and wide of the mark. More than that: here we have the most compelling proof one could want of Ryan Anderson's assertion that the gay rights community is engaged in a "scorched earth" policy of bigotry and intolerance.

It is a "thought policy" regime in the making, and if anyone thinks a lesson was learned with the Mozilla controversy, he or she needs only consider this later story to realize that Eich's treatment was only a template for the radical homosexual lobby's plans for the future. For now, it's chilling enough to know that an elected city councilman in New York has just told millions of his fellow residents that they are unwelcome there simply on account of their pro-marriage values.

Alabama Legislators Call for U.S. Constitution to Be Amended to Define and Protect Marriage

The Montgomery Advertiser reported recently that a resolution sponsored by Alabama State Representative Richard Laird passed the Alabama House, calling for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution of the United States:

Alabama FlagThe resolution, sponsored by Rep. Richard Laird, I-Roanoke, quotes a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex unions, and calls marriage “a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman.” The resolution also cites several court cases, including five from the 19th century. It goes on to say that the U.S. Supreme Court “officially severed its respect for marriage” last year, when it struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the recognition of same-sex spouses under federal laws.

Laird’s resolution calls for an Article V convention, which would require 34 states to ask Congress to call a convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to the resolution, the convention would specifically propose an amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and bar legal recognition of any other form of marriage.

Read more here.

Gay British Critics on Redefining Marriage: "A Disastrous Miscalculation"

The Christian Institute reports:

London, UKSame-sex marriage"fundamentally changes" the definition of the institution and only a few homosexual "protesters" even wanted the change, two gay commentators have said.

Art critic Brian Sewell and newspaper columnist Andrew Pierce made their comments as the first same-sex weddings in the UK took place on Saturday.

The article continues:

[Sewell] commented that British society is “rooted” in Christianity, and that most homosexuals "are happy to respect the deeply held belief of sincere, thoughtful and informed Christians" who support marriage between one man and one woman.

[...]

Pierce said... the introduction of same-sex marriage was "politically, a disastrous miscalculation".

He commented that politicians "offended millions of people by arrogantly redefining the meaning of the relationship between a man and a woman that has been the bedrock of society for thousands of years.

"They also placed the Church in an invidious position by suggesting it had a moral duty to perform gay marriage ceremonies when vast numbers of clergy and ordinary church-goers are opposed to them."

Read the full article.

Is President Obama Using the Crisis in Crimea to Punish Russian Christians?

A recent LifeSiteNews article by Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D. should have Christians the world over very worried about the actions of President Obama and his Administration.  In America we have seen his very active efforts to impose genderless marriage on all the states and the Department of Justice’s actions against our First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.  However, now Mr. Obama has taken his attack on the Christian view of marriage across the globe.

ObamaAs part of the sanctions the Obama Administration has imposed on Russia for their adventurism in Crimea, the White House published a list of Russian officials impacted by the sanctions.  However, there is one name on the list that has many people scratching their heads - Yelena Mizulina, chair of the Russian Duma’s Committee on Family, Women and Children’s Affairs, and a staunch defender of the Christian view of marriage.

The official White House press release, titled “Fact Sheet: Ukraine-Related Sanctions,” states that the sanctions are a “response to the Russian government’s actions contributing to the crisis in Ukraine.”  Yet in the description of the alleged crimes of the sanctioned Russian individuals, Ms. Mizulina is simply described as being sanctioned  “for her status as a State Duma Deputy."

"President Obama is using the economic sanctions against Yelena Mizulina to send a very clear message to Russian Christians," Fr. Maxim Obukhov, the father of the Russian pro-life movement, told LifeSiteNews. "There is much talk about a cold war, but President Obama has openly declared war upon Christians who oppose the culture of death both at home and abroad."

GOP Chair Priebus: "There should be no confusion about where we stand."

In a small impromptu presser at CPAC this past weekend, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus reiterated the Republican Party's official commitment to the value of marriage.

Via LifeSiteNews.com:

Priebus also said that the GOP is “a party that believes marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. That's our party platform, and it's a position I've never backed away from. What I have said, though, is that we need to treat each other with grace, dignity, and respect. And that's not code language. It comes out of the New Testament. And so there should be no confusion about where we stand, and so that's where we are.”

This isn't the first time Chairman Priebus has unabashedly reaffirmed this commitment. We know that that isn't always easy to do, and so NOM wants Mr. Priebus to know that his steadfast advocacy for marriage is appreciated. Please, if you haven't already done so, click here to send a note of thanks and support to Chairman Priebus for continuing to lead the Republican party in its pro-marriage commitment.

Priebus Quote

Washington Attorney Cleta Mitchell: "Who's Going to Jail Over the IRS Scandal?"

You're correct Mr. President; there's not a 'smidgeon' of corruption in the IRS abuse case - there's a mountain of it

You may have heard or read of President Obama's interview with Bill O'Reilly this past week where the President claimed that there wasn't a "smidgeon of corruption" in the IRS abuse scandal. Well yesterday at a House hearing on the IRS targeting scandal, Cleta Mitchell put the lie to that claim when she rattled off a litany of felony crimes committed by the IRS, including the felonious release of NOM's confidential tax filings.

"The lying has not stopped. There are lies upon lies in this ugly episode. The Commissioner of the IRS lied to Congress in March 2012 when he said there was absolutely no targeting," Mitchell declared, making sure to note that, "lying to Congress is a crime."

Watch her explosive testimony.

"We've had multiple hearings on it!"

Before the Super Bowl yesterday, President Obama sat down to an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. The interview covered a wide range of topics, moving through each rather speedily, but at the end when O'Reilly honed in on the alleged political corruption at the IRS, the President's response was remarkable [emphases added]:

Obama O'Reilly IRSThe president... refused to acknowledge that the IRS illegally targeted tea party groups in the run-up to the 2012 election. "Absolutely wrong," he said when O'Reilly broached the subject. "These kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part, because you and your TV station will promote them… We've had multiple hearings on it!"

"So you're saying there was no corruption there at all?" O'Reilly asked.

"Absolutely not," the president replied. "There were some bone-headed decisions out of a local office."

"But no mass corruption?" O'Reilly persisted.

"Not even mass corruption," a visibly-annoyed Obama replied. "Not even a smidgen of corruption."

The President's touting of "multiple hearings" that have been held on the subject is simply a tactic of evasion. What those hearings have concluded is, at best, debatable. And to say that the issue keeps surfacing because of Fox News keeps bringing it up is an even more brazen attempt to evade the real issue: it was brought up at least two times just last week by two members of Congress.  

The first was Senator Ted Cruz, who asked about the matter to Attorney General Eric Holder during a Senate hearing on the DOJ:

"In the 280 days since that inspector general report, nobody has been indicted," Cruz said. "Not a single person. In the 280 days since that inspector general report, it’s been publicly reported that no indictments are planned. Today in this hearing, you were unwilling to answer a question whether even a single victim of targeting has been interviewed."

And Holder's replies, stating that, "This is a matter that is presently being investigated, interviews are being done, analysis is being conducted," indicates that the President's determination that there was "not even a smidgen of corruption" are, if nothing else, at least premature!


The second instance was a floor speech by Senator Mitch McConnell, parts of which the Senator included in an op-ed piece for Brietbart published the same day. Referring to proposed new rules regulating the activity of 501(c)4 organizations - rules which many critics fear will stifle free speech and political participation - McConnell had this to say:

McConnell floor speechFor some, it may be hard to imagine that the Obama administration would even think of touching an issue this radioactive after last year’s scandal stunned the nation. They underestimate the extent to which this administration and its allies are willing to go to shut down — and shut up — their ideological opponents.

They also underestimate the extent to which these folks are willing to go to hold onto power, and they forget how speech is usually stifled. As Madison knew, most encroachments on free speech and other constitutionally-protected freedoms are backdoor efforts like this one.

Suffice to say, therefore, that not everyone is convinced that the President's finding of "not even a smidgen of corruption" at the IRS is going to hold up very much longer. We're grateful to these brave members of Congress and others who continue working to get to the bottom of these matters and to hold accountable those and the IRS and elsewhere who abused power for political purposes.

Planning to Watch the State of the Union Tonight? Watch with NOM!

If you're planning on watching the State of the Union address tonight, you should know that we at NOM will be keeping a close eye on what the President has to say, and we'll be on Twitter (@NOMupdate) to cover any mentions of the President's radical agenda relating to marriage. If you're like us, and are sick and tired of the President stumping for a small but noisy (and well-funded) lobby of activists, then you might want to keep an eye on @NOMupdate on Twitter tonight.

twitter.com/NOMUpdateWhat does a mention in the State of the Union really mean? POLITICO's Jennifer Epstein explains:

[M]any D.C. insiders aren’t listening for soaring narratives. They’re just hoping for Obama to make even the briefest mention of their pet project.

A State of the Union plug is the ultimate currency for government agencies, congressional allies and advocacy groups eager for an edge. Even a few words about an issue in the president’s biggest speech of the year can mean the difference between funding a new program and budget cutbacks, or between getting a bill through Congress and watching it die on the vine [emphasis added].

So it is worth paying attention to whether certain lobby's wishes will be met with a nod as a select pet project of the Commander-in-Chief:

Gay rights groups would like to hear Obama announce that he will sign an executive order protecting LGBT people who work for federal contractors or, at the very least, signal that he will more aggressively push Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

(If you're unfamiliar with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and why it is bad law, we have written on the subject before.)

It is worth keeping an eye out, then, for how the State of the Union will highlight President Obama's radical agenda to redefine marriage and try to put a little wind into the sails of those who share his progressive vision for a genderless  distortion of the meaning of the family.

But you should also keep an eye on the #SOTU hashtag and on the @NOMupdate Twitter feed for our live commentary!

Former U.S. Attorney: Herring's Announcement "Impeachment Material"

Citing VA Attorney General Mark Herring's recent abandonment of his oath of office and reversal of a campaign promise to uphold Virginia's laws, a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia caleld Herring's recent reversal "impeachment material" in a radio interview yesterday.

VA Attorney General HerringFrom The Blaze [emphasis added]:

Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said Herring’s announcement highlights a politicized selective enforcement of the law taking place at the federal level....

[...]

“What he has done, he has lied...,” diGenova said. “This is a big legal issue. This isn’t some piece of legislation. This is a constitutional amendment to the Virginia commonwealth constitution. He has now said that the will of the people, which he said he would make every good faith effort to defend, he is now going to ignore. This is impeachment material. It is also recall material.

Read the rest of the article and listen to the radio interview here.

Of course, we here at NOM also find Herring's actions a complete disgrace to his office, and yesterday issued our own call for him to be impeached.

Virginia's Catholic Bishops Say Herring Should "Do the Job He Was Elected to Perform"

In a joint statement issued by the two Catholic dioceses of Virginia, the Bishops of Arlington and Richmond "expressed extreme disappointment" with Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring's decision to abandon the defense of Virginia's marriage law in court and instead join the radical attack against it.

The statement read:

VAbishopsVirginia voters put this provision in the Constitution, and no politician should be able to reverse the people's decision. We call on the Attorney General to do the job he was elected to perform, which is to defend the state laws he agrees with, as well as those state laws with which he personally disagrees. We will continue to defend marriage between a man and a woman, an institution whose original design predates all governments and religions. The Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia should preserve and defend this original design because the constituent majority that supported the constitutional amendment understands the unique benefit that marriage between a man and a woman provides to individual families and society at large.

Click here to view the release from the Diocese of Arlington or to see media contact information.

LaSavlia: "I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been."

Early last week, one of the founders of GOProud, Jimmy LaSalvia, made headlines with his announcement that he is leaving the GOP due (among other things) to its "tolerance of bigotry."

A few things are striking in LaSalvia's remarks (posted to his blog), however, and deserve to be looked at more closely.

The two main reasons claimed by LaSalvia for his departure from the GOP are summarized in this quotation [emphasis added]:

I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been, but I just can’t bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer. You see, I just don’t agree with the big-government ‘conservatives’ who run the party now.

The other reason I am leaving is the tolerance of bigotry in the GOP.

Jimmy LaSalviaFirst, it should be noted that LaSalvia doesn't cite examples or give any evidence of this supposed "tolerance of bigotry," but in context and on background it can easily be inferred that he is speaking about those who oppose the radical redefinition of marriage.

LaSalvia here is simply parroting the dishonest and ugly smears of the radical same-sex 'marriage' movement, of which he has long been a member, saying that those who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and who put children's best interest at the center and pivot of the question, are bigots and haters - a claim which is as false as it is offensive.


But perhaps more surprising for its sheer nonsensicalness and illogicality is LaSalvia's claims that he is "every bit as conservative" as always and that he opposes big government.

First, regarding his claim of opposing big government: this is simply untenable. As NOM's good friend Ryan T. Anderson has saliently observed:

Same-sex marriage rejects the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father.

Once marriage is removed from this basis in biology, its arbitrary and shapeless new form will be bound to lead precisely to growth in government! Anderson again [emphasis added]:

[I]f marriage has no form and serves no essential purpose, how would society protect the needs of children — the prime victims of our nonmarital sexual culture — without government growing more intrusive and more expensive?

FamilyAnderson here is following logical reasoning to point to a likely and probably socio-economic result of experimenting with the norms of marriage.

But we can offer a further and even more emphatic counterpoint to LaSalvia's groundless claim to the title "conservative" simply by looking at the brief history of marriage redefinition.

The same-sex 'marriage' movement has already, in plain fact, utilized the mechanisms of intrusive "big government" in the furtherance of its agenda: from judicial activism to invasive laws that target speech and thought on the basis of ideology; from state-sponsored indoctrination programs masquerading as "curricula" to politically-motivated choices with respect to the appointment of federal judges and ambassadors and others. We needn't even mention the recent appalling interference by the federal Department of Justice in the sovereign affairs of the State of Utah!


Finally, there is a very simple - but nonetheless quite meaningful and profound - argument against LaSalvia's self-asserted credibility as a "conservative." Redefining marriage is an inherently radical proposition. It creates for government a fictive power utterly unimagined by our Founders, one which would have been completely unseemly to them: the power to redefine the laws of Nature itself. The Founders would never have ventured to be so bold - and a good thing, too, or else in place of the great nation they built they'd have constructed instead a doomed modern Tower of Babel.

LaSalvia says he is "every bit as conservative as he's always been," and we must give benefit of the doubt to the strict meaning of those words. But all that suggests is that LaSalvia was never much of a conservative to begin with, because he certainly isn't embracing conservative positions now.

US Catholic Bishop's Marriage Committee Chairman Condemns Politicians for "Manipulating" Pope's Words

From Catholic World Report:

Pope FrancisIn response to the Illinois legislature’s approval of a measure legalizing same-sex marriage in that state, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the US bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, called the move “a serious injustice.”

He also criticized those who used the words of Pope Francis in defending their support for the redefinition of marriage. Pointing to the Holy Father’s opposition to same-sex marriage legislation in his home country of Argentina as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cordileone said, “It is therefore disgraceful that some legislators would manipulate the words of Pope Francis to suggest that he would support marriage redefinition.”

Read the rest here.

Or read the full statement from Abp. Cordileone on the USCCB's website.

Gay Marriage is a Vote Loser

In England, a recent report showed that nearly two-thirds of MP's believe that supporting gay 'marriage' is a 'vote loser.' And reports from local Conservative associations show a rapid decline in membership, with gay marriage seen as one of the reasons. Now even the Prime Minister, David Cameron, is saying that he regrets "forcing" marriage redefinition through the Parliament.

Thumbs DownThe same can be said in America.  Despite the droning drumbeat of the mainstream media, nearly two-thirds – 65 percent – of Americans disapprove of redefining marriage.

During the November 2012 elections, true marriage out-polled the Romney campaign in all four states marriage was on the ballot – by double digit margins!

It seems English politicians have already learned what the GOP in America – and all its candidates – need to grasp.  Defending marriage as one man and one woman is a winning issue at the polls.

House Oversight to Investigate "Apparently Politically Driven Leak"

At NRO's The Corner, Eliana Johnson reports that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, headed by Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), will be investigating the politically-motivated targeting of conservative groups by the I.R.S., and particularly the leak of NOM's confidential tax documents to Human Rights Campaign:

Issa and subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan notified Treasury Department inspector general Russell George and Internal Revenue Service acting administrator Danny Werfel in letters dated September 26 that the National Organization for Marriage, the conservative group founded in opposition to the legalization of gay marriage, and a handful of tea-party groups have signed waivers allowing senior stafff on the committee to access their tax return information. “With the authority granted by these waivers,” they write, “we request that you produce all documents and communications referring or relating” to the applications and their review within the agency.

Johnson quotes a statement from Representative Issa that explains the scope of the investigation. According to Issa, "This information will give us a better sense of why these groups faced delays, what questions they were asked, and what sort of communications were occurring within the IRS in regards to the inappropriate delays and the apparently politically driven leak."

We look forward to the Committee's findings.

Minneapolis Mayor Tries to Force Same-Sex Marriage on Neighboring States

Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak is launching an ad campaign encouraging Wisconsin same-sex couples to come to his town to 'marry'. The campaign, which will start running in Milwaukee and Madison area publications, is already being called a shameless attempt at self-promotion, with the mayor simply using marriage to raise his own profile.

Keep in mind, Wisconsin voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2006 that protects marriage as husband and wife in their state. And as Wisconsin Family Action President Julaine Appling reiterates, "Our law would not recognize any validity to those (same-sex) marriages performed in any other state."

R.T. RybakWith Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele standing by his side at the Milwaukee LGBT Center, [Mayor R.T.] Rybak showed off a poster that said, "Hey Milwaukee! I want to Marry You in Minneapolis."

Rybak has already taken his ad campaign to Chicago and plans a visit to Colorado.

He gibed [Wisconsin] Gov. Scott Walker for not seeing the economic benefits of allowing same-sex marriage. Rybak pointed out that wedding ceremonies benefit local hotels, caterers, florists and bakers.

...Tom Evenson, a spokesman for Walker, said in an email, "This issue (same-sex marriage) was decided by Wisconsin voters through a constitutional amendment in 2006, long before Governor Walker took office."

In 2006, Walker, then the Milwaukee County executive, supported the amendment that banned same-sex marriage, according to news accounts. -TwinCities.com

Interesting to hear Mayor Rybak's remarks about caterers, florists, and bakers. Maybe he missed these stories:

Oregon Bakers Who Declined Same-Sex Ceremony Forced to Shut Down

Washington State AG Sues Florist For Refusing to Provide Flowers to S-S Ceremony

Christian Wedding Vendor in Maryland Forced to Shut Down Over SSM

Vermont Innkeepers Pay $30,000 for Refusing Lesbian Couple

Wedding Photographer May Be Required to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies