NOM BLOG

Category Archives: States

NOM Keeping Up Fight for the People of Oregon

Oregon State CapitolOregonians have been so far shamefully denied their fundamental rights and role as citizens in a self-determinative democracy by a system of judicial tyranny run amok, but NOM is continuing our fight there to get the people of Oregon their day in court and ensure that they values are represented in the matter of how marriage is defined.

OregonLive reports:

Despite a string of legal defeats, the National Organization for Marriage is continuing its battle against the May 19 federal court decision overturning Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage.

Two weeks after a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the group's attempt to intervene in the case, the National Organization for Marriage on Wednesday asked the full Ninth Circuit Court to reconsider the decision.

You can read the rest of the article here.

National Organization for Marriage Says Louisiana Marriage Decision Proves That It Is Perfectly Legal For States to Define Marriage As The Union of One Man and One Woman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 3, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"This is a great win for the cause of marriage, coming as it does on the heels of other pro-marriage court victories, that puts the lie to the claim that it is inevitable the US Supreme Court will redefine marriage. To the contrary, we believe they will leave this issue with the states." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised federal court Judge Martin Feldman for ruling today that the US Constitution does not preclude the state of Louisiana from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and that voters made a rational decision in doing so when they adopted the state's marriage amendment. Feldman becomes the third federal judge to have ruled that traditional marriage laws are not unconstitutional, and the first since the US Supreme Court issued their decision invalidating a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A state judge in Tennessee has also ruled that the US constitution does not prohibit states from defining marriage a one man and one woman.

"Here we see the house of cards collapsing that supported the myth that redefining marriage is inevitable," said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "This decision by Judge Feldman in Louisiana is a great win for the cause of marriage, coming as it does on the heels of other pro-marriage court victories, that puts the lie to the claim that it is inevitable the US Supreme Court will redefine marriage. To the contrary, we believe they will leave this issue with the states."

In his ruling issued today, Judge Feldman wrote that "Louisiana's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the limitation on recognition of same-sex marriages permitted by law in other states ... do not infringe the guarantees of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution... The defendants have shown that Louisiana's decision to neither permit nor recognize same-sex marriage, formed in the arena of the democratic process, is supported by a rational basis."

"Judge Feldman has authored a powerful opinion that points the US Supreme Court in the direction of upholding state marriage laws and constitutional amendments," Brown said. "He finds what should be obvious to everyone, that states have a legitimate concern in 'linking marriage to children with intact families.' It is perfectly appropriate for voters to determine if they wish to decide for themselves whether they wish to redefine this age-old institution that has served society so well. Overwhelmingly, voters have rejected redefining marriage, and we expect the US Supreme Court to do so as well."

Feldman becomes the third federal judge to uphold traditional marriage laws, joining judges in Nevada and Hawaii. Last month a judge in Tennessee ruled that the US Constitution does not prohibit Tennessee from adopting a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Two Roads

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

A couple of court cases have attracted some interest this week, and they provide an interesting contrast highlighting why we are both concerned about the future of marriage in America, but also optimistic in the long run.

Oregon

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied NOM's motion this week to intervene to defend the state's marriage amendment in court.

Because the state Attorney General and Governor both abandoned their sworn duty to defend the law, NOM was left as the sole entity willing to publicly defend the statute on behalf of our members within the state of Oregon. We filed the appeal on behalf of our supporters, who did not wish to be named publicly, fearing reprisal.

There is well-established precedent for this under the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of NAACP v. Alabama allowing membership organizations to pursue the interests of their members when there are substantial hurdles to the members litigating in their own name, such as the real threats of harassment and violence that have been manifested elsewhere in the country around the marriage issue.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit did not agree and denied our motion, saying that we lacked legal standing.

Which raises the question: in America today, who DOES represent the interests of the voters? Elected officials who have sworn oaths of office to do so are refusing to do so when the issue is perceived to run counter to the popular culture. And when that happens, what can the voters do?

It's a serious crisis begun by the Supreme Court's decision last summer that the defendants of Proposition 8 didn't have legal standing which is now calling into question the entire validity and purpose of the referendum process — the truest form of democracy in our great Republic.

Of course, the legal process isn't necessarily over, and NOM will be exploring whether to file a petition for rehearing en banc with the full Ninth Circuit or whether we will seek review in the Supreme Court itself.

Because, right now, the sovereign act of the people of Oregon — voting in 2006 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman — went entirely undefended by the elected officials of Oregon, an abdication of duty that resulted in the long-standing understanding of marriage in Oregon being rewritten by a single federal court judge.

The policy fight over the definition of marriage is something that should ultimately be resolved by the people, not unelected judges. For now, Oregonians have been denied their voice on that important policy issue, and that is truly regrettable.

North Dakota

In contrast to Oregon, we have the example of the leaders in North Dakota. Like so many other states, North Dakota's marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is under attack in federal court.

But the actions of the Governor and Attorney General in defense of the law have been exemplary to this point. They recently filed a response to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the case that outlines — brilliantly — so many of the critical and compelling arguments in defense of marriage.

Among many other critically important points, they make a few that I would like to highlight here:

The case involves two conflicting marriage institutions that cannot coexist.

As I mentioned in my email on Wednesday, they point out that "this case involves two mutually exclusive and profoundly different marriage institutions, marriage institutions that serve separate, distinct, and conflicting societal purposes."

In fact, in making the argument, they cite the minority opinion of Justice Alito in the Windsor case of last summer — an opinion that cites NOM co-founder Robert P. George's book, What Is Marriage? in making precisely that point!

They correctly point out that "North Dakota can have only one social institution denominated 'marriage.' It cannot simultaneously provide the historically proven valuable social benefits of man-woman marriage and the asserted benefits of the new genderless marriage. One necessarily displaces or precludes the other."

The States have the power to define marriage.

It should be obvious, but in light of the blatant activism of federal judges recently, it must be pointed out. So they do: "In cases spanning three centuries, the Supreme Court has emphasized that '[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States.'"

Furthermore, nothing in federal constitutional law requires North Dakota to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The media likes to say that last year, the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down in the Windsor case. But that's simply not true — only ONE of the FOUR sections of DOMA was struck down — the section that dealt with the federal government's recognition of marriage. The other three sections are still the law of the land — including Section Two, which clearly says states do NOT have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Perhaps most importantly, they point out that:

North Dakota marriage law does not violate either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The defendants point out that "[t]he due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring [marriage] by judicial legislation." (see Supreme Court case, Baker v. Nelson).

In fact, they further point out that "Windsor also makes no mention of Baker and certainly does not inform lower courts that they are no longer bound by Baker. Windsor dealt with the constitutionality of a federal law defining marriage, not a state law" [emphasis added].

I realize that this is quite a bit technical, but I wanted to let you see that marriage can and IS receiving a phenomenal defense in court.

As cases like the one in North Dakota make their way up to the Supreme Court in the coming months, rest assured that NOM will be doing everything we can to support the defense of marriage in the courts and throughout society. If you are able this Labor Day weekend, could you please consider making a generous contribution to support our efforts to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: Enjoy your Labor Day weekend!

National Organization for Marriage Statement on the 9th Circuit's Ruling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 28, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

"We are of course disappointed with the Ninth Circuit's decision today. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the appeal of the denial of motion to intervene, holding instead that even if NOM had been allowed to intervene on behalf of its members (including Oregon voters, wedding services providers, and a county clerk), it had no standing to appeal the judgment below even though the elected officials of the state refused to provide any defense of the marriage amendment adopted by a strong majority of Oregonians.

"We believe that the decision conflicts with a prior Ninth Circuit opinion specifically recognizing that a County Clerk with the duty to issue marriage licenses likely would have standing to intervene and appeal an adverse judgment. NOM alleged under oath that it had among its members just such a county clerk, and it sought to intervene on the clerk's behalf under the Supreme Court's well-established precedent in the case of NAACP v. Alabama allowing membership organizations to pursue the interests of their members when there are substantial hurdles to the members litigating in their own name, such as the real threats of harassment and violence that have been manifested elsewhere in the country around the marriage issue. Because of that conflict, we will certainly be exploring whether to file a petition for rehearing en banc with the full Ninth Circuit or whether we will seek review in the Supreme Court itself.

"Ultimately, though, NOM remains concerned that a sovereign act of the people of Oregon went entirely undefended by the elected officials of Oregon, an abdication of duty that resulted in the long-standing understanding of marriage in Oregon being rewritten by a single federal court judge. The policy fight over the definition of marriage is something that should ultimately be resolved by the people, not unelected judges. For now, Oregonians have been denied their voice on that important policy issue, and that is truly regrettable."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Why I Think We'll Win

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Although it has been a mild summer, things are heating up in the fight to defend marriage.

In just a few months, we will be facing a potential turning point in the political arena, as NOM will be working with many other groups to retake the United States Senate and hold politicians accountable to you, the voters, for their policy positions related to the institution of marriage.

And a few short months after that, NOM will be leading the charge to make a national statement that will be heard around the country and the world as the United States Supreme Court likely hears arguments in a case that could well become the Roe v Wade of marriage.

But here's the thing about that potential case: this time around, we have a very good chance to WIN!

Won't you please help NOM gear up for the November elections and pending litigation with a generous donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 right away?

Why do I think we have a very good chance of winning at the Supreme Court?

I'll refer your attention to the recent legal filings in North Dakota by the Governor and Attorney General and their powerful and compelling legal arguments in defense of marriage.

In their briefs, they point out that "this case involves two mutually exclusive and profoundly different marriage institutions, marriage institutions that serve separate, distinct, and conflicting societal purposes."

They go on to note that:

The man-woman marriage institution has uniquely provided valuable social benefits necessary to the well-being and stability of society and the development of individuals, especially children. In particular, the man-woman marriage institution's norms and other public meanings have helped a greater portion of children know and be raised by their mother and father.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, various individuals and groups began a campaign to use the force of law to replace the man-woman marriage (traditional marriage) institution with an institution that would still be called "marriage" but would have a very different core meaning: the union of any two persons without regard to gender (genderless marriage). This civil action is an important part of that campaign.

North Dakota can have only one social institution denominated "marriage." It cannot simultaneously provide the historically proven valuable social benefits of man-woman marriage and the asserted benefits of the new genderless marriage. One necessarily displaces or precludes the other.

This is exactly correct. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples isn't simply adding a parallel institution that won't alter or interact with marriage — it fundamentally changes marriage and makes it an inherently genderless institution.

And that genderless institution is what will be pushed in government policy; in schools; indeed, through all mechanisms of government.

As the brief also points out, same-sex 'marriage' is based on two fundamentally flawed propositions: "First, that there is a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. Second, that sexual orientation is a class meriting heightened scrutiny. Both of these propositions have been rejected by the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals."

Legal precedence is on our side. Reason is on our side. History is on our side. And the vast majority of citizens in America and across the world are on our side.

All we must do now is mobilize them to ensure that the individuals in control of the levers of power in the government and society recognize and respect that fact.

Won't you please click here right away to make a generous donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 to help NOM fight to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: I'll have a lot more to say about these legal cases involving marriage making their way up to the Supreme Court in the days ahead. But I wanted to let you see how powerful and compelling the arguments supporting marriage are; and I wanted to show you that those arguments are being ably advanced in the courts. I feel very good about the legal appeals underway and am optimistic about our chances to win at the Supreme Court in the months ahead.

And NOM will be doing everything we can to assist in these pending victories by mobilizing tens of thousands of Americans to rally in defense of marriage, sending politicians and judges around the country a powerful and unequivocal message: marriage is the union of one man and one woman! Please consider partnering with us today by making a financial investment in NOM today.

National Organization for Marriage Pleased that the US Supreme Court Granted a Stay of the Decision Striking Down Virginia’s Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 20, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage:

"We are pleased that the US Supreme Court has put a halt to the decision in Virginia redefining marriage in violation of the state’s marriage amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters. We had called upon the Court to take this step and are gratified that they will now be able to carefully consider the issues. This is another indication that the rush to judgment declaring marriage to be unconstitutional is not only premature, but incorrect. The US Supreme Court has determined that states have the right to define marriage and we remain confident that they will uphold all the various traditional marriage laws and constitutional amendments that have been wrongly invalidated by federal judges. We look forward to the US Supreme Court taking one or more of the three marriage cases now pending before them, and ultimately ruling that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is entirely constitutional."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

National Organization for Marriage Calls for Supreme Court Stay of Decision Striking Down Virginia's Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 14, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage:

