NOM BLOG

Category Archives: States

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

National Organization for Marriage Launches Independent Expenditure Campaign in Support of Claudia Tenney; Opposes Republican Incumbent Richard Hanna

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 23, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Claudia Tenney is a principled conservative who believes in marriage, supports the right of voters to have a say, and will vote to protect innocent human life in the US House." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The nation's most prominent organization working in support of natural marriage today announced it had launched an independent expenditure campaign to defeat incumbent Republican Representative Richard Hanna, and support his opponent in the GOP primary, Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) said it was spending tens of thousands of dollars to defeat Hanna and support Tenney.

"Richard Hanna has abandoned Republican principles and is a foe of New York families. He wants to redefine marriage and has refused to allow voters a say on this critical issue. He's also militantly pro-abortion," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Hanna's positions are anti-family and in favor of big government. Claudia Tenney is a principled conservative who believes in marriage, supports the right of voters to have a say, and will vote to protect innocent human life in the US House."

NOM sent a direct mailer to tens of thousands of voters in Hanna's district, New York's 22nd Congressional District noting that Hanna is the 3rd most liberal Republican in the US House, according to National Journal. The mailer said, "On core issues, Richard Hanna has abandoned us." It says that Hanna is "militantly pro-gay marriage" and "shockingly pro-abortion."

"We realize that Congressman Hanna may have a lead in this race, but we believe he is unfit to serve New York," Brown said. "We are hopeful that New York voters will shock the establishment just as voters in Virginia did in unseating Rep. Eric Cantor. Regardless of the outcome, we are standing on principle to let Rep. Hanna and his allies in Washington know that we will not sit still and watch liberal Republicans join with liberal Democrats to redefine marriage and kill innocent children. We urge voters to reject Richard Hanna on Tuesday."

###

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).

Everyday Heroes Like You

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The 2014 March for Marriage and Gala is a celebration of marriage and its champions.

Today, I want to introduce you to a marriage champion who has stood boldly by the courage of her convictions for marriage, and should stand as an example for all of us.

Last week, Theresa Gaffney, Register of Wills/Clerk of the Orphans' Court in Schuykilll County, Pennsylvania, took courageous steps to file motions to stay Judge Jones' awful ruling overturning that state's Defense of Marriage Act and to intervene and appeal the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Mrs. Gaffney is displaying courage where others have not in Pennsylvania, especially Governor Tom Corbett. She knows that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that marriage provides the best chance for children to experience the love and care of both a mother and a father. She also knows that the decision of Pennsylvania lawmakers to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is enttled to a defense in the higher courts.

Even though elected officials well above her like Governor Corbett have failed to defend the law of the land, Mrs. Gaffney has stepped up hoping to give marriage the good and vigorous defense it deserves.

Of course, those who would redefine marriage from across the country are sending her vicious hate mail and launching other attacks. These radicals cannot stand when someone exercises his or her right to defend marriage and they do everything in their power to bully and intimidate marriage supporters into silence. Fortunately, Mrs. Gaffney has not backed down in the face of this onslaught.

Would you take the time to send a note of thanks and encouragement to this courageous public official today? Follow this link to use our system to send a brief note letting her know that she is not alone in her battle — you stand with her in spirit and in prayer. Just click here to send an email right now. Thank you.

Mrs. Gaffney's stand for principle will be matched by the thousands of marriage supporters who take to the streets of Washington, D.C. in just four days. As Americans from all across the country rally and march, they will be demonstrating support of the sacred and unique truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that every child deserves a mother and a father.

Will you be joining us for this momentous event? We certainly hope so as the bigger the crowd, the clearer the message to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress, the media, and the rest of America. Check out the March's website here for all the details including directions, our incredible list of speakers, and buses that still have open seats. If you haven't already, find one near you for you and your friends!

National leaders such as former Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Rick Santorum, Congressman Tim Huelskamp, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Reverend Jim Garlow, and many others are lending their reputations and their voices, making this a historic event that you won't want to miss.

Finally to get a taste of why we march, make sure to watch and share our compelling video for this year's event. It's still not too late to share it with all your friends, family, and faith community.

Click here to view video

Share This   Facebook This   Tweet This   Email This   Share on LinkedIn

Mrs. Gaffney has already stood up in the public square for marriage. Will you do likewise in Washington this week as we March for Marriage?

I truly hope to see you there.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


P.S. The March for Marriage will be a critical and historic step in defending marriage and the faith communities that support it. I hope you can make it and demonstrate the courage of your convictions with thousands of your fellow Americans.

Bishop Morlino: Marriage is First "Domino" of Civilization

Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madison, Wisconsin, said he is "deeply saddened" by a federal judge's recent judicial activism against Wisconsin's marriage amendment.  Bishop Morlino promised to continue defending marriage and its vital role in society.

Bishop Morlino said, in part (emphasis added):

DominosMarriage is, and can only ever be, a unique relationship solely between one man and one woman, regardless of the decision of a judge or any vote. This is not based on any private sectarian viewpoint, but on the natural moral law that is universally binding on all peoples, at all times, and inscribed into our human nature, as man and woman from the beginning of creation. It behooves us to safeguard the sacred ecology of all nature, especially of our human nature.

In striking down the constitutional amendment in our state which protects marriage, the court has, once again, shaken one of the most precious and essential building blocks of our civilization. There can be no question that the best formation for children is in the home of their biological mother and father, generally speaking, and we should always have a greater concern for future generations than we do for ourselves.

Marriage, between one man and one women with openness to children, is an element of the very first “domino” of civilization. The very nature of marriage naturally generates life. When that first “domino” falls, everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which is rooted on the natural family, is seriously threatened. If the “domino” of true marriage falls, then fall all subsequent “dominos.” This is demonstrated, too often, in a culture that increasingly chooses death over life.

Bishop Morlino's full statement is here.  He encouraged priests, deacons, and faithful lay Catholics to "continue to speak strongly about the truth and beauty of marriage."