NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Politics

Gov. Chris Christie is Targeting Christians

Gov. Chris Christie, falling fast in the presidential polls, is attempting to remake himself into the “law and order” candidate, and he’s targeting Christians who do not wish to personally participate in gay "marriage" ceremonies.

Image via ABC News/(Mel Evans/AP Photo)

Image via ABC News/(Mel Evans/AP Photo)

Across the country people have been sued, fined, had their businesses closed and been informed the state could seize all their personal assets because they do not wish to participate in something that goes against God’s design – marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Yet Christie calls this “discrimination” and says that they “need to follow the law.” What specific law is Christie referencing? Does he mean the federal law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) that provides that government has a duty to provide reasonable accommodation to people with sincere religious beliefs? Or perhaps he’s referring to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which provides accommodation for “conscientious objectors”? Most likely he’s referring to the illegitimate ruling of the Supreme Court in redefining marriage, but that ruling said nothing about forcing everyone to participate in it. LifeSiteNews reports:

[R]egarding the religious freedom of Christian-owned businesses, he [Christie] said, "I'm someone in this country who believes in law and order. I'm a former prosecutor. ... We need to enforce the law in this country in every respect – not just the laws we like, but all the laws."

During the "Presidential Soapbox" at the Iowa State Fair last week, Christie said much the same thing. "We have a system of laws in this country, and those laws need to be followed," he said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision constitutionalizing same-sex "marriage."

"Businesses ... should have to be able to do business under the laws of our country," Christie expounded. "When I take an oath of office as governor, my oath of office is to enforce the laws of the state of New Jersey. Not the laws I like or the laws that I agree with, but all the laws."

Christie characterized Christians who seek to live their faith in the business world as discriminatory. "Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate, no."

In the past, Christie has also said that Christian clerks must violate their faith and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He also signed a bill making it illegal for counselors and therapists to help gender-confused minors come out of the gay lifestyle.

Sadly, Gov. Christie has a history of abandoning marriage rather than challenging illegitimate judicial rulings. He dropped a defense of his state’s traditional marriage law because he thought he would lose the fight. In the presidential contest, Christie has so far failed to sign NOM’s Presidential Marriage Pledge.

Declining Marriage Rates Hurt the Poor Hardest

As the marriage success gap widens in America, social analysts from both the right and the left debate what could be the cause. Why is it that the wealthy and educated have successful marriages while the poor and working classess by and large do not? The Right argues that the rise of abortificant ability and laws protecting a mother's choice over childbearing have marked the decline, while those on the Left generally argue that the lowered standard of living among the poor has hurt marriage.

Rachel Sheffield, writing for Public Discourse, examines the theories of leftist Andrew Cherlin, and points out why the loss of American manufacturing jobs is not the ultimate cause of marriage's decline:

ThinkstockPhotos-146006568[R]esearchers have directly examined the thesis that reduced manufacturing employment reduces marriage rates. Sociologists at New York University recently studied how increased importing from China in the 2000s affected marriage in communities that produced competing products. The new competition had negative economic effects—but this did not impact marriage rates. This research is preliminary but casts serious doubt on the primacy of economic factors in the decline in marriage rates. If centuries of subsistence-level poverty did not destroy the two-parent family, it is hard to see why a late twentieth century slowdown in the rate of compensation growth would.

On the other hand, Cherlin is correct that working class men are indeed less likely to be employed today than in the past. Part of the reason appears to be directly connected to the decline in marriage rates—but as an effect, not a cause. In other words, because marriage rates are down, men are less likely to engage in the labor force.

In a 2014 report published by the American Enterprise Institute, researchers Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia and Robert Lerman of American University report that over half (51 percent) of the decrease in male employment between 1980 and 2008 (and 37 percent of the decline between 1980 and 2013) is connected to the decline in marriage. The authors note:

When young men and women replace formal commitment with informal relationships or none at all, work becomes less urgent, especially for men, who have historically taken all kinds of jobs to support their families. With no wife or children to support, men become less focused on the job market.