"We urge the Supreme Court to grant Prince William County Clerk Michèle McQuigg's request for a stay of the decision in Bostic v. Schaefer while the matter is appealed. The 4th Circuit has wrongly rejected the request for a stay, and now it lies with the Justices in Washington to ensure that this case can be appealed in an orderly and reasonable fashion without the spectacle of premature same-sex ‘marriages’ filling the news as an affront to the people of Virginia who voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As the Court stayed a similar decision in the case coming out of Utah, we urge them to find the same good reasons for staying the present decision, maintaining the dignity and credibility of the judicial process and giving the people of Virginia the respect they deserve to defend their vote for marriage before our highest court."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

NOM Praises Judge for Showing Deference to Voters and Upholding Tennessee Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 12, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"This important decision has largely been ignored in the media because it undercuts the narrative that same-sex marriage is inevitable. But it isn't." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised a state judge in Tennessee who ruled last week that the Tennessee state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not violate the federal constitution. He is the first judge to uphold the constitutionality of a state marriage amendment since the US Supreme Court issued their 2013 opinion striking down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"It is refreshing to find a judge who is willing to apply the federal constitution as it is and not reinterpret the constitution so as to redefine marriage," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president. "Judge Russell Simmons is exactly correct when he says that there is nothing about the US Supreme Court's Windsor decision that would invalidate the right of Tennessee voters to define marriage as one man and one woman or require the state to recognize a same-sex ceremony performed in another state."

The Tennessee case involved two gay men who 'married' in Iowa four years ago and now wish to force Tennessee to grant them a divorce. But Judge Simmons wrote in his ruling, "neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state's responsibility."

A number of federal judges in recent months have misinterpreted the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Windsor case, which held that a section of DOMA was unconstitutional because it interfered with the right of New York to redefine marriage. The Court's majority held that regulating marriage has historically been a responsibility of the states and the federal government cannot substitute its judgment for that of the states.

"This important decision has largely been ignored in the media because it undercuts the narrative that same-sex marriage is inevitable. But it isn't," said Brown. "NOM is confident that when this issue reaches the US Supreme Court, likely within a few months, that the constitutionality of marriage amendments and statutes defining marriage as one man and one woman will be upheld."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Bishop Rozanski: "Family" is "the Basis of Society"

Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski, former auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, will be installed tomorrow as the ninth bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield.  A Western Massachusetts news site posted a curiously-written article about the new bishop, a vocal marriage supporter.

Mitchell T. RozanskiThe article wasted no time in criticizing the sex abuse scandals of the 1990s and then went on to imply that Pope Francis somehow holds a different view on marriage than the official position of the Catholic Church:

Last September, Francis, in an interview, said abortion, contraception and gay marriage had become an "obsessed" focus in the Church. Last July, he also said, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge."

However, Church teaching that married love is between a man and a woman, for the purpose of reproduction, as ordered by nature, that itself was ordered by God, is not likely to be modified, no matter the pastoral approach to it.

Notice how the article implies that Pope Francis's comments signify a break in Church teaching.

In reality, Pope Francis's "who am I to judge" comment was a continuation of what the Catholic Church has always taught--that those who are attracted to the same sex are called to chastity and should not be subjected to unjust discrimination.  Also notice how the article omitted the portion of the pope's quote denouncing the formation of a "gay lobby."  To include that would be an admission that Pope Francis isn't the radical doctrine reformer many want him to be (so would including anything about Pope Francis's opposition to redefining marriage when he was Cardinal Bergoglio).

The article did, however, include very wonderful comments from Bishop Rozanski on the importance of family - although it was evident that the author of the piece did not take kindly to these observations:

What we offer as Catholics is to strengthen the family as the basis of society. When there is a solid family life, there is less likelihood of crime, there is less likelihood of drug use. The children grow up with a solid foundation. And that is a foundation they can take all through their lives.  And, as a Church, what we are saying is that God made us male and female, and that the institution of marriage is so crucial. It is a sacrament of the Church, if the sacrament is well lived, then the children and future generations will benefit.

Bishop Rozanski is absolutely correct.  When children grow up with a married mother and father, they are much less likely to experience poverty, juvenile delinquency, or drop out of school.

The bishop's defense of marriage is rooted in love for all members of the human family and concern for the welfare of children and society as a whole.  His charitable, truthful comments about the family as the basis of society should inspire Catholics and non-Catholics alike, even if they do upset liberals in the media and those who wish to turn Church against itself by unfairly twisting the words of the Pope and other leaders.

National Organization for Marriage Urges Appellate High Court to Rule in Favor of Traditional Marriage; Calls on US Supreme Court to Grant Review of Utah Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 6, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"It's time that the votes of millions of Americans be respected and upheld." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

"We urge the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal to issue a ruling overturning the lower courts and upholding the right of voters and legislators to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While they are not physically present in the courtroom in Cincinnati, the votes of 8.7 million citizens are at stake in this hearing to determine the constitutionality of traditional marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Voters passed marriage amendments by overwhelming margins in these four states — nearly 8.7 million votes were cast in support of these four amendments, amounting to a combined 65% of the vote cast. It's time that the votes of millions of Americans be respected and upheld.

"No matter what happens with this appeal today in the 6th Circuit, the future of marriage is headed to the US Supreme Court. NOM is optimistic about ultimate victory. We urge the Supreme Court to grant review of the Utah marriage amendment case which was filed yesterday by the state. Utah is the first of many states that will be asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings and uphold the right of voters and their elected representatives to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which it is in reality and has been since the dawn of time."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Virginia Court for Ignoring History, Reality and Rule of Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 28, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"It is a terrible abuse of power for a court to abandon the definition of marriage which has existed throughout the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was adopted by the people, and reflects in law the reality of what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

"We are extremely disappointed, though not surprised, with today's ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the definition of marriage in Virginia. It is a terrible abuse of power for a court to abandon the definition of marriage which has existed throughout the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was adopted by the people and reflects in law the reality of what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman.

"While we condemn the ruling of the majority, we are pleased with the strong dissent authored by Justice Paul Niemeyer who noted that the 'linguistic manipulation' of case law employed by the majority to create a 'fundamental right' to same-sex marriage will also result in 'the right of a father to marry his daughter and the right of any person to marry multiple partners.'

"Justice Niemeyer's dissent lays bare what the majority has done — they have invented a right to redefine marriage because two justices have substituted their views for the considered opinion of the General Assembly and the voters of the Commonwealth.

"We call on the state to appeal this decision to the US Supreme Court and to vigorously fight for the truth of marriage and the right of the people and the elected representatives of the state to define marriage in law consistent with what it is in reality — the union of one man and one woman."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

"The Implications of Redefining Marriage are Staggering..."

The consequences of redefining marriage are formidable and grave, Michael Brown recently wrote at Charisma News.  Brown pointed out some of the absurdities of California's new law deleting the "biased" and "outdated" terms "husband" and "wife" from the state's marriage law.  The terms have been replaced with "spouse."

Women cannot be fathers and men cannot be mothers, Brown wrote.  He argued that marriage cannot be redefined unless words that are foundational to our existence are rendered meaningless:

Allow me to make some very simple statements...

Note to California: A woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother.

California-FamilyFurther note to California: The terms "husband and wife" are neither discriminatory nor outdated.

Further, further note to California: Your social experiment will fail.

I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who love each other deeply and who are committed to each other long-term, and I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who are absolutely devoted to their children.

I am simply pointing out that their union cannot rightly be called "marriage" (regardless of what the courts might say) without rendering foundational words and concepts meaningless, a sure recipe for cultural chaos.

To repeat: The implications of redefining marriage are staggering, and those of us who love and cherish marriage and family need to redouble our efforts and renew our courage to stand up for what is right and what is best, making a fresh determination to swim against the current flood tide of semantic and social confusion.

True marriage and family will prevail in the end.

The "cultural chaos" to which Brown referred is what has brought about intolerance and bigotry toward those who believe in marriage between one man and one woman.

Activist Judge Attempts to Redefine Marriage in Kentucky

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn declared Kentucky's law protecting marriage "void and unenforceable" yesterday but stayed the imposition of same-sex "marriages" pending a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Kentucky-FlagStunningly, a single judge has decided that his opinion can override the votes of 75 percent of Kentuckians, who approved a constitutional amendment protecting marriage in 2004.

According to Heyburn, there is an “utter lack of logical relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriages and any conceivable legitimate state interest.”  Completely ignoring the fact that the state has an interest in protecting children, the wealth of evidence that shows children do best with a married mother and father in a stable relationship, and the basic truth that marriage connects children to their biological parents, Heyburn subverted the will of the people of Kentucky with this decision.

Kentucky Governor Steve Breshear said the state will appeal.

Heyburn's assertion that the Kentucky law excludes some people from “the status and dignity of marriage” begs the question: what is marriage?  Heyburn's decision/ruling implies that same-sex unions are the same as marriages, when by their very nature, they are not.

Heyburn also wrote that marriage denies the "intangible and emotional benefits of civil marriage" to same-sex couples.  But marriage is not purely an emotional union--it is the only union that comprehensibly unites the sexes toward bringing children into the world and ensures children benefit from growing up with both a mother and a father.

Heyburn's ruling is a dangerous example of judicial activism gone wild in the United States.  Renegade judge after renegade judge has worked to throw out the votes of the American people who have voted to protect marriage.  Heyburn's blatant disregard for the will of Kentucky voters and lack of understanding of the intrinsic nature of marriage and what sets it apart from other unions is alarming.

However, there is hope in this case.  Honorably, Gov. Breshear is doing his duty by defending the law and the democratic process.  And, noting Justice Kennedy's opinion in United States v. Windsor, Heyburn also did not claim that same-sex couples have a “fundamental right” to marry.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is expected to rule on this in early August.  Until then, the redefinition of marriage is on hold in Kentucky.  Let's pray that reason, truth, and justice prevail.

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Federal Court Decisions Invalidating Marriage in Utah and Indiana

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 25, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following should be attributed to Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

"Today's split decision of a panel of judges in the 10th Circuit is not surprising given that this Circuit refused to even order a stay of the district court decision when it came down during the Christmas holidays. While we strongly disagree with the two judges in the majority, we are encouraged by the strong defense of marriage articulated by Justice Paul Kelly in his dissent, and especially his defense of the sovereign right of the people of Utah to decide this issue for themselves. This principled recognition by a federal judge considering the marriage issue underscores that the people of a state are entitled to respect and deference in their desire to promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, the US Supreme Court decided in the Windsor case that the federal government must respect the right of states to define marriage. The majority in the Utah case engage in sophistry to attempt to argue their way around the Supreme Court's ruling that it is up to the states to define marriage. As Justice Kelly noted in his dissent, ‘If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.'"

Mr. Brown also commented on the decision of a federal judge in Indiana to strike down that state's laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"The elected representatives of the people of Indiana have decided, for good and proper reasons, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is judicial activism for a single judge to substitute his own views on marriage for the considered opinion of the people’s representatives. This is just the latest example of activism from the federal bench, but we fully expect this decision to eventually be reversed when the US Supreme Court upholds the right of states to define marriage as a man and a woman. We call on Governor Mike Pence to immediately appeal this decision and to seek a stay of the ruling. In the meantime, it is also imperative that the state legislature move forward a state constitutional amendment preserving marriage so that the people always remain in control of the definition of marriage in Indiana."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

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. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

You Could Be the Difference

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

There's only one person on tomorrow's ballot for Congress in the 22nd District who is a true conservative — Claudia Tenney — and I urge you to make sure you vote for her in tomorrow's primary. She is running against the shockingly liberal, pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage incumbent Richard Hanna. It's critical that Hanna be defeated and that a principled conservative like Claudia Tenney be elected.

And be sure to forward this email to all your friends and family in New York who may live in the district, asking them to join you in support of Claudia Tenney for Congress. (The district includes all of Chenango, Cortland, Madison, and Oneida counties, and parts of Broome, Herkimer, Oswego, and Tioga counties.)

Assemblywoman Tenney has received the endorsement of the Conservative Party of the 22nd Congressional District, the Susan B. Anthony List, the National Pro-Life Alliance, New Yorkers For Constitutional Freedoms, and many others including nationally known conservative political analysts like Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin.

She is New York's top-rated conservative legislator and will take her integrity and leadership to Congress.

In contrast, Rep. Richard Hanna is rated the 3rd most liberal politician in Washington by the National Journal and in 2013 he endorsed same-sex marriage — only the second sitting Republican member of Congress to do so.

NOM has endorsed Claudia Tenney and is funding an independent expenditure effort to help her unseat Congressman Hanna. Above is an image from a mailer we have sent. We are also calling thousands of voters in the district to share our position with them.

Please vote for Assemblywoman Tenney in tomorrow's Republican primary for Congress. In order to move pro-marriage, pro-life, and pro-family legislation through Congress we need leaders like her in Washington.

Fiathfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown