NOM BLOG

Category Archives: States

We have momentum in defeating Carl DeMaio

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

As the repercussions of Carl DeMaio's alleged sexual harassment conduct continues to reverberate, there are more substantive reasons why his campaign is in trouble. But make no mistake about it — DeMaio's campaign is in trouble.

The National Organization for Marriage opposes DeMaio not because he is gay, or because of the allegations concerning his conduct, but because of his positions on the issues.

DeMaio is an advocate for redefining marriage. He cheered when elected officials violated their oath of office and refused to defend the 7 million Californians who enacted Proposition 8 concerning traditional marriage. He celebrated when a San Francisco federal judge — himself engaged in a long term same-sex relationship — overturned Prop 8. And then he was thrilled when the US Supreme Court cowardly rewarded this dereliction of duty, saying that the proponents of Prop 8 could not appeal the ruling overturning Prop 8.

DeMaio also supports abortion, and fails to criticize the abortion industry's extreme agenda of abortion on demand up to the ninth month of pregnancy.

As a member of Congress, Carl DeMaio hopes to press his agenda further — remaking the Republican Party into one advocating for genderless marriage and abortion.

That is not what America needs, or what the Republican Party stands for. That's why we strongly urge you to oppose Carl DeMaio on Tuesday. We can't take a risk of a candidate like DeMaio becoming a role model for young people who will be pressured by today's culture of moral relativism to follow his lead on critical social issues.

Many people agree with us that DeMaio is dead wrong on the social issues, but point out that Scott Peters isn't any better. They talk about DeMaio being a “fiscal conservative” and feel justified in supporting him on that basis.

But that line of thinking was totally upended this week when the US Chamber of Commerce came out and endorsed Scott Peters. They say Peters is the best candidate on fiscal matters. See their new television ad here.

The polls show DeMaio's standing with voters is beginning to slip. Let's do everything in our power to ensure that he is not elected. Please be sure to either skip the Congressional race when you vote, or consider voting for Scott Peters. As a Democrat in a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans, Peters won't be able to impact anything. We can defeat him with a good candidate in two years. But as a Republican in a House controlled by Republicans, Carl DeMaio can do a great deal of damage, and it will be very difficult to defeat him in the future. Go to www.republicansandindependentsforscottpeters.net for more information.

Please, join us in rejecting Carl DeMaio on Tuesday.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

I Stand Sunday

istandsunday2

Christians across America are joining I Stand Sunday this weekend, November 2, 2014, as speakers from across the nation gather at Grace Community Church in Houston, Texas to focus on the freedom to live out our faith free of government intrusion or monitoring.

We will stand with pastors and churches in Houston, Texas who have been unduly intimidated by the city's Mayor in demanding they hand over private church communication.

Watch the free, live simulcast above beginning at 6:00 p.m. CT/7:00 p.m. ET on Sunday (program duration is approx. 90 minutes), or the rebroadcast at 8:10PM CT/9:10 p.m. ET.

Remember to stand for religious freedom online as well by using the hashtag #IStandSunday.

National Organization for Marriage SuperPac Launches TV Ad in Arkansas Opposing Mark Pryor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 30, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Tom Cotton will fight for marriage while Mark Pryor cannot be trusted. We urge Arkansas voters who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman to cast their votes for Tom Cotton." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage Victory Fund has launched a television commercial in Arkansas revealing that US Senator Mark Pryor's claimed support for traditional marriage cannot be trusted in light of his obvious attempts to avoid answering questions about his current position, and the statements of a lesbian leader that Pryor told her he was not opposed to same-sex marriage. The ad is running statewide.

"For years Senator Mark Pryor has claimed to support traditional marriage, but his commitment to fight for marriage has been seriously undermined by his refusal to answer questions about his current position in light of a court decision finding the Arkansas marriage amendment unconstitutional," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Of even greater concern are comments by a prominent lesbian leader who says Pryor has told her he does not oppose gay marriage, but just can't talk about the issue right now. This powerful new ad exposes Pryor for this duplicity."

When confronted by a reporter asking him about the decision of the Arkansas Supreme court to overturn their amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, an obviously anxious Pryor said he had to leave, and then told the reporter that since the matter is in the courts, "we'll see what happens." Meanwhile, prominent gay activist Bailey Bibb, head of the state's Stonewall Democrats, told an undercover reporter that Pryor explained to her, "It's not something we can talk about. I'm not against it."

"Marriage is a critical issue for Arkansans and could prove to be the decisive issue in this race," Brown said. "Tom Cotton will fight for marriage while Mark Pryor cannot be trusted. We urge Arkansas voters who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman to cast their votes for Tom Cotton."

[Ed.: The ad can be viewed here online.]

###

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).

Please spread the word about Carl DeMaio's Flawed Positions on Marriage and Life

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In recent days, there's been much discussion about the explosive sexual harassment allegations against Carl DeMaio. If proven true, these allegations would disqualify him from holding any office, rendering him another Bob Filner.

But NOM wants to remind you about the positions that Carl DeMaio has taken on marriage and life that also ought to render him unfit for office. You see, DeMaio thinks it's fine for a single federal judge in San Francisco to substitute his views of marriage and throw out the votes of over 7 million Californians who voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman when they passed Proposition 8.

Carl DeMaio thinks its fine that elected officials like Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris have violated their sworn oath of office and refused to defend Prop 8 in court, even though it passed fair and square.

I guess DeMaio's position is not so far off from other liberal Democrats who ignore the law and push a radical agenda — like Gavin Newsom, who infamously issued same-sex marriage licenses from San Francisco City Hall.

But Carl DeMaio is not campaigning as a Democrat — he claims to be a Republican!

That's the last thing that we need — a gay marriage-supporting, abortion-embracing “Republican” who will serve as a role model for kids.

That's why NOM urges you to oppose the election of Carl DeMaio for the US House of Representatives. Refuse to vote for him. Either skip that race entirely, or hold your nose and vote for Democrat Scott Peters.

Peters is no better that DeMaio on the issues, but as a Democrat in a House controlled by Republicans Peters won't be able to impact anything. We can defeat him in two years. However, as a Republican in a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans, Carol DeMaio will be in a position to do great damage. You can get more information at www.republicansandindependentsforscottpeters.net

This past weekend we delivered phone calls to thousands of voters urging them to oppose Carl DeMaio. You can listen to the call here. Please forward this to all your friends and family who live in California's 52nd Congressional District.

Share This   Facebook This   Tweet This   Email This   Share on LinkedIn

There's just one week left in this election to get the word out. Please contact everyone you know in the district and urge them to oppose Carl DeMaio.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


"To Change the Face and Voice of America's Politics"

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

There is less than a week left until the mid-term elections, and the race between Richard Tisei and Seth Moulton in the Massachusetts 6th is a close one, by all accounts a ‘race to watch.' I write today to tell you that it essential that you NOT vote for Republican Richard Tisei, and in fact consider supporting the Democrat, Seth Moulton.

Both Moulton and Tisei are anti-life.

Both are in favor of radically redefining marriage.

One is a Democrat, and one is a Republican.

So why is NOM urging Massachusetts voters to oppose the Republican Tisei and to vote instead for his Democratic opponent? Because the difference matters in ways we cannot count.

Consider one of Tisei's endorsements as a case-in-point: he has gained the support of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. This organization says that it "works to elect LGBT leaders to public office for one simple reason. They change America's politics."

But let's be clear: it is the politics of the Republican Party that the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund wishes to change with Tisei's election—and that's what makes his defeat so critical.

On the organization's blog, they state quite openly what earns Tisei their endorsement:

Tisei has shown that he is willing to stand up for equality within his party's caucus, and if elected to the U.S. Congress, will give the LGBT community a much-needed voice in the GOP.

Those words—"within his party's caucus"—are the critical words. It is within the GOP's own strategy meetings and consultations where Tisei is sought to be a "voice" for the political goals of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.

And what kind of goals would he push? What kind of values will he give voice? Again, consider the track record that the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund highlights for Tisei, and decide for yourself:

He has worked with MassEquality and pro-marriage legislators to help whip votes in support of marriage equality, and co-sponsored a gender identity non-discrimination bill.

This, indeed, would be "to change the face and voice" of the GOP's politics! The Republican party states clearly in its platform that marriage is the union of one man and one woman; Tisei, according to the hopes of his supporters, would work to undermine and change this platform conviction from within the party itself.

On the other hand, Tisei's opponent, Seth Moulton, is no better than Tisei on the issues. But as a Democrat in a House controlled by Republicans, Moulton wouldn't be able to impact anything. Furthermore, we could defeat him in two years. Tisei, however, as a Republican within a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, would be in a position to do great damage to the integrity of the party's platform and the pro-life and pro-family policies for which the party stands!

Please share this information today with everyone you know in Massachusetts and urge them to oppose Tisei's election, even if that means voting for his Democratic challenger.

Share This   Facebook This   Tweet This   Email This   Share on LinkedIn

A vote for Moulton would have little impact on the critical issues of marriage and life, either for the state of Massachusetts or for the nation. But a vote for Tisei would, in a very real way, "change the face and voice of America's politics"—precisely by silencing our voice, yours and mine, where the message of marriage and life needs most to be heard!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


Carl DeMaio Wants You to Vote For Him, But He Totally Disrespects Your Vote

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Carl DeMaio, who claims to be a Republican, apparently doesn't see the irony in asking you to vote for him. See, DeMaio has praised a process that stripped 7 million Californians of their votes in favor of Proposition 8 without even a defense being mounted by our elected officials. The opinion of one federal judge in San Francisco has been imposed on California in direct opposition to the decision of voters. And Carl DeMaio is fine with this judicial activism that stripped Californians of their votes because it aligns with his own agenda of redefining marriage.

The truth is that in Carl DeMaio's world, it's not about you, it's about him. DeMaio doesn't care about your votes on important issues like marriage, he only cares about getting you to vote for him.

Carl DeMaio is wrong on marriage, just as he is wrong on abortion. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to fight what the platform called the "twin relics of barbarism" — slavery and polygamy. It was, and is, a party committed to campaigning for moral truths, and the truth of marriage as the faithful union of one man and one woman has been part of our beliefs since the founding of the GOP.

If Carl DeMaio is elected, we're going to have someone in Washington with a platform the tear our beliefs to shreds. Nobody in the media is going to care about his position on pension reform, they're going to give him a national platform to campaign against marriage and life. He will be featured on all the national news shows and will be featured by the leftist media as a "new Republican" to be role model for young people.

We have one chance to stop this, and it's right now. If DeMaio wins on November 4th, it will be extremely difficult to remove him once he gets access to all the corporate money and power structures that typically go to incumbents.

The National Organization for Marriage urges you to refuse to vote for Carl DeMaio. In fact, we ask you to vote for incumbent Scott Peters, even though Peters is also wrong on the issues. The reason for this is that Peters can't do any damage as a Democrat in a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans, and we can work together to elect a true conservative in two years to replace him. But Carl DeMaio serving as a supposed Republican in a House controlled by Republicans can do great damage, and could end up holding the seat for decades.

Please go to www.republicansandindependentsforscottpeters.net for more information. And please, whatever votes you cast on November 4th, do NOT vote for Carl DeMaio.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


From the Donkey's Mouth: Tisei's Own Words on GOP and Marriage

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Richard Tisei is no conservative.

As you know, NOM has criticized the GOP for promoting a candidate like Tisei, despite his clear opposition to the values of marriage, family, and life that the Republican party platform so strongly supports.

Of course, leftist elites in the media have tried to confuse the issue by claiming that NOM's criticisms of Tisei are based on his being an openly gay man. But this is a red herring. The real objection to Tisei's candidacy is that the values he stands for are not conservative values: something he openly admits!

Tisei went on record with Mother Jones in an interview at the beginning of this month, and what he had to say is more condemning than anything we could point out about his political positions.

Tisei said of himself and fellow gay 'marriage' supporter Carl DiMaio (who is running as a Republican in California):

I think [we] represent the threat that we're people who will be able to... change the Republican Party.

He went on to say:

I think most [GOP] leaders recognize that... eventually the party needs to move in the right direction [on gay marriage]...

... by which, of course, he means a direction of sanctioning and approving the redefinition of marriage. One might ask Tisei what is the point of having two parties at all, if all he wants to do is steer one in the same direction as the other?

So, what do you call a Republican candidate who thinks the Republican party is "going backwards rather than forwards" and wants to "change" the party and "move" it in the opposite direction from its core platform principles?

Well, we call that candidate Richard Tisei: and we call him a candidate utterly unworthy of any conservative's support or vote!

Richard Tisei is wrong on marriage, just as he is wrong on abortion. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to fight what the platform called the "twin relics of barbarism" — slavery and polygamy. It was, and is, a party committed to campaigning for moral truths, and the truth of marriage as the faithful union of one man and one woman has been part of our beliefs since the founding of the GOP.

If Tisei is elected, we're going to have someone in Washington with a platform to tear our beliefs to shreds. Nobody in the media is going to care about his position on economic issues, they're going to give him a national platform to campaign against marriage and life. He will be featured on all the national news shows and will be featured by the leftist media as a "new Republican" to be a role model for young people.

We have one chance to stop this, and it's right now. If Tisei wins on November 4th, it will be extremely difficult to remove him once he gets access to all the corporate money and power structures that typically go to incumbents.

The National Organization for Marriage urges you to refuse to vote for Richard Tisei. In fact, we ask you to vote for the Democratic candidate, Seth Moulton, even though Moulton is also wrong on the issues. The reason for this is that Moulton can't do any damage as a Democrat in a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans, and we can work together to elect a true conservative in two years to replace him. But Richard Tisei serving as a supposed Republican in a House controlled by Republicans can do great damage, and could end up holding the seat for decades.

Don't let Richard Tisei sneak a radical agenda into the Republican party. Send the message to him, and to the misguided consultants and politicians who have supported him: marriage is a conservative value, and those that abandon it will NOT receive our vote on November 4th!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


PHOTOS: 'Standing for the American Family' Whistle Stop Tour of Iowa

NOM is proud to be on-site with FRC Action's Faith Family Freedom Fund, The Family Leader, and everyday marriage champions in Iowa today! The "Standing for the American Family" whistle stop bus tour (Oct. 13-16) encourages value voters of Iowa to get out and make their voices heard.

IMAG0658 IMAG0696

 

IMAG0694

iowa_tour_bus

Iowans: join us to hear from local and national conservative leaders about the importance of marriage and the impact our votes will have in November. Check out the full schedule here.

UPDATE 10/17/14 1:37pm: The tour continues into Nebraska today!

IMAG0726

UPDATE 10/18/14 10:32am: Crowds gather at Summit Church in Wichita, Kansas:

IMAG0734

"Gender Neutral" Restrooms at Harvard Divinity School

Harvard Divinity School tweeted a photo this week of its new “gender-neutral” restroom signs, which promote a new third symbol alongside the traditional male and female gender icons.

Harvard Divinity School SignBustle.com elaborates:

Harvard Divinity College is only the latest in a growing number of universities to embrace gender-neutral bathrooms over the past several years. According to a recent article by the Huffington Post, more than 150 schools across the United States have installed all-gender restrooms in at least some of their facilities. And it’s not just colleges getting in on the trend. Offices, city-owned buildings, and other workplaces are all working to make their bathrooms more gender neutral.

Labeled an "all gender restroom", the sign displays the standard male and female figures, a handicapped symbol, and a male/female hybrid figure. Underneath is written: “Anyone can use this restroom, regardless of gender identity or expression.”

It is unclear as to why the standard unisex indicators were not used, nor if it is a private one-stall bathroom or a community bathroom.

National Organization for Marriage Encouraged by Justice Kennedy’s Ruling to Block Same-Sex Marriage in Idaho and Nevada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 8, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


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 pleased that Justice Kennedy has ordered a stay of the ruling in the Ninth Circuit. The idea that same-sex marriage can be imposed upon the people of this country against their will is completely inconsistent with our constitutional principles and runs contrary to the very essence of a republican form of government. We once again call upon the US Supreme Court to decide this issue. They abdicated their responsibility to the American people earlier in the week and we hope that Justice Kennedy’s action will result in the Supreme Court hearing the issue and ultimately deciding that states have the right to preserve marriage in the law as it has existed in reality since long before the nation was founded – 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).

Meese and Anderson in WaPo on Marriage Laws: "The people and their elected representatives should be making these decisions"

In the Washington Post opinion pages, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese  III and his Heritage colleague Ryan Anderson have penned an important piece highlighting some too-little reported legal opinions from federal court judges that make the case for leaving determinations about marriage policy to the states and the democratic process.

The two scholars write:

Meese and Anderson Marriage LawsThis month, in a widely celebrated opinion written by Judge Richard Posner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit declared that it had “no reason to think [the governments of Indiana and Wisconsin] have a ‘reasonable basis’ for forbidding same-sex marriage.”

This is remarkable. According to this court, the millions of citizens who passed marriage amendments in more than 30 states were all bigots acting on no reasonable basis when they supported marriage as the union of a man and woman — just as President Obama, Vice President Biden, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and most members of Congress all did when these laws were passed.

While generating less fanfare, the day before Posner’s opinion was released, U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman upheld Louisiana’s marriage law — a constitutional amendment passed by 78 percent of the voters. Two federal appellate judges — Paul V. Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit and Paul J. Kelly Jr. of the 10th Circuit — issued strong dissenting opinions this summer on why state laws defining marriage as a male-female union are constitutional. As these marriage cases make their way to the Supreme Court, very likely during the term about to begin, the justices should heed the reasoning of these judges.

Read the rest of this excellent article today, and share it with your friends!

WATCH LIVE: Values Voter Summit 2014

The Values Voter Summit is just days away! The annual Summit—which provides a forum to inform and mobilize citizens across America to preserve the bedrock values of traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life and limited government that make our nation strong—will be held from Sept. 26-28 in Washington D.C.

If you're not able to attend, you can watch the live feed all weekend right from your home or office.

Friday, Sept. 26 Live Feed:

Saturday, Sept. 27 Live Feed:

VVS copy

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!