Wilcox and Lerman’s research shows that the greatest decline in male employment since 1979 has been among unmarried men. This trend holds true across all levels of education. The authors also point out that median family income would be 44 percent higher today if the United States had the same rate of married-parent families as in 1979.

The true cause of marriage's decline lies in the spread of "casual sex." Sheffield explains:

The spread of birth control and the legalization of abortion attempted to disconnect sex from childbearing. It ended up disconnecting childbearing from marriage, weakening men’s responsibility as fathers. As Brookings Institution scholars George Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen put it, “By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.”

Marriage binds a man and a woman together for life so that they can make children to love and raise. Without the openness to children, marriage loses its meaning and, as we have seen, falls by the wayside.

The War on Marriage Is Against Everyone

As seen with the many cases of punishment of people in the wedding industry, including forcing them out of business with charges of "discrimination," governments often have no regard for the freedom of speech or the freedom to hold beliefs contrary to public approval. Courts frequently fail to draw the distinction between legitimate refusal to not participate in something like same-sex ‘marriage’ because doing so violates deeply-held and constitutionally protect religious views, and a blanket refusal of service to gays and lesbians as a class. Dennis Saffran, of the American Thinker, explains:

ThinkstockPhotos-147252592"These cases do not involve the sale of commercial goods at a place of business but rather the dragooned rendering of personal creative services for, and frequently attendance at, sacramental ceremonies that offend the providers’ consciences. The small business and crafts people in the dock in these cases have not refused to seat gay people at lunch counters, or to welcome them into their shops and sell them film, floral bouquets, or pastries. In fact, all have said they would be happy to sell off-the-shelf products for same-sex weddings, and several had longstanding business relationships with the gay customers who sued them. But they don’t want to be compelled to use their creative talents to “celebrate something that offends [their] beliefs.”

The courts have said that this doesn’t matter; that refusal to service the same-sex wedding of someone you otherwise happily do business with is still discrimination based on sexual orientation because, in the words of the Colorado court in the recent case, “the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to… sexual orientation” in that it is “engaged in exclusively or predominantly by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.” But by that logic aren’t a black carpenter who refuses to make the cross for a Klan rally, and a black photographer who refuses to come take pictures of the festivities, guilty of racial discrimination? If they have no problem selling cabinets and cameras to whites generally, they are in the exact same position as those now having their livelihoods destroyed. Any attempted distinction boils down to an emotional response of “gays good; Klansmen bad,” and as fervently as one may agree with this visceral reaction it cannot be the basis for formulating a neutral legal principle.

. . .

While conservatives have often argued these cases mainly in terms of religious freedom, the threat to artistic freedom is perhaps even more serious. If the state can commandeer wedding photographers, who provide their clients with commemorative books, to celebrate gay marriage (as one Facebook commentator noted, “think about the implications of forcing someone to produce a book”), how big a slide is it to conscripting writers into the cause as well? If that seems dubious, consider that the lawyers bringing these cases argue that photographers, bakers, and florists forego their religious and artistic freedoms because they publicly offer their services in the commercial market. But so do most freelance writers (as Professor Eugene Volokh, a same-sex marriage supporter, has noted). And most lawyers. And for that matter most clergymen when they perform weddings, for which they typically charge a small fee to supplement their salaries. Consider also that much of this litigation seems to be driven not by gay couples who just happen to wander into the shops of evangelical bakers or florists, but by activists trolling to find and destroy them. It’s not far-fetched to imagine these activists looking to see which conservative Christian writers also advertise for commercial freelance work to make ends meet, and then swooping down like hawks. Before they do, though, and before they pursue more cases against bakers, they should consider that they’re setting a chilling and horrible precedent, and one that could just as easily be used to bludgeon liberals and gays."

The true discrimination here comes from same-sex marriage activists. Exposing the hypocrisy is the only way to end it.

