NOM BLOG

Category Archives: States

Marriage Defenders Gather in Texas

ThinkstockPhotos-163659274On Monday afternoon, a crowd of 250 gathered at the Texas Capitol to defend marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The rally was headlined by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, a prominent champion for marriage. During his speech, Moore encouraged other lawmakers to stand up to defend the biblical definition of marriage:

“No court has any authority to redefine what God proposed in Genesis,” Moore said. “The definition of marriage, you want it by man, it doesn’t come by man, it comes from God.”

But Moore was not speaking merely to those in attendance:

Moore also called for Supreme Court of the United States Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from this summer’s arguments on same-sex marriage because they’ve officiated gay weddings.

Because he’d advised probate courts not to recognize gay marriage licenses, he said he abstained from an Alabama Supreme Court vote ordering judges to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“I didn’t vote in my case, because I had expressed my opinion,” Moore said. “They should do the same thing.”

In addition to Moore, several other prominent political leaders spoke, including GOP Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The Texas Observer reports:

ThinkstockPhotos-144336507Patrick said the rally, organized by the Conservative Republicans of Texas, was about two issues: supporting “traditional marriage” and defending states’ rights.

“It’s not about being anti-anyone,” Patrick said. “It’s about being for marriage between a man and a woman.”

Secondly, Patrick said, “It’s not the federal government’s business to tell Texans what to do in Texas on any issue.”

And don't forget to sign up for the 2015 March for Marriage to join us on April 25th!

Victory for Religious Freedom in Indiana!

ThinkstockPhotos-466956854Here's some great news out of Indiana! The Indiana House has passed a bill with a 63-31 vote to protect the religious liberty of business owners in the state.

SB 101, known as the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” will be heading back to the Senate, where a similar version has already passed. If the House’s version is found in accord with the Senate's version, the bill will head to Governor Mike Pence, who has made it clear that he will sign the bill into law.

Supporters of the law attest that the law does not allow discrimination of same-sex individuals, but rather, honors the rights of business owners who for example, may not in good conscious provide wedding services to same-sex couples.

Supporters of the law say it will keep government entities from forcing business owners - such as bakeries and florists who don't want to provide services to gay couples - from acting in ways contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Gay marriage became legal in Indiana last year following an appellate court ruling.

Supporter Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, tweeted after its passage in the House on Monday that the bill was a "good, tested, protective shield for all faiths."

ThinkstockPhotos-466073636While opponents claim that SB 101 would allow for discrimination against same-sex couples, what SB 101 actually achieves is protecting individuals from suffering discrimination based on their religious beliefs. Specifically, SB 101 prevents state and local governments from "substantially burdening" citizens from being able to exercise their freedom of religion, unless the government can prove that it has compelling interest and is doing so in the least restrictive means.

Supporters of the bill explain that the measure protects people, organizations, and business owners from government intrusion.

"It's important that we allow our citizens to hold religious beliefs, maybe even those we might be appalled by, and to be able to express those," said Rep. Tom Washburne, R-Inglefield.

What is more, opponents should be aware that SB 101 is based off of a 22-year-old federal law, dubbed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, the same act that was influential in the Hobby Lobby decision.

While this bill awaits full adoption in Indiana, nineteen other states have already adopted similar religious freedom bills, and there are several others that are considering legislation.

While the opposition will not respectfully admit defeat, bravo to the state of Indiana for recognizing the importance of religious freedom and the true right of individuals to practice their religious beliefs, both in their private and public lives. Well done, Indiana. Our founding fathers would be proud.

Ted Cruz Takes Steps to Protect Religious Liberty in D.C.

This week, Sen. Ted Cruz introduced two joint resolutions to overturn recently enacted D.C. Council legislation that undermines religious liberty.

via Sen. Ted Cruz's website:

"The D.C. Council is attempting to force religious institutions to provide services, make employment decisions, or participate in activities that directly violate their faith," said Sen. Cruz. "No government entity should be able to coerce organizations - whether they be non-profits or religious schools - into funding abortion services or promoting gender policy that is contrary to the organization's fundamental mission.

"D.C.'s legislation would require pro-life organizations to fund abortions. It would require Catholic schools to pay for abortions, in direct contravention of their faith. That is wrong, and unconstitutional. Despite pending legislation that might provide a temporary exemption limited to insurance coverage, the D.C. Council is ultimately telling institutions within the District that a day will come when they must make the intolerable choice between complying with the law and abiding by their religious convictions. Rather than discriminating against pro-life and religious organizations, D.C. should welcome diversity of thought and protect the freedom of conscience. We must stop this assault on the Catholic Church, and we must act to protect religious liberty. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the nation's capital, and I urge my colleagues in both houses to pass this resolution and affirm the First Amendment rights of all citizens."

The Alabama Supreme Court Battle

The US Supreme Court has set a precedent upholding the right of states to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. All federal and state judges—including those in Alabama—are bound by that precedent.

148044182In a recent post for the Public Discourse, NOM Chairman Dr. John Eastman outlines the underlying questions and facts that current developments in Alabama are bringing to the surface. When Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered probate judges to withhold issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, news stories abounded with accusations of discrimination on the part of Chief Justice Roy. After all, a federal district judge had already declared that the law defining marriage as between a man and woman is unconstitutional: surely Moore’s stance would be swiftly dismissed.

rmooreHowever, while same-sex marriage proponents cried “injustice” the entire Alabama Supreme Court ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance with a 7-1 ruling. As same-sex marriage proponents continue to accuse Alabama of unconstitutional actions, Dr. Eastman reminds us that we have not one, but two judicial systems in America, and explains why a single order by a federal judge does not decide what the Constitution “really” says.

Federal courts exist side by side with state courts, and both have a duty to follow the US Constitution. Indeed, as Article VI of the Constitution makes clear, “All . . . judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Decisions of the lower federal courts—what the Constitution calls “inferior courts”—are not binding on the state courts. If the lower federal courts in a state interpret the Constitution in a way that conflicts with the interpretation adopted by the state courts, neither decision has binding effect on the other.

While a federal district court order declaring a state law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement can have statewide effect if there is a statewide official involved in the case before the court, that order can only bind the defendants named in the suit, their officers and agents, and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with” them, as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order cannot bind people not before the court or acting in concert with them.

Under Alabama law, probate judges—who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Alabama—are judicial, not executive officers, and are entirely independent of the executive branch of government. Therefore, the order issued to the Attorney General of Alabama did not and could not bind probate judges.

479208815Dr. Eastman also explains that it was not Chief Justice Moore who failed in his duty, but Judge Callie S. Grande, the federal district judge who struck down the Alabama law defining marriage as between one man and one woman:

...the ethical considerations that led some to chastise Chief Justice Moore were misdirected. It is federal district judge Callie Granade who acted lawlessly by failing to follow existing Supreme Court precedent that remains binding on her. Indeed, were Chief Justice Moore to follow Granade’s order, he would be violating his duty to comply with the binding authority of the Supreme Court, in deference to a lawless order by a single federal trial court judge. In a well-reasoned and lengthy opinion adopted by a 7-1 vote, the Alabama Supreme Court has concluded just that.

You can read Dr. Eastman’s powerful article here, which not only explains what is happening in Alabama, but why states have every right to define marriage as the union of one man one woman.

Mark Your Calendars for the 2015 March for Marriage!

"This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it." - G.K. Chesterton

2015 March for Marriage

When: Saturday, April 25, 2015, at Noon ET

Where: Union Square, South of Capitol Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC

 

Who: Marriage defenders, champions, and leaders from across the nation join together to defend marriage, family, and American liberties!

Why: To defend marriage as the unique union between 1 man and 1 woman; to protect the family as the building block of society; to ensure that our children will have a future where basic American rights and liberties are honored, preserved, and protected.

Stayed tuned for more information to come!

National Organization for Marriage Commends Alabama Supreme Court For 7 - 1 Ruling Upholding Traditional Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 4, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The Alabama Supreme Court is exactly correct that no federal judge has the power to order a state to issue illegal marriage licenses. Other states should follow suit." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today commended the Alabama Supreme Court for ordering state officials to cease issuing marriage licenses that are illegal under state law, and thus defied a federal judge who is attempting to impermissibly impose her views of marriage on the people of Alabama.

"We praise the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court who have ruled in overwhelming fashion that the laws of Alabama defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be followed by state officials," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "A single federal judge does not have the authority to force a state to redefine marriage and it's high time that out of control judges were put in their place. We call on other states to similarly order their state's officials to enforce state marriage laws."

Brown noted that the US Supreme Court has never ruled against traditional marriage laws and that binding Supreme Court precedence exists (Baker v Nelson) specifically upholding state laws defining marriage as 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 People of Nebraska Deserve Their Day in Court

Americans may disagree on a whole host of issues, including and especially when it comes to the marriage debate, but commitment to the democratic process is critical. What's happening in Nebraska is detrimental to Americans, and to our nation, long-term.

Nebraska's StatePaper.com explains:

GettyImages_137442741[Federal judge Joseph Bataillon] is being asked by seven same-sex couples to issue a preliminary injunction, declaring that they all have a right to be married in the State of Nebraska. They have asked further that the court should order the State of Nebraska and its various agencies, including county clerks, to immediately issue marriage licenses to these couples and to alter the law in Nebraska to allow all same sex couples to be married immediately, even before Nebraska gets its day in court and this matter is tried in the traditional way.

Getting your day in court is important. There are many procedures, such as requiring witnesses to testify under oath, using the power of a subpoena to require people to give you honest evidence and make statements under oath before a trial, and making sure the matter before the court fully heard with live persons and not just lawyer-crafted written statements, affidavits and declarations.

So, now Judge Bataillon is considering the matter and has told everyone he will issue his ruling soon. No trial, no get your “day in court” with all the protections of a fair and equal process leading up to trial. Just consider and decide the issue before a trial.

How can that even happen? How can a judge rule before a full and fair trial?

Read the full editorial at StatePaper.com.

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Supreme Court For Failure To Stay Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling; Encourages Alabama Officials To Refuse To Comply

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 9, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"[A]llowing a lower court ruling that overturns a state marriage amendment adopted by over 80% of voters is reckless and undermines the integrity of the Court." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today sharply condemned a majority of the US Supreme Court for failing to follow existing protocol and issue a stay of a decision redefining marriage in Alabama and called on Alabama officials to refuse to comply with the lower federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"A majority of the Supreme Court has cast disrepute on the impartiality of the Court by refusing to follow previous protocol and issue a stay of a lower court ruling while it is being considered by the Court," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The issues in play are currently under review by the Supreme Court, and allowing a lower court ruling that overturns a state marriage amendment adopted by over 80% of voters is reckless and undermines the integrity of the Court. We call on the people of Alabama to continue to enforce their state marriage laws."

The people of Alabama adopted a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman with 81% voter support in 2006. The US Supreme Court has never ruled that such amendments are unconstitutional; in fact it has upheld traditional marriage laws as being constitutional which remains binding national precedent in Baker v Nelson.

"A single federal judge does not have the authority to overturn a state marriage amendment and the people of Alabama should refuse to go along with this order," said Brown. "We commend Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore for ordering state probate judges, who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses, to enforce state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman and to refuse to issue licenses that violate state law. These probate judges have sworn an oath to the people of Alabama and they must honor their oath to the people they serve."

###

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 Says Same-Sex Marriage in Florida Is Illegitimate, Calls On Florida Officials to Enforce State Law and Demands US Supreme Court to Reaffirm Right of States To Define Marriage As Union Of One Man And One Woman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 6, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Florida officials should not go along with this illegitimate decree and should demand that state and local officials continue to enforce the marriage amendment that was overwhelmingly adopted by Florida voters in 2008." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today said that the imposition of same-sex 'marriage' in Florida is the result of an illegitimate act by a federal judge and demanded that the US Supreme Court grant review of a pending case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and reaffirm that states have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"It is simply illegitimate for the opinion of a federal district judge to trump the decision of millions of Floridians and attempt to redefine marriage in violation of Federal law," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Federal judges are acting as if the US Supreme Court has ordered same-sex marriage to be imposed, but in reality the Court has ruled that states have the right to define marriage. We demand that the US Supreme Court act immediately to review the pending marriage case before them and swiftly reaffirm that states have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

In Windsor v United States, a narrow majority of the US Supreme Court ruled that a federal law defining marriage violated the federal constitution because that law conflicted with the right of states to define marriage. In the particular case, the state of New York had acted to redefine marriage, making it genderless, putting the definition of marriage chosen by New York lawmakers at odds with the federal definition of marriage. This pro states-rights ruling in Windsor has since been twisted by many federal judges, using it to falsely claim that traditional marriage provisions adopted by states are unconstitutional.

"The US Supreme Court has never ruled that traditional marriage is unconstitutional," said Brown. "In fact, they have specifically ruled that states have the right to define marriage. It is a travesty of justice that states are allowing federal judges to single-handedly decide the laws of marriage. Florida officials should not go along with this illegitimate decree and should demand that state and local officials continue to enforce the marriage amendment that was overwhelmingly adopted by Florida voters in 2008.

###

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).

Conservative Panel Appointed to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in 5th Circuit

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today announced on their website the justices selected to hear the appeals of lower court rulings on gay marriage cases from Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. The panel consists of Judges Patrick Higginbotham of Dallas, Jerry Smith of Houston and James Graves Jr. of Jackson, Miss. Higginbotham and Smith are conservative judges appointed to the bench by President Reagan, while Graves is an Obama appointee. Marriage supporters tell NOM they are encouraged by the panel.

GavelThe panel will hear an appeal next week from state officials in Texas and Mississippi where lower federal court judges overturned state marriage amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The same panel will hear an appeal from gay couples in Louisiana who were rebuffed by a federal judge in their attempt to redefine marriage in that state.

The 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative in the country. If they vote to uphold traditional marriage laws, as many observers expect, they will join the 6th Circuit which issued a similar ruling this past October. The US Supreme Court is now considering taking the 6th Circuit case, something that NOM has called upon them to do. The first opportunity for the SCOTUS justices to take the case will be in their conference scheduled for January 9th.

Arkansans Voted to Repeal Bad "Civil Rights" Law

This week, the citizens of Fayetteville, AR voted to repeal a "civil rights" ordinance that had raised concerns about wedding vendors and others being targeted for harassment and punishment for declining to celebrate same-sex 'marriages,' among other worries.

Ryan Anderson at The Daily Signal explains:

Wedding_PhotographerAmong other things, the law [Ordinance 119] made it a crime for citizens to engage in what the government deemed to be “discrimination” based on real or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. Concerns were raised about wedding vendors and “discrimination” based on sexual orientation, as well as bathroom policies and “discrimination” based on gender identity (particularly transgender individuals—which bathrooms must biological males who identify as women, and biological females who identify as men, be allowed to use).

[...]

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.

And so, on Tuesday of this week, the citizens of Fayetteville rightly acted and voted to repeal Ordinance 119.

Anderson points out that this case highlights why laws such as the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, sponsored by Representative Raul Labrador of Idaho, are needed to protect citizens against such overreach by government pushing radical agendas with regard to marriage and family.

The Numbers Rise

As reported by Time Warner Cable News in Charlotte, the number of North Carolina Magistrates who have resigned in the wake of marriage being redefined there is higher than previously reported...

CourthouseThe number of North Carolina magistrates who have resigned or retired early because of their opposition to performing same-sex marriages is higher than previously reported.

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.

AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

Of course, this is only to be expected. It was as recent as 2012 that the people of North Carolina went to the polls and voted overwhelming in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

National Organization for Marriage Urges Kansas To Refuse To Accept Gay Marriage Order and To Press Its Case To The United States Supreme Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 13, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Governor Brownback should reject the idea that Kansas must abandon marriage because out of control federal judges say so." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today sharply condemned the United States Supreme Court for refusing to grant a stay of a federal judge's order imposing same-sex marriage in Kansas, and called on Governor Sam Brownback to order local clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses that violate Kansas law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"The United States Supreme Court is creating a constitutional confrontation by refusing to hear an appeal of lower court decisions imposing same-sex marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "These lower court decisions are illegitimate. They violate the overarching constitutional principle that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. The US Supreme Court has specifically recognized in the Windsor case that the regulation of marriage has always been a state function, and this remains so. Therefore, we call on Governor Sam Brownback to reject the idea that Kansas must abandon marriage because out of control federal judges say so."

The Kansas Supreme Court has previously issued an order blocking a lower state court judge from directing local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of state law. Local clerks who issue marriage licenses are considered judicial officers under Kansas Law.

"In blocking the issuance of marriage licenses that violate Kansas law, the Kansas Supreme Court has implicitly concluded that their marriage amendment does not violate the federal constitution, and rightly so," said Brown. "We urge Governor Brownback to use his authority to order local clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses in violation of state law, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, in recognition that the state courts are not bound to reach the same judgment about the constitutionality of their laws as the lower federal courts. Although this obviously creates a lack of "harmony" between the state and federal courts on the subject, Kansas has every right to insist that this conflict be resolved by the Supreme Court, not an activist lower federal court. We encourage the Kansas Supreme Court to remain firm in upholding state laws, especially in light of the fact that numerous federal judges have upheld state marriage amendments like Kansas' including the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as district courts in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. We urge Governor Brownback and state Attorney General Schmidt to aggressively press their appeal to the US Supreme Court."

Kansas voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment in 2005 confirming the state's historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment passed with 70% voter support. However, a federal judge in Utah ruled that Utah's marriage amendment was unconstitutional, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. The US Supreme Court subsequently refused to hear Utah's appeal of that ruling. Since Kansas is also in the 10th Circuit, federal District Judge Daniel Crabtree recently issued an injunction against the state enforcing its marriage amendment. The ruling has created substantial legal confusion in the state.

"We are rapidly approaching the inevitable confrontation between the sovereign right of states and the limited powers granted to the federal government. It is absolutely the right of the states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, especially in light of the fact that the US Supreme Court has never held that traditional marriage violates the US constitution," Brown said. "The question for the people of Kansas, and indeed the nation, is whether we are going to allow an illegitimate order by federal judges to trump state law and the vote of 70% of the Kansas electorate. Fifty million Americans in over thirty states have voted in support of traditional marriage and it's time that states fight back to protect the decision of those voters."

###

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 Defeats Every Republican It Targeted Who Embraced Same-Sex 'Marriage'; Group will Target Sen. Rob Portman for defeat in 2016

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 10, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"When candidates speak out in support of marriage, voters will reward them; when candidates ignore marriage or actually want to redefine it, they are rejected." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) claimed victory in their efforts to defeat three prominent Republican candidates for the US House and US Senate, and announced they will set their sights on defeating Sen. Rob Portman for reelection in 2016, or if he decides to run for president. Through their Super PAC, the NOM Victory Fund, the nation's largest organization supporting natural marriage opposed the election of Republican US House candidates Carl DeMaio (CA52) and Richard Tisei (MA6) as well as Republican US Senate candidate Monica Wehby of Oregon. Tisei and Wehby were defeated on Election Day while DeMaio conceded defeat yesterday.

"I hope that our success in defeating these three Republican candidates sends a message to the Republican leadership in Washington that the GOP faithful demands candidates who are committed to defending marriage, which is a critical element of the Republican platform," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Together with our success with independent expenditure and grassroots campaigns to help elect pro-marriage Republicans like Thom Tillis, Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst and Ben Sasse, we've proven that speaking out in support of traditional marriage is a winning issue for Republican candidates."

NOM spent over $200,000 in independent expenditures on television ads and mailers in the Tillis and Cotton races, and mounted substantial grassroots efforts including co-sponsoring a bus tour and turning out conservatives to help Joni Ernst (IA), Ben Sasse (NE), and Pat Roberts (KS), along with supporting Governor Sam Brownback (KS).

"Republicans want to support candidates who stand with them to advance policies that promote liberty, prosperity, national security and the natural family," said Brown. "Marriage is the most pro-family, pro-child institution ever devised, one that brings men and women together and forms the ideal environment for any children born of their union. When candidates speak out in support of marriage, voters will reward them; when candidates ignore marriage or actually want to redefine it, they are rejected."

US Senator Rob Portman announced his support for redefining marriage in 2013 after his son told him he was gay. Portman faces voters in Ohio in a 2016 reelection race, but has also been mentioned as a possible Republican candidate for president.

"Rob Portman can forget about getting elected President of the United States," said Brown. "If he runs we will make sure that GOP primary voters are aware of his desire to redefine marriage and his willingness to see federal judges set aside the votes of 50 million Americans who enacted marriage amendments across the country because his son is gay. Rob Portman's son has a right to live as he chooses, but that does not give his father the right to redefine marriage. The same voters who just elected pro-marriage candidates like Joni Ernst, Tim Scott, Tom Cotton, Pat Roberts and Thom Tillis are not going to support someone like Rob Portman."

Brown said that if Portman runs for reelection, they will oppose him in Ohio. "The people of Ohio deserve a US Senator who respects their votes for marriage. We hope that Portman faces a stiff challenge in the Republican primary from a candidate who will proudly stand for marriage. We intend to oppose Sen. Portman for reelection, and if he survives a primary challenge we will urge Republicans and Independents to refuse to vote for him in the General Election, just as we successfully did with DeMaio, Tisei and Wehby."

In addition to its work in federal races, NOM also noted the defeat of Republican state Senator Mark Grisanti in New York. Grisanti was one of four GOP Senators who switched their votes and redefined marriage in that state.

"When these Republican Senators betrayed us, we vowed that we would defeat them all," Brown said. "We previously had defeated three of the turncoat Senators, and now we have kept our word that all would be defeated with the ouster of Grisanti. This should also serve notice to Republican leaders that it is political suicide to back Republican candidates who do not fight for traditional marriage."

###

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 Praises 6th Circuit Ruling On Marriage; Urges US Supreme Court to Follow Suit

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


"We have been awaiting this decision for some time and welcome it not only as a tremendous victory, but as a common sense recognition that it is not for the federal courts to substitute their judgment about whether same-sex 'marriage' is a good idea or not, but to leave it to the people to make the decision about this fundamental institution." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised a ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding marriage amendments in four states that define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman. The ruling is a major victory for supporters of traditional marriage, and NOM called on the US Supreme Court to take the case when it is appealed and follow the direction of the 6th Circuit.

"We have been awaiting this decision for some time and welcome it not only as a tremendous victory, but as a common sense recognition that it is not for the federal courts to substitute their judgment about whether same-sex 'marriage' is a good idea or not, but to leave it to the people to make the decision about this fundamental institution," said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Jeffrey Sutton, argues forcefully that courts should leave a decision about changing "such a fundamental social institution" as marriage to the American people and the democratic process. They said, "Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution." The ruling leaves intact marriage amendments in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

NOM urged the US Supreme Court to take this case at the earliest opportunity. "The justices of the Supreme Court were derelict in their duty when they refused to review the marriage cases previously before them," Brown said. "They now have no excuse. We call on the Supreme Court to stand for the proposition that men and women of good will across this land have the right under their constitution to preserve marriage in the law as it has always existed in reality, the union of one man and one woman."

While praising the outcome of the case, Brown sharply disagreed with sentiments in the opinion suggesting that momentum for same-sex marriage shows no sign of slowing.

"The Sixth Circuit was certainly correct to frame the question before them as 'who decides?' and we wholeheartedly agree that the American people should decide this issue," Brown said. "But the majority is wrong to suggest that voters have changed their minds. In fact, in the vast majority of states that now have redefined marriage, it's been judges and not voters who have done this. The movement to redefine marriage does not benefit from having momentum, it benefits from the exercise of raw political power by federal and state judges and politicians bent of imposing their politically-correct view of the world on the American people."

NOM pointed to several recent developments to show that support for same-sex marriage is waning.

"Just look at what's happened in just the last few days," Brown said. "In Ohio, advocates of gay 'marriage' have pulled a ballot petition because of the fear they will lose. In North Carolina, a poll last week showed that support for traditional marriage stood at 72%, an eleven point increase over the 61% of voters who passed their marriage amendment. Marriage just played a central factor in the defeat of both US Senators Kay Hagan (NC) and Mark Pryor (AR), not to mention numerous other candidates, including several Republicans, who favor redefining marriage. And an NBC election-day survey found that support for redefining marriage had plateaued while opposition had increased by two points. The reality is that same-sex 'marriage' is entirely a creation of the elite in boardrooms and courtrooms and not something that is supported by the American people."

###

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).