NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Politics

2016 March for Marriage Set for June 25 in Washington, DC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 8, 2016
Contact: Joseph Grabowski (202) 457-8060 x-110 | [email protected]


March Will Protest Supreme Court Gay ‘Marriage’ Decision and Obama Transgender Decrees; Call on Congress to Enact Legal Protections

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that the 2016 March for Marriage has been scheduled for Saturday, June 25th in Washington, DC. Marchers will walk from the US Capitol building to the US Supreme Court. Tens of thousands of people have attended previous marches in support of traditional marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling redefining marriage will go down as one of the most infamous, illegitimate rulings in the Court’s history, along the lines of their decision in Dred Scott to sanction slavery,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The narrow 5-4 majority ignored precedent and invented a constitutional ‘right’ to gay ‘marriage’ so that these activist judges could impose their own values on the nation. In the process, they stripped over 50 million voters and countless legislators in states across America of their sovereign right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Supporters of marriage are urged to attend the March from all across the country. More information including a route map and schedule is available at www.marriagemarch.org.

Brown noted that it didn’t take long following the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage for LGBT activists and their chief ally President Obama to push the next element of their agenda – transgender bathroom rules. “The LGBT extremists and the Obama administration are attempting to defy human nature itself and declare that gender can be self-directed and chosen based on ‘identity,’” Brown said. “Obama is fighting to ensure that when someone chooses to declare an identity different from reality, such as a man claiming to be a woman, all of society will be expected to bow in compliance and succumb to every demand, including allowing men into private facilities like restrooms and showers reserved for girls and women. It’s outrageous and it must be stopped.”

NOM is also a strong supporter of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to provide legal protections for supporters of marriage, protecting them against governmental discrimination. The proposal (HR 2802/S.1598) has 170 sponsors and co-sponsors in the House and 38 in the Senate, but has not been scheduled for a hearing. Encouraging support for this measure is another goal of the March for Marriage this year.

“It’s time that Congress pass the First Amendment Defense Act so that people of faith do not have to worry about choosing between protecting their livelihood and upholding their beliefs about marriage,” Brown concluded.

# # #

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, please contact:
Joseph Grabowski, [email protected], (202) 457-8060 x-110.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Sen. Ted Cruz Writes: No Obama Nominee To Court Will Be Considered By Senate

In a strong op-ed to the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Ted Cruz has laid out a powerful case why President Obama's expected nominee to the Supreme Court should not be confirmed by the US Senate. Instead, the nomination  of the next Justice should wait until the People have a say through the election of the next president.

In the op-ed, Cruz points out what is at stake with the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice. He predicts that an Obama nominee will subscribe to the president's view that the constitution is a "living document" and should evolve with the times. As such the Second Amendment could be eviscerated in terms of individual gun rights, as would key elements of the First Amendment, and we will have a series of illegitimate decisions that invent "constitutional rights" such as those that redefined marriage and created a right to abortion.

Senator Cruz lays out a compelling historical case against the Senate moving a nominee forward in the final year of a lame-duck president. Cruz noted that you have to go back to 1888 to find a circumstance where the Senate controlled by the party opposite the president confirmed a Supreme Court nominee this late in a presidential term. He notes that then-Senator Obama held a similar view that a justice should not be confirmed under these circumstances, as did Joe Biden when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, as did Harry Reid the current Democratic leader in the Senate and Chuck Schumer the incoming Democratic leader.

NOM has endorsed Senator Cruz for president because he is a champion for marriage and because he, better than any other candidate, knows the importance of making Supreme Court appointees. Not only did Cruz serve as Solicitor General of Texas and personally argue numerous cases before the US Supreme Court, but he was once a clerk to then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and knows the workings of the Supreme Court intimately.

Brian Sandoval Makes Our Point



Dear Marriage Supporter,

In a brazen attempt to get away with making another appointment to the US Supreme Court to complete his attempt to shift the court dangerously to the left, President Obama's administration leaked the fact that he was considering nominating the Republican governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, to fill the vacancy created with Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely death.

After first telling the media that he would be "honored" to be considered for the Court, and then meeting with Harry Reid who promptly promoted his prospective nomination, Sandoval now says he's not interested. Still, his prospective nomination serves as an important lesson why it's so critical that the US Senate refuse to consider seating any nominee from President Obama.

Our work to help elect a Republican Senate over the last several election cycles, especially during the critical 2014 races where the GOP captured control of the Senate is a key factor in why Obama will not succeed in his goal of moving the Court to the left, perhaps for generations to come. Our work to help support pro-marriage candidates who won was possible only because you gave of your time and resources. I'm asking you to make a contribution today of $15, $25, $50, $100, or $500 or more so that we have the resources we need this year to hold the line against president Obama's attempts to secure another appointment to the Supreme Court.

To a Washington liberal like Obama, the nomination of someone like Republican Sandoval seems like a brilliant political calculation. By putting Republican Senators in the position of rejecting a fellow member of their own party, Senators in tough reelection campaigns might subject themselves to charges of rank partisanship and refusing to put the interests of the country ahead of their own political agenda. But such a view is easily refuted. Indeed, it's the interests of the country why someone like Brian Sandoval should not be considered and why the Scalia seat should be filled by the next president, not Barack Obama.

Sandoval would follow a long line of Republicans who, once safely on the Supreme Court with a lifetime appointment and no way of holding them accountable, abandoned principles and decided to take the law into their own hands rather than follow the dictates of the constitution. Anthony Kennedy is an example of this. He's invented "constitutional rights" to redefine marriage and advance the gay agenda. Then there is the disastrous David Souter who upheld Roe v Wade, rejected informed consent for women seeking an abortion, allowed the government to seize private property for developers, and voted with the ACLU and against religious liberty. And don't forget that three of the seven justices in the majority of the utterly illegitimate Roe ruling were Republicans and five of them were appointed by Republican presidents!

Brian Sandoval is an avowed supporter of abortion. He has vigorously embraced Obamacare and is pushing it forward in Nevada. And on marriage, he's been a disaster, the worst example of betrayal possible.

Here's how bad Brian Sandoval is when it comes to fighting for marriage. The Nevada marriage amendment was challenged in Court by gay activists where it was upheld by a federal judge. Then when the victory was appealed, Sandoval dropped his defense of the voters' overwhelming approval of traditional marriage, lamely claiming that an unrelated case meant he would lose. But Sandoval's position wasn't legally justified — it was entirely political. He wanted same-sex marriage to move forward and he threw in the towel to get that result. It was despicable.

NOM is fighting to make sure that the next appointment to the US Supreme Court is not someone like Brian Sandoval, or the liberal Republicans who gave us the Roe ruling which has resulted in 60 million preborn children being killed in the womb. To be successful we have to elect true conservatives to office and then hold them accountable. That is why it is so important that we have the financial resources we need to make a difference.

Please act today with a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or $500 or more so that we can continue to fight to ensure the US Supreme Court is not shifted dangerously to the left by President Obama and that the next president appoints constitutionalists to the Court who will follow Justice Scalia's lead and overrule the illegitimate and anti-constitutional ruling that redefined marriage.

Thank you for your support!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

It's Working


Dear Marriage Supporter,

Big news out of South Carolina: A new poll out today by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal shows that Sen. Ted Cruz has climbed within 5 points of Donald Trump and the race now stands at Trump 28% to Cruz 23%. That's a big change since their last poll which showed Trump had a 16 point lead over Ted Cruz.

Our powerful TV ad in South Carolina is contributing to the tightening of the race. Please, forward this ad to anyone you know in South Carolina and ask them to watch it.

There are only hours left until voters go to the polls in South Carolina and it's really important that every voter realize that Donald Trump dumped the marriage issue as soon as the Supreme Court issued their illegitimate and anti-constitutional ruling on marriage. When he quit on marriage, he quit on us, the 78% of South Carolina voters who voted to define marriage as one man and one woman, and on over 50 million voters across the country who did the same thing.

Support for true marriage is a winning issue. Please help us spread the word. Thank you!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Donate Today

Why Elections Matter


Dear Marriage Supporter,

Each year NOM makes plans to influence elections so that we can capitalize on opportunities and meet challenges in a strategic way to advance the cause of marriage. We did that in 2013 and 2014 in the lead up to the November 2014 midterms. Our assessment was that marriage could play a role in defeating two incumbent Democrat US Senators. At the time we laid our plans, the Democrats held a 55-45 majority.

NOM targeted Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Kay Hagan in North Carolina. Both Senators attempted to portray themselves as moderates, and Pryor even claimed to be a supporter of traditional marriage. But we knew neither could be trusted to defend marriage and both were vulnerable on the issue. Accordingly, working with allies, we mounted independent expenditure campaigns aimed at unseating each of them. This included a statewide television buy, direct mailers and extensive social media activities. Both Pryor and Hagan were defeated. We helped Republican Tom Cotton win in Arkansas and Thom Tillis win in North Carolina. And their election was a material part of the Republicans regaining control of the US Senate. Today the GOP has a 54-46 majority.

I remind you of our 2014 success because its importance is now being felt: as long as the Republicans hold together, Barack Obama is powerless to secure the lifetime appointment of another justice of the US Supreme Court. Anyone he appoints simply cannot be confirmed. Therefore, control of the US Supreme Court will rest with the next president.

If we had not been successful in Arkansas and North Carolina, and if the results in two other states had been different, Obama would have carte blanche today to appoint a radical liberal to the Court to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I am asking you to consider making a contribution to NOM to help us advance the cause of marriage in the 2016 elections. We need to elect a marriage champion as president and maintain control of Congress. Your contribution of $25, $50, $100 or $500 or more will help us be effective advocates for marriage in Congress, in the courts and in the court of public opinion.

Think about the damage a US Supreme Court with a confirmed liberal majority could do! Every issue that is important to conservatives would be at risk of being undermined — restoring marriage, protecting the preborn, controlling our borders, fighting terrorism, guarding against voter fraud, reigning in the IRS and the federal bureaucracy, etc.

Because you were generous in 2014, we had the resources we needed to be effective in helping gain control of the US Senate, and we're reaping that benefit today by preventing President Obama from radically shifting the Supreme Court to the left, damaging conservative policies for generations to come.

I am asking you to be generous again this year because the stakes are so high. It's imperative that NOM secure the resources we need to advance the cause of marriage in the 2016 elections. Your contribution of whatever you can afford — some can only give a few dollars while others can give $1,000 or more — is the key to us being successful. We don't have billionaires supporting us; we rely on people like you in the grassroots.

I don't want to even think about the idea of a president Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, nor do I want to contemplate the difficulty a Republican president would have in moving his agenda forward in the presence of an obstructionist US Senate controlled by the Democrats.

We owe it to the cause of marriage to do everything in our power to ensure that a proven marriage champion is elected president and that a pro-marriage Congress is returned to Washington to help him. We're counting on you to help us make that happen by making a generous contribution today.

Thank you for your support.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

Change the Race



All,

I'll be short. We have until Saturday to change the presidential race. Voters in South Carolina strongly support traditional marriage; Donald Trump does not. It's that simple.

Our powerful new television ad can get this truth out to voters. But we can only do it with your help. Click here to view our TV ad and donate so that we can get it on the air to more voters.

We're running out of time to change the race. We can do it together, but we need your help now!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — We need to raised funds immediately so that the voters of South Carolina know that they were abandoned by Donald Trump on marriage. Please make an emergency contribution today to get this ad aired far and wide. Thank you.


Donate Today

New York Times Notes NOM Endorsement

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

You can read the full story here.

YouTube Names NOM Video Among Best for "Fair Use"

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

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

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

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

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

There Is No Need to Deny Individuals Religious Liberty

As millions of Americans refuse to accept the illegitimate ruling of the US Supreme Court redefining marriage, the issue of how to deal with conscientious objectors has risen to the fore.

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to violate her faith by participating in certifying a same-sex ‘marriage’ is perhaps the best known victim of the Court ruling, but she is only one of many who have been fined, fired, punished or put out of business. Similar punishments are taking place regarding religious groups who are unable to comply with Obamacare regulations because of their faith.

This article from The Federalist, written by our friends at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, may suggest one approach for policymakers to consider when it comes to accommodation. The best solution, of course, if for Congress and the states to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to prohibit government retaliation against supporters of marriage.

From The Federalist:

religious-liberty-can-be-accomodatedThere are hard cases of religious conscience, and then there are easy ones. When the government has lots of ways to govern without trampling religious belief, it should be an easy case. We saw one last week when a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Dordt College and other religious nonprofit organizations trying to follow their faith. These groups can’t participate in a web of government regulations that would provide life-terminating drugs to their employees. So the ministries must choose to violate their faith or violate the law, to the tune of millions in Internal Revenue Service fines.

It’s the same choice faced by the Little Sisters of the Poor. If the Little Sisters don’t comply with this contraceptive mandate, they face millions in IRS fines. This is a group that provides vital care for thousands of elderly poor—exactly the sort of care that should be supported and encouraged by the nation’s health-care laws.

. . .

The sad fact is that the government has a win-win solution at its fingertips. As a federal appeals court said in the Dordt College case last week, the government already operates exchanges where millions of Americans can obtain health coverage. Subsidies are available to those whose employers don’t provide health insurance.

This is how the government provides for those whose employers do not provide the generous health-care benefits many religious ministries already provide. The government could easily open those subsidies to any employees of religious groups who want the coverage not included in their employers’ plan. This would satisfy the government’s concerns, satisfy the ministries’ religious beliefs, and ensure that Americans still receive vital services from groups like the Little Sisters.

For that reason, the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals sided with religious ministries last week. Echoing a unanimous Supreme Court opinion on religious freedom, it said, “[I]f a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals, the Government must use it.”

it-doesnt-have-to-be-that-wayAlthough the solution is easy, it will probably take another Supreme Court intervention to make it happen. Last week’s court decision disagrees with rulings from several other appeals courts, creating the circuit split that Supreme Court-watchers have been predicting. When federal appeals courts disagree on an important issue like this one, Supreme Court review is very likely. That court returns from its summer recess next week, and it will have to decide whether to take up the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, East Texas Baptist University, and other religious ministries.

The Supreme Court has been friendly to religious freedom, with recent rulings in favor of Hobby Lobby on a similar challenge, a unanimous victory for religious prison inmates in Holt v. Hobbs, and several emergency orders protecting religious ministries from fines under the HHS mandate. Let’s hope the Court continues this trend, recognizing that when religious freedom and government regulations conflict, it does not have to be a zero-sum game.

Justice Scalia Stands Firm in His Views of Same-sex 'Marriage' Decision

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has not backed down in the slightest regarding his views of the Obergefell decision. The plainspoken, conservative justice has unabashedly condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to force same-sex 'marriage' to be permitted nationwide. As was recently evidenced in his speech at Rhodes College, Justice Scalia has no intention of rescinding his views that the current Supreme Court lineup is taking the nation’s highest court in “the wrong direction.” LifeSiteNews has the story:

Antonin_Scalia_Official_SCOTUS_PortraitJustice Scalia spoke Tuesday for Constitution Day at Rhodes College, where his grandson is a student, warning that the Supreme Court has become a "threat to democracy."

The 79-year-old Reagan appointee said he worries about the nation's highest court, because it is "headed in the wrong direction."

"Saying that the Constitution requires [homosexual] practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens," Scalia said – "I don't know how you can get more extreme than that."

Scalia described the Obergefell v. Hodges decision as the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants." He rhetorically asked, "Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution?"

Scalia also noted that the make-up of the Supreme Court is "terribly unrepresentative of our country" and pointed out that a law degree does not qualify one to judge transcendent moral issues. "What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?" Scalia asked. "It has nothing to do with the law."

The conservative justice is well-known for his insistence that the judicial branch of government has the task of interpreting the law in light of the Constitution, not creating law from current cultural trends.

On June 26, the Supreme Court judge wrote his own dissent to the Obergefell decision. In what Church Militant calls "his most sharply worded dissent yet," Scalia called the decision an abuse of the judicial branch, which he said was usurping the authority of the legislative branch, and thus the will of the people.

Scalia's dissent described the Supreme Court's overreach in Obergefell as stepping outside the scope of its authority to dictate radical social policy – which properly is the domain of the democratic process. He wrote that the ruling was a "naked judicial claim to legislative – indeed, super-legislative – power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government."

All four dissenting judges – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – felt so strongly that each wrote his own dissent. "Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia wrote. He added that the decision lacks "even a thin veneer of law."

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine," Scalia dissented, "robs the People of ... the freedom to govern themselves."

Pope Francis Supports ‘Conscientious Objection' to Issuing Marriage Licenses for Same-sex Couples

As reported by Religious News Service, Pope Francis supported allowing government officials to excuse themselves from issuing same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses, if it violates their religious beliefs. The Holy Father even said such officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty that contradicts their religious conscience. Religious News Service has the story:

(Image via The Catholic Sun/CNS photo/Stefano Spaziani)

(Image via The Catholic Sun/CNS photo/Stefano Spaziani)

Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience.

. . .

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licences to gays.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said.

Earlier this month a city official in the U.S. state of Kentucky, Kim Davis, went to jail because she refused to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple following a Supreme Court decision to make homosexual marriage legal.

Davis’s case has taken on national significance in the 2016 presidential campaign, with one Republican contender, Mike Huckabee, holding rallies in favour of Davis, a Apostolic Christian, who has since joined the Republican party.

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.

“And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right,” he added.

Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. “Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: ‘This right has merit, this one does not.'”

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

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

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

From The Daily Signal:

Image via CTVNews/AP/Andrew Medichini

Image via CTVNews/AP/Andrew Medichini

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

Image via STLToday/Mark Jelavich

Image via STLToday/Mark Jelavich

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Guest List is an Insult to Pope Francis

While the world watches the events of Pope Francis’s visit to the US unfold, many are expressing outrage and disgust at President Obama’s brazen attempts to surround Pope Francis with controversial—frankly anti-catholic—leaders, to include “a pro-abortion nun, an openly homosexual Episcopal bishop, and gay activist Catholics.” The Vatican is among those who have voiced objections to President Obama’s choice of guests, contending that the guest list selection surrounds the Pope with figures who are openly hostile to Catholic Doctrine.

As we might expect, President Obama seems to be manipulating Pope Francis’s visit in an attempt to further erode the judo-christian values upon which America was founded. By placing Pope Francis in the midst of such controversial figures, President Obama is creating opportunities for the media to misrepresent the Pope and his opinions to the mainstream. LifeSiteNews has the story:

Image via Christian Post/Reuters

Image via Christian Post/Reuters

The Wall Street Journal reports that an unnamed senior Vatican official said the Holy See fears that any photos of Pope Francis at next Wednesday’s White House welcoming ceremony with Obama’s guests that openly flout Church teaching could be taken as support for their actions.

Among the Obama administration invites are dissenting, activist Catholic nun Sister Simone Campbell, openly homosexual retired Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, a transgender woman and a homosexual Catholic blogger.

Sister Campbell is executive director of the social justice group NETWORK and pro-abortion leader of the "Nuns on the Bus" campaign. She is seen as having undermined the U.S. Bishops’ concern over Obamacare’s abortion component when the controversial health care takeover was being debated five-and-a-half years ago.

Her Network organization, widely regarded as having radical feminist leanings, was investigated by the Vatican over the group’s refusal to observe Catholic teaching on abortion, human sexuality and women’s ordination. The investigation concluded earlier this year, resulting in minimal repercussions for the group.

Robinson, who “divorced” his homosexual partner last year, and is a senior fellow for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, has been invited to religious events in the past by Obama, leading a prayer at the president’s 2009 inauguration and taking part in the 2014 National Prayer Breakfast.

Also invited are Mateo Williamson, a biological woman who identifies as a man and a former co-chair of the Transgender Caucus for the pro-homosexual activist group Dignity USA; and Aaron Ledesma, author of the blog “The Gay Catholic.”

The invitation organizer for the White House papal event is Vivian Taylor, executive director of the national LGBT advocacy arm of the Episcopal Church, and a biological male.

The unease caused by the guest list demonstrates Catholic concerns, including that of many bishops, the WSJ report said, that the Obama administration is using Pope Francis’s visit to underplay its differences with the Church on controversial issues such as homosexual “marriage,” abortion and the Obamacare contraception Mandate.

U.S. Vatican Ambassador Ken Hackett, named by Obama to his post in June 2014, said last month that Pope Francis and Obama are not going to waste time discussing any differences they may have. Rather, they will choose to focus on issues where they see eye-to-eye.

According to Hackett these areas are poverty, religious freedom, concern for persecuted Christians and minorities, and peace.

“Then climate, of course,” Hackett said.

“We agree to differ on things like gay marriage,” he said, “but really there are not a lot of other such issues.”

Orthodox Anglican Media Outlet Says ‘Obama out to shame and humiliate Christians, the Pope and the Church'

As part of his historic visit to the United States, during which he will canonize Fr. Junipero Serra and address the World Meeting of Families, Pope Francis will also attend a White House dinner organized by President Obama. As head of state of the Vatican, diplomatic protocol would hold that friends and allies of the Catholic Church and prominent American Catholics be on the guest list. And while some of those types of individuals have been invited, President Obama has gone out of his way to shove the LGBT agenda in Pope Francis’ face. He’s invited the openly gay-Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson who “married” his same-sex partner several years ago.

According to the website Virtue Online, which bills itself as the voice for global orthodox Anglicanism, Robinson, “has almost single-handedly brought the Anglican Communion down to its knees as it teeters on the edge of implosion.” In addition to Robinson, Obama has invited numerous gay, lesbian and transgender activists. One of the activists was reportedly told by the While House to ‘invite several friends.’ From the story:

Image via ABC News/Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

Image via ABC News/Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

Obama's form of in-your-face diplomatic protocol includes trotting out every form of sexual deviant and parading them before Pope Francis. It's enough to embarrass the gentle humble Pontiff.

The Pope was being compassionate with his comment concerning his priests, who are struggling with a homosexual orientation, when he commented, "Who am I to judge?" However, he stands pat on the Catholic Church's firm doctrine and teaching on homosexual practice, pro-life, and traditional marriage issues, as well as an all-male priesthood.

CNS News describes some of the known invitees on the guest list as "several gay and transgender persons, a controversial nun, a radical preacher, and a gay Episcopal bishop."

The gay Episcopal bishop is none other than Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson (IX New Hampshire-retired). As the first openly gay and partnered man to be consecrated a bishop in Christendom, he has almost single-handedly brought the Anglican Communion down to its knees as it teeters on the edge of implosion.

The referenced "several gay and transgender persons" include: Vivian Taylor, a transgendered "woman" who was executive director of Integrity-USA and involved with TransEpiscopal. Obama her/him to Pope Francis' formal Sept. 23 televised White House Arrival Ceremony. S/he was told to bring five friends.

"I was told I could bring several friends with me," Taylor said, noting that s/he was "glad we can bring some LGBT representation to the event."

Taylor is looking forward to meeting the Pope, "I'm very happy to meet my brother in Christ, Pope Francis."

The five representative LGBT friends Taylor invited are Nicole Santamaria, the Secretary of Asociacion Colectivo Alejandria an Hispanic LGBT advocacy group; Marcia Garber a member of Dignity-USA and the mother of a transgendered child; Mateo Williamson, a cross-dressing transgender Catholic and the former co-chairman of Transgender Caucus for Dignity-USA; the Rev. Canon Stephanie Spellers, an LGBT advocate, liberal Episcopal theologian, the director of Mission & Reconciliation at General Theological Seminary and chaplain to the Episcopal House of Bishops (reports are that Canon Spellers will be unable to attend the Pope's soiree because she didn't RSVP in time); and the Rev. Cameron Partridge, a transgendered Episcopal priest who preached at the Washington National Cathedral.

. . .

Obama is very gay-friendly and a champion of gay rights. There is also much speculation as to whether Obama is actually a Bible-believing Evangelical, a progressive Christian, or a closet Muslim. When the recent Supreme Court marriage equality ruling came down, making same-sex marriage the law of the land, he bathed the White House in Gay Pride rainbow colors in celebration of the earth-shattering event. Many God-fearing Christians were horrified at the spectacle. Chances are the President will not light up the White House in papal yellow and white to honor his diplomatic guest from the Vatican City-State.

Latest research shows that fewer than four percent of Americans identify themselves as being LGBT, while more than 70 percent of Americans consider themselves Christians. Of that number, more than 25 percent are Roman Catholics with Episcopalians and Anglicans making up about 1.5 percent of American Christians. The remaining almost 75 percent of the American Christian population is spread between the Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Pentecostals, and other Christian believers -- Amish ... Quakers ... Holiness ... Reformed...

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a former Anglican priest who swam the Tiber and is now a Pastoral Provision Roman Catholic priest in South Carolina, pinioned on his blog Standing on my Head: "There will be thousands at this 'audience' with Pope Francis and it's doubtful that Gene Robinson will be in the line up to meet Pope Francis personally, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him maneuvered into place for a photo with the Pope which will the mainstream media will then publish with the caption, 'Pope Francis and Gay Bishop: Who Am I to Judge?'"

"When the Supreme Court Oversteps Its Bounds, Citizens Are Right to Resist"

NOM’s chairman, John Eastman, expounds on the arguments surrounding the Kim Davis debacle, and how, “when the Supreme Court oversteps its bounds, citizens are right to resist”:

Image via CBSNews/REUTERS/WLEX/LEX18.COM

Image via CBSNews/REUTERS/WLEX/LEX18.COM

The double standard on display is palpable. I don’t recall Keegen or any of the other self-righteous, newfound devotees of the rule of law calling for the resignation of Kentucky’s attorney general when he refused to defend his state’s marriage law — or any of the other state attorneys general who did the same, from California’s Jerry Brown to Pennsylvania’s Kathleen Kane, and several others, including perhaps most notoriously Oregon’s Ellen Rosenblum, who was caught actively colluding with plaintiffs to ensure judicial invalidation of the Oregon marriage law she disliked.

“But Davis was refusing to comply with a decision of the Supreme Court,” it will be argued. So, too, did all those illustrious attorneys general. All of them refused to do their duty and defend their state’s man-woman marriage laws, even though the binding precedent of the Supreme Court at that time, a 1972 case called Baker v. Nelson, was that such laws were constitutionally valid.

Ms. Davis’s position has also been mischaracterized as asserting that because the Supreme Court’s decision is contrary to God’s authority, she cannot be compelled to comply with it and therefore can prevent same-sex couples from getting married in her county. Her position — so described — has been belittled by simpletons across the political spectrum as nothing more than the misguided stance of a crazy evangelical clinging to her Bible. But that is not her legal argument at all (however much merit it might have as a reaction to an illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court). Her actual argument is much more restrained.

Kentucky has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which expressly prevents the government from imposing a substantial burden on someone’s religious beliefs unless the government’s mandate is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Because this lawsuit is pending in federal court, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contains the same protection, is also applicable. Ms. Davis’s lawyers have simply argued that these federal and state laws require that her religious objection to issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses over her own name be accommodated.

. . .

Abraham Lincoln famously said, in his first inaugural address, that although judicial decisions are binding on the specific parties to a case, “the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

In short, Ms. Davis was much more faithful to her oath of office, and to the Constitution she vowed to support, than the federal judge who jailed her for contempt, the attorney general of the state who refused to defend Kentucky’s laws, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who usurped the authority of the states and the more than 50 million voters who had recently reaffirmed the natural definition of marriage, in order to impose his own more “enlightened” views on the nation. One can only hope that Ms. Davis’s simple but determined act of civil disobedience will yet ignite the kind of reaction in the American people that is necessary to oppose such lawlessness, or at the very least bring forth a national leader who will take up the argument against judicial supremacy in truly Lincolnian fashion.

Visit National Review for the full article.