Not Just Same-sex Marriage: Other Unions Will Be Imposed Upon the American People

Now that the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been arrogantly dismissed by the Supreme Court, other groups are looking to have their unions included in the “marriage” category. One such example is polygamists, led by the reality stars from the series ‘Sister Wives.’ The Blaze reports that these ‘Sister Wives’ stars are invoking same-sex marriage legalization in an attempt to overturn Utah’s polygamy ban.

ThinkstockPhotos-147042664Kody Brown and his wives, Robyn, Christine, Janelle and Meri — the stars of “Sister Wives” — are asking judges to reject an appeal by Utah of a judge’s 2013 decision to strike a portion of the state’s ban on polyamorous relationships, KSTU-TV reported.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that the law’s ban on cohabitation among individuals who are not married runs in contrast to the First and 14th Amendments, and essentially violates Brown’s religious freedom.

. . .

“From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions,” Jonathan Turley, an attorney for Brown, wrote to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court in Denver. ”This case is about criminalization of consensual relations and there are 21st century cases rather than 19th century cases that control.”

. . .

Brown has maintained that the legal battle is not about forcing acceptance of bigamy or challenging the rights of states to preclude individuals from holding multiple marriage licenses, but that it is, instead, about battling back against criminalization.

The state, though, maintains that polyamorous relationships are harmful to women and children.

“By only striking the cohabitation provision, the District Court left Utah with the same law maintained by most states in the Union prohibiting bigamy,” Turley wrote. “What was lost to the state is precisely what is denied to all states: the right to impose criminal morality codes on citizens, compelling them to live their lives in accordance with the religious or social values of the majority of citizens.”

When marriage is no longer protected as the union between one man and one woman, society opens itself up to harmful unions that not only further damage the institution, but also work to destroy the family. Given that the family is the building block of society, our government should be looking to protect marriage and the family — not redefine and destroy it.

Kentucky Clerk Continues to Fight for Her Right to Refuse to Issue Marriage Licenses

Kim Davis, a Rowan County Clerk, has been granted a temporary stay on account of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Until the case is resolved, Davis is not compelled by law to wed same-sex couples. If she loses her case against the state though, Davis could face fines and possibly jail for contempt of court. Kate Scanlon of The Daily Signal, explains Davis’ objection:

ThinkstockPhotos-451417063In an interview with The Daily Signal, Davis’ lawyer, Roger Gannam, senior litigation counsel at Liberty Counsel, an organization that provides free legal assistance in religious liberty cases, said that Bunning’s temporary stay is a “minor reprieve” for his client.

Gannam said that Rowan County’s marriage licenses are issued “under her name and her authority, so that is her religious objection.”

Gannam argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling requires only that states treat same-sex marriage as they do traditional marriage. Under Kentucky law, marriage licenses issued in any county are valid statewide. Therefore, there are over a hundred offices where the plaintiffs could obtain a marriage license.

“It’s certainly not the case that the plaintiffs are unable to get married.”

Gannam said that Davis’s religious beliefs should be accommodated.

. . .

Roger Severino, the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, said, “When North Carolina faced a similar problem with its clerks, it passed a law allowing civil servants with religious objections to recuse themselves from all marriage licensing functions while at the same time ensuring that every qualified couple would still receive a timely marriage license.”

“It was a win-win and shows that the conscience rights of civil servants can and should be respected even after the Supreme Court’s sweeping redefinition of marriage,” Severino said.

As the States move forward from the Obergefell decision, judges and legislators need to treat everyone with equality. We must uphold the First Amendment and allow those issuing marriage license to recuse themselves when they feel they could personally breach their deeply held religious beliefs.

For original article, please visit The Daily Signal.

Judges Can't Follow Their Conscience?

Can judges act in accordance with their consciences and still hold public office? Are judges who oppose same-sex marriage fit to serve their country? Roger Severino, reporting for The Daily Signal, records the Ohio Court Board’s decision, a resounding “No”:

ThinkstockPhotos-470954011According to the [Ohio] Board, a judge who performs civil marriage ceremonies cannot decline to perform them for same-sex couples no matter what the judge’s religious beliefs or moral convictions on the matter.

Had the Board stopped there, the Ohio courts could have come up with a system, like in North Carolina, that ensures that every qualified couple receives a timely license and solemnization ceremony while also protecting the conscience rights of objecting clerks and magistrates by allowing them to recuse themselves from all marriage licensing.
There would be no losers under such a system.

But instead, the Board slandered judges who seek to opt out of marriage ceremonies by saying they would create the appearance of “bias or prejudice” against gays or lesbians and should be disqualified from hearing any cases touching upon sexual orientation. But it simply does not follow that a refusal to accept marriage as a genderless institution indicates a bias or prejudice against gays and lesbians.

Nevertheless, the Board warned that a judge who “publicly states or implies a personal objection to performing same-sex marriages” and seeks recusal from performing all marriages violates the state mandate against judicial “impropriety.” In other words, the commonsense compromise adopted by North Carolina is unethical.

The Ohio Court Board’s opinion represents a gross discrimination against people of faith. Excluding such people from the Justice Department is both imprudent and divisive. Severino explains:

That religious freedom is a fundamental right does not mean that the interests of believers always win. States now have a judicially imposed obligation to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and judges and clerks that cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies have a responsibility to their employer to make their objections known and seek guidance before it becomes an issue. That the case precipitating the Board’s action involved a same-sex couple actually being denied marriage solemnization perhaps explains, but does not justify, the Board’s extreme response.

As Professor Robin F. Wilson of the University of Illinois Law School notes in her scholarship, citizens entitled to state services “do not necessarily have a claim to receive the service from a particular public servant.” Accordingly, the Board should have stepped back and allowed recusal from all marriage solemnizations as a religious accommodation that everyone can live with. Instead, it effectively cast doubt on the fitness of people of faith to be judges in a sweeping opinion.

The Board’s action fits a growing pattern of myopic exclusion of people of faith from positions of public trust that creates bad precedent and bad blood and makes for bad policy. We can do better.

See The Daily Signal for more.

How to Argue in Defense of Marriage

What will proponents of the proper definition of marriage in the United States do now? How will we defend our religious freedoms? How can we convince legislators and our neighbors to accept marriage as the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the protection of children? Taking holistic approach toward the issue of marriage, Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty, answers all of these questions.

ThinkstockPhotos-483371054The Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision was hasty, unpolished, and has ultimately made it possible for many more illicit attacks on marriage to filter their way through the legal system. Anderson’s book addresses these issues and offers solutions for preserving religious liberty, while seeking to overturn the Court’s decision. He offers three key points of immediate action:

1. We must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell what it is: judicial activism.
2. We must protect our freedom to speak and live according to the truth about marriage.
3. We must redouble our efforts to make the case for it in the public square.

In addition, his book takes an in-depth look at the history of marriage itself and affirms its biological truths. Taylor Brown of Juicy Ecumenism, aptly qualifies Anderson’s book:

Truth Overruled is a must-read.  It is a must-read for Christians who want to cogently, winsomely, and respectfully defend both traditional marriage and religious liberty. It is a must-read for non-Christian, religious Americans who also seek reasoned and well-informed defenses of marriage and religious liberty.  It is a must-read for those on the fence about marriage.  It is simply a must read all around.  Anderson presents a well-researched and well-rounded argument for the continued importance of both traditional marriage and the strong protection of religious liberty.  And he does all of this while being eminently respectful to those on the opposite side of the issue.  Anderson’s work is the polar opposite of “hateful,” “bigoted,” or “homophobic.”  It is a prime example of the Christian imperative to “speak the truth in love.”  Though it is the first book to be published on the SCOTUS ruling, it is in no way a lightweight treatment. With the e-book version currently available from Amazon and the print version due out by the end of August, I would highly recommend you pick up a copy.  It will be well worth your time.

If you’re looking to defend marriage in your home, workplace, or church, pick up Anderson’s book as soon as you can!

See Juicy Ecumenism for more.

Urge Your Congressmen to Support FADA

A recent letter from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention to the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, implores the Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) immediately. With the imposition of same-sex ‘marriage’ by the US Supreme Court, religious freedom has come under fire. The letter succinctly characterizes the need for this act:

ThinkstockPhotos-89614910The First Amendment Defense Act will help to ensure the protection of the core American value of religious freedom. The bill bars the federal government from taking “any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or as in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union between one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Such adverse action includes federal government discrimination in such areas as programs, grants, contracts, and tax treatment against individuals and organizations that believe on religious grounds that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bill also provides crucial protection for our nation’s faith-based institutions.

Governmental discrimination on the basis of religious belief and practice about marriage will have devastating effect on people of faith, their institutions, and the communities they serve. Millions of law-abiding, faithful people are likely to be suddenly deemed bigots and social outcasts. Their institutions will be crippled and many may cease to exist. Most distressing, millions of people will lose the safety net and affirming services they depend on each and every day, from daycare to meals to job training to adoption.

Failure to pass FADA will result in the alienation of millions of Americans, and will render the United States fundamentally unjust. Urge your congressmen to support FADA and to support religious freedom.

Brian Brown: America Needs a Leader Who Will Protect the Family

In the coming election, America needs a candidate willing to stand up for truth. The DNC has failed America in this respect; the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage under the Obama administration has incontrovertibly proved that.

When we turn to the GOP though, we are met with an alarming lack of leadership on social issues. Two top presidential candidates, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, have both remained relatively silent on the marriage decision. Brian Brown, The National Organization for Marriage’s president, reflects:

ThinkstockPhotos-532747033The battle against abortion and same-sex marriage has turned into an all out war for the soul of the country, between those who believe in religious liberty and those who want to trample it.

With this Supreme Court decision, many in the movement, including pastors and priests, believe they will be forced to risk their personal freedom with persecution, possible jail time, or even martyrdom.

The 2016 presidential campaign will be long and difficult. This decision by two of the top-tier candidates to duck one of the most controversial and important issues of our time shows they are not ready to fight for the principles conservatives expect and demand of their candidates.

In the 2016 presidential election, the National Organization for Marriage will only support a leader, someone who will fight for marriage, in spite of a court’s decision.

See Fox News for Brian Brown’s full analysis.

Bobby Jindal Knows Exactly What Marriage Is

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding marriage exemplifies that the majority of the justices do not understand the cultural significance, biological requirements, or historical reasoning of marriage, Bobby Jindal assures everyone that he is not “evolving” on marriage:

Bobby-JindalGOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal says he will not change his stance on marriage.

The Louisiana governor made that clear when he sat down for an interview with The Daily Signal earlier this year in Baton Rouge.

“My faith teaches me that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m not changing,” Jindal says. “I know it’s politically fashionable to evolve. I’m not evolving and it doesn’t matter to me what the polls say…that is one of those issues that I’m not going to change on.”

Jindal has called the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing gay marriage an “all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians.”

While Jindal says his state will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, he has also stated that court clerks and state workers can’t be forced to support the ruling if they have religious objections.

Jindal says he will continue to push for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman.

Original article and video can be found via The Daily Signal.

The Marriage Debate is Far From Over

Frank Schubert, a long-time partner with NOM and an indispensable marriage champion, pens his insightful observations on how the Supreme Court’s ruling will affect our nation’s continued war on marriage:

The long-expected decision of the U.S. Supreme Court imposing same-sex marriage on the country has been issued. The obvious next question is whether this settles the matter, and there’s a one-word answer: “Hardly.”

If anything, the court’s decision is likely to roil the nation and pave a path toward more cultural conflict, not less.

I have been engaged with the American people in a robust debate on the nature of marriage and how it should be treated in the law ever since I managed the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California. I’ve been involved in legislative and electoral contests in more than a dozen states and in every region of the country.

I realize that many people disagree with the view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That’s what makes a debate and why we have elections. My side prevailed in four public votes and lost in four others. That is how closely divided the nation is on same-sex marriage.

The 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court has illegitimately truncated that debate. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

The court’s narrow majority has substituted its views for those of countless elected officials and more than 50 million voters who decided that traditional marriage should be preserved in their respective states. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called it exercising “super legislative” authority.

In legislating from the bench, the court has deprived both sides of the satisfaction of potentially winning the public debate, while cheating the losing side of any solace that might come from being defeated in a fair fight.

This decision joins other infamous rulings that lacked constitutional legitimacy, including the Dred Scott case declaring that African Americans were not citizens but property, and Roe v. Wade mandating abortion in every state. Just as Roe did not settle the issue of abortion, Obergefell v. Hodges won’t settle the marriage debate.

The inevitable result of this ruling will be to ensure that marriage remains controversial. The most immediate political conflict concerns what actions governments might take to force acceptance of the ruling. In states with gay marriage, bakers, florists, photographers and innkeepers have been punished for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Religious groups have been forced to close ministries such as adoption agencies to avoid violating their beliefs. President Barack Obama’s top litigator has already hinted that Christian colleges could lose their tax exemptions if they do not allow gay couples to live together on campus.

Chief Justice Roberts noted the court majority “ominously” gives lip service to religious liberty by saying that religious people and groups can “teach” and “advocate” for traditional marriage, but the Constitution guarantees the right to the exercise of religion.

There will be a pitched legislative battle in Congress to enact the First Amendment Defense Act (S 1598/HR 2802) to prevent any federal agency from taking adverse action against anyone based on their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The court’s decision will also powerfully inject marriage into the 2016 presidential contest. The most direct course to reverse this ruling lies in the next president appointing new justices to the Supreme Court. Social conservatives will do everything possible to ensure that the Republican nominee is a strong pro-marriage champion, making this a litmus test throughout the GOP primaries and caucuses.

There will also be a strong push to amend the U.S. Constitution, not only to reverse this ruling, but to hold the Supreme Court more accountable. Is amending the constitution easy? No, but neither is recalling a governor or removing state Supreme Court justices, yet these things have been accomplished.

Liberals will bemoan these conflicts as a continuation of the “culture wars,” but they are responsible for advancing them. As long as important values are under fire, especially when they involve giving government the power to subvert unalienable rights granted by our creator, conservatives must either engage the debate or surrender. I don’t see any white flags on the horizon.

Frank Schubert is founder of Mission Public Affairs, a Sacramento political consulting firm. He ran the pro-Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 and several other campaigns around the country supporting traditional marriage.

This article originally appeared on The Sacramento Bee.

No Longer is it US: It’s Them vs. Us

Real Clear Politics features a sharp piece by William Murchison that appraises what the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage means for our country. With this latest turn of events, it is hard to find proof that the majority of our unelected judicial leaders fully understand what the terms “democracy,” “liberty,” and “marriage” truly mean:

ThinkstockPhotos-89614480We live at an odd and dangerous moment -- one framed only in part by the court's recent extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. There is much else to flummox and worry us. "Consent of the governed" seems the last thing on the minds of those determined to herd the sheep -- you and me -- to supposedly brighter pastures.

"We know what's good for you!" is their loud, if unarticulated, injunction. Generally succeeded by: "Shut up -- didn't you hear what we said?"

Chief Justice John Roberts posed a broader, sounder question -- "Just who do we think we are?" -- to his colleagues in the marriage case. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court handed to Americans a new, untested definition of human domestic relationships. Old understandings of marriage were off. We needed a new one -- see? -- and we got it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, as is his wont, saw to the bottom of the matter, writing in dissent: "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

You can take all this if you like as a succession of harrumphings by angry losers. Or you can consider, shall we say, the Big Picture: one bigger than the court, bigger than any wedding party, whatever its sexual composition.

The United States of America -- your country and mine -- has for several decades been unmooring itself from allegiance to truths once generally agreed on as essential to human happiness and freedom. Whether we necessarily meant to slip ancient anchors, that has been the effect. The old American vision no longer serves! A new one is wanted! That's been the consistent narrative.

. . .

The victors want to sweep off the table everything that doesn't please them, replacing it with creations of their own design. What's more, by virtue of their patience and persistence, the victors run vast regions of our country, both geographical and intellectual. They'll tell you Alexander Hamilton doesn't belong on the $10 bill and that our president was right to bathe the White House -- the people's house -- in the rainbow colors of gay liberation.

There's just one trouble. Uprooting truth, or that which has historically been taken for truth, requires more than Justice Anthony Kennedy's say-so. Our elitist Supreme Court has guaranteed for us cultural and constitutional headaches for which no pharmacological remedy exists, headaches possibly of the sort that Mike Huckabee forecasts, involving defiance and division.

Kentucky Clerks Object to Same-sex Marriage Ruling

A group of court clerks in Kentucky have halted issuing all marriage licenses, following the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that is forcing all states to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

ThinkstockPhotos-86527346In order to not be considered “discriminatory,” several clerks in Kentucky have simply stopped issuing any marriage licenses. As Casey County Clerk Casey Davis said, “my religious convictions will not allow me to in good conscience issue same-sex marriage licenses, and I don't want to be discriminatory toward them, or anyone else, so I choose not issue a marriage license, period."

Naturally, resistance to the imposition of same-sex marriage is not to be tolerated by same-sex marriage proponents:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky said its lawyers would be willing to represent same-sex couples who are refused a marriage license in Kentucky.

"It's our contention that government officials' personal objections are insufficient to justify refusing to do what they have been elected by the people to do, in terms of issuing these marriage licenses," said Bill Sharp, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Kentucky. Sharp declined to say whether any couples have called the ACLU to say they have been denied a license.

Davis, the Casey County clerk, noted that state law allows for any resident over age 18 to seek a marriage license in any county of Kentucky.

"So I don't see that I have to be the one that issues it," Davis said.

Even though the clerks are merely invoking their religious liberties, same-sex marriage proponents are not allowing this quiet rebellion to go unchallenged. As AOL reported:

Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy organization, said the clerks could face lawsuits over their refusal to issue marriage licenses.

"If these county clerks don't abide by the law of the land ... they will be sued and they will waste taxpayer time and dollars on a frivolous and self-righteous pursuit that ultimately will be fruitless," Hartman said.

Hartman said his group would refer callers who can't get a marriage license to the ACLU of Kentucky.

These Kentucky clerks are absolute heroes. All American citizens are encouraged to stand up for marriage, especially through actions such as these. While the opposing side may well attempt to invoke violent attacks against us, those who support marriage as the union between one man and one woman have the benefit of truth on their side.

The road is certainly not easy, but the fight to protect marriage is without a doubt, a fight worth fighting.

Thank you to all who continue to stand strong in the face of adversity and continue to proclaim the truth: marriage is the union between one man and one woman, and ONLY one man and one woman.

Listen to KQED Radio’s Forum Featuring NOM’s President, Brian Brown!

From KQED.org:

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Gay men and women "ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. "The Constitution grants them that right." San Franciscans waving rainbow flags outside City Hall tearfully hugged each other after hearing the news, which came right before the San Francisco Pride Celebration and Parade weekend. We discuss the 5-4 decision and what this means for the country.

How to Respond to SCOTUS Ruling on Marriage

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution. - Ryan Anderson

While the decision of the Supreme Court is both tragic and unsurprising, marriage supporters should not give up hope. While the ruling is a disappointment, it is by no means the deciding outcome in the war on marriage. Marriage has always been defined by nature as between one man and one woman. No matter what laws the Supreme Court Justices change, they cannot change the truth.

Ryan Anderson offers encouraging words and advice on how marriage defenders can continue the fight to defend marriage as it has always been defined - the union between one man and one woman:

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman.

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

You can read Anderson’s full article at The Daily Signal.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke