NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Indiana

What Opposing Religious Freedom Really Means

In The Federalist op-ed, Iowa pastor Christopher Neuendorf asserts: “Disagreements are a part of life. As we constantly hear, diversity is built into American culture, and that includes diversity of opinion. I can deal with that. I don’t need everyone to agree with me in order to be a functional member of society.”

With the recent outrage over state laws protecting religious freedom, Rev. Neuendorf identifies a grave concern: in denouncing RFRAs, the rights of any religious individual to exist in our society are being denounced.

ThinkstockPhotos-77872409I’m not exaggerating. I’m not indulging in hyperbole. This is what you’re saying when you post on social media that you are outraged with Indiana’s efforts to protect religious freedom: that I, your family member, friend, neighbor, coworker, fellow citizen, am no longer allowed to exist in your world. I must conform myself to your way of thinking, or face financial ruin and ostracism.

Consider what Indiana’s RFRA offered before Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and his fellow lawmakers neutered it: if sued by a same-sex couple for refusing to provide goods and services that constitute helping celebrate a same-sex wedding, business owners might find protection from devastating lawsuits. Or they might not. It’s up to a judge, and of course we’ve learned not to hope for too much sympathy from our courts these days. But even the potential that a business owner might get away with such stand without facing total annihilation is intolerable to our passionate defenders of non-discrimination.

It doesn’t matter how much we protest that we’re not talking about denying goods and services to our homosexual neighbors as homosexuals. It doesn’t matter that any Christian business would graciously serve food, baked goods, flowers, or any other commodity to any homosexual person who might enter that establishment. It doesn’t matter that we’re talking only about those limited circumstances in which we are expected to become actively involved in the celebration of behavior that our conscience insists is sinful. Such protestations consistently fall on deaf ears.

Rev. Neuendorf has struck on the heart of the “new intolerance”: no one who disagrees is allowed to continue living and working in our society. This is a blatant attempt to justify silencing any opposition. But the “new intolerance” will never be able to change the truth, no matter how aggressively they attack. No matter what, the voices of the American people will still ring loud and clear, for marriage, for truth, and for freedom.

Defending the Sanctity of Marriage

In a guest editorial piece in the Auburn Villager, Auburn residentDennis Shannon explains the logical reasoning that compels him to oppose sanctioning same-sex “marriage”:

Opposition to same sex marriage is about protecting the rights of children to a father and a mother. The primary reason that the state has a vested interest in marriage, as I understand it, is that marriage is the social institution that provides the best environment to nourish, protect, socialize and educate children. Social scientists indicate that children who are raised by a father and mother that are married to each other have the best chance of success in life. This is not to impugn single parents who do their best for their children.

ThinkstockPhotos-57442653 (1)I oppose same sex marriage because I am for the First Amendment of the Constitution, which gives me the right to practice my faith without interference from the state. Anywhere same sex marriage is the law of the land, the first amendment right to freedom of religion becomes null and void. The perceived rights of homosexuals always seem to trump the rights of people of faith to carry out their lives in accordance with their beliefs. Parents lose their rights to the moral education of their children, bakers must participate in same sex marriage by baking cakes for the “marriage” or be forced out of business (which recently happened in Washington State), professional photographers must film a ceremony that they do not approve of or face severe fines … it goes on and on. Religious speech is being restricted in the military and officers have been punished for not endorsing homosexuality. In Canada and in Europe, pastors have been threatened with jail for “hate speech” for preaching on the Biblical view of sexuality and marriage. That can happen here as well if things continue on their current trend.

Many of the forefathers of this nation – Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Congregationalists, Catholics, Mennonites and Jews - came to this nation to escape persecution in Europe so that they could practice their faith as they saw fit. If the Supreme Court makes same sex marriage the law of the land, we will have lost much of the freedom for which this country was founded.

Although there are many things that could be improved in Alabama, I was never more proud of my adopted state than when we voted to protect the welfare of children, parental rights and our religious liberties by voting for the Sanctity of Marriage law.

You can read his full Auburn Villager editorial here. Bravo to Mr. Shannon for speaking out in defense of marriage as between a man and a woman. Our founding fathers would applaud you!

National Organization for Marriage Calls on Indiana Legislature to Defeat Legislation That Guts Religious Liberty Law and Will Result in People of Faith Being Forced To Participate In Activities That Violate Their Beliefs or Risk Severe Punishment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 2, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"This supposed 'fix' is a complete abandonment of principle that rewards the radical left and celebrities like Miley Cyrus who grossly mischaracterized the Religious Liberty Restoration Act passed last week." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced its strong opposition to new legislation designed to "fix" legislation passed last week to protect the right of people of faith to defend against governmental actions seeking to force them to participate in activities like same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

"This supposed 'fix' is a complete abandonment of principle that rewards the radical left and celebrities like Miley Cyrus who grossly mischaracterized the Religious Liberty Restoration Act passed last week," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "It's like paying ransom to a captor, and will put people of faith in the crosshairs of gay activists who will use this new legislation as a weapon to force people of faith to participate in same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies and other activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Refusing to be part of a same-sex 'wedding' is not discrimination but this new legislation treats it as such."

Across the country, people of faith have been targeted by gay marriage activists seeking to force them to participate in same-sex 'wedding' ceremonies. Photographers, inn keepers, bakers, florists, venue operators, and many others have been threatened with lawsuits, fines and even the threat of losing their livelihood if they don't agree to violate their beliefs and celebrate a gay 'wedding.' The state Attorney General of Washington has targeted a 70-year old grandmother who operates a small florist company with a lawsuit where he says he may seek to take her business and all her assets unless she drops her religious objections to same-sex 'marriage.' The Indiana Religious Liberty Restoration Act was written to give such people the ability to raise a defense in court, which the government would then have to show that it has a compelling interest in forcing the person into such activities.

"People should not be forced to engage in activity that violates their deeply held religious beliefs unless there is an overriding, compelling government interest to do so, such as maintenance of public safety," Brown said. "Just yesterday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a survey showing that 70% of Americans believe that Christian business owners like wedding photographers should be able to turn down working at a gay 'wedding.' Other polls have shown over 80% support for this freedom. Yet some Indiana legislators are prepared to sacrifice people of faith on the altar of political correctness in order to reward the radical left for a misleading PR campaign that misrepresents the real issues. We call on this legislation to be defeated, and for Governor Pence to veto it if it is passed."

###

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).

For the Sake of Tolerance, Protect Religious Liberty

“Religious-liberty protections are one way of achieving civil peace even amid disagreement. The United States is a pluralistic society. To protect that pluralism and the rights of all Americans, of whatever faith they may practice, religious-liberty laws are good policy. Liberals committed to tolerance should embrace them.” 

ThinkstockPhotos-478624257In a Washington Post op-ed, The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson and Edwin Meese III, U.S. attorney general from 1985 to 1988, defend the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that have so viciously come under attack:

Who favors coercion in this debate? Who opposes tolerance and pluralism? The answer to both questions: activists on the left.

The laws under attack — Religious Freedom Restoration Acts — are designed to shield all faiths from government coercion. These acts have, for example, protected a Sikh woman’s freedom to carry religious articles at her workplace. They have allowed a Native American boy to wear his hair long, according to his religious beliefs, at his school.

They also might protect those who hold the belief — attested to from the beginning of the Hebrew Bible to the end of the Christian Bible and throughout the Koran — that marriage is the union of man and woman.

And that’s the belief that the left cannot abide. Well-funded special-interest groups refuse to respect the liberty of people of faith who simply ask to be left alone by government to run their charities, schools and businesses in accordance with their beliefs about marriage.

You can read the full article here.

Answers to Your Honest Questions about Indiana's RFRA Legislation

Have questions about the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson and Sarah Torre have answers.

Won’t the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act allow business owners to refuse service to LGBT people?

Religious Liberty CensoredNo, and no one is interested in refusing to serve gays and lesbians simply because of their sexual orientation. And no one has ever successfully used Religious Freedom Restoration Act to defend such actions. As law professor and religious liberty expert Douglas Laycock—a same-sex marriage supporter—notes:

I know of no American religious group that teaches discrimination against gays as such, and few judges would be persuaded of the sincerity of such a claim. The religious liberty issue with respect to gays and lesbians is about directly facilitating the marriage, as with wedding services and marital counseling.

Religious liberty concerns typically stem from those involved in the wedding industry being penalized by the government because they declined to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.

There are now numerous cases of photographers, florists, cake makers and farmers being forced to participate in celebrating same-sex weddings in violation of their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. These are citizens who have no problem serving gays and lesbians but do object to celebrating same-sex weddings.

Religious liberty isn’t an absolute right. Religious liberty doesn’t always trump other values or rights. Religious liberty is balanced with concerns for a compelling state interest that’s being pursued in the least-restrictive means possible. The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, like all similar laws, doesn’t determine the outcome of a particular case. It simply provides a way for citizens to go into court to have their individual case reviewed by a court.

Visit the Daily Signal for more.

Must Watch: Brian Brown's Lively Debate on Indiana Religious Liberty Restoration Act

News Channel 8 featured NOM's own Brian Brown today, debating Rev. Graylan Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, on the hot topic of Indiana’s religious freedom bill. You won't want to miss this one:

National Organization for Marriage Defends Indiana Legislature and Governor Mike Pence Against 'Hysteria on Hoosierland' Over Religious Liberty Legislation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 31, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Contrary to the claims of opponents of this legislation, it is people of faith who are being discriminated against by powerful groups intent on forcing them to support controversial issues such as same-sex 'marriage,' or risk losing their livelihood and personal assets." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — Dubbing the reaction to passage of Senate Bill 101, the Religious Liberty Restoration Act, "hysteria on Hoosierland," the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today defended the Indiana Legislature and Governor Mike Pence for supporting the effort to provide needed legal protections against governmental action aimed at people of faith who exercise their religious beliefs about marriage and other important social issues.

"It's outrageous how the gay rights lobby and their allies in Hollywood and the media are drumming up hysteria on Hoosierland, by grossly misrepresenting the Religious Liberty Restoration Act, falsely describing it as a 'license to discriminate'," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "I am certain that noted legal 'experts' like Miley Cyrus have not even read a single word of the legislation, taking their cue from pro-gay marriage groups who trot out tired talking points to claim 'discrimination' when the real victims of discrimination are the individuals and small businesses who have been punished for living their faith in the workplace and compelled against their will to participate in same-sex weddings. This legislation does not exempt any person from any claim of discrimination, all it does is give someone a defense they can raise in court if they are the target of governmental action seeking to compel them to participate in something that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs."

Senate Bill 101 does not apply to actions by individuals nor does it exempt anyone from claims of discrimination. The legislation applies to actions by governmental entities. The legislation simply allows someone whom the government seeks to compel to participate in an action that violates their deeply-held religious views the ability to raise a religious liberty defense for consideration in court. Such a defense, however, may be countered by a showing of the government that the compulsory action fulfills a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that result. This type of law has existed at the federal level for over twenty years, and is the law in many other states. There is no evidence that such a law has ever resulted in discrimination against same-sex couples.

"Contrary to the claims of opponents of this legislation, it is people of faith who are being discriminated against by powerful groups intent on forcing them to support controversial issues such as same-sex 'marriage,' or risk losing their livelihood and personal assets," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Across the country whenever same-sex 'marriage' is imposed by courts, lawsuits and punishment soon follow for people of faith who cannot compromise their beliefs about the truth of marriage and do not wish to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Now state officials including Attorneys General are using the power of the state to shut down businesses and threaten their owners that they will take all their personal assets as punishment for refusing to go along with same-sex marriage. SB 101 in Indiana will at least give Hoosiers the opportunity to raise a defense in court to combat this kind of harassment and discrimination by governmental entities. We commend Governor Mike Pence and the lawmakers of Indiana who have acted to move this common-sense legislation," Brown said.

###

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 the Indiana Law that Protects Religious Liberty is Good Policy

ThinkstockPhotos-99338324In an article from The Daily Signal, The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson and Sarah Torre explain why Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not controversial, does not promote nor permit discrimination, and above all, why it is good policy to protect citizens from unnecessary and unreasonable government coercion:

These protections for religious freedom, like the one passed in Indiana, provide a commonsense way to balance the fundamental right to religious liberty with compelling government interests.

There are now numerous cases of photographers, florists, cake makers and farmers being forced to participate in celebrating same-sex weddings in violation of their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. These are citizens who have no problem serving gays and lesbians but do object to celebrating same-sex weddings.

Religious liberty isn’t an absolute right. Religious liberty doesn’t always trump. Religious liberty is balanced with concerns for a compelling state interest that’s being pursued in the least-restrictive means possible.

But it isn’t clear that forcing every photographer and every baker and every florist to help celebrate same-sex weddings is advancing a compelling state interest in the least-restrictive way possible. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience doesn’t infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms.

...Again, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts don’t allow individuals to do whatever they wish in the name of religion. There will be times when the government can show it has a compelling reason for burdening religious expression—to ensure public safety, for instance.

But Religious Freedom Restoration Acts set a high bar for the government to meet in order to restrict religious freedom.

You can read the full article at The Daily Signal.

Video: Indiana Law: Bad for Business or Just Misunderstood?

Watch as Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation explains to Out Leadership's Todd Sears and reporters at CNBC that it is not the “controversial” Indiana Law that is pro-discrimination, but it is in fact the law’s opponents who are pro-discrimination.

Why Apple's CEO is Wrong About Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

In a Washington Post op-ed, Apple CEO Tim Cook calls ‘religious freedom’ laws “dangerous” and pro-discrimination:

ThinkstockPhotos-124679692

A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.

...Men and women have fought and died fighting to protect our country’s founding principles of freedom and equality. We owe it to them, to each other and to our future to continue to fight with our words and our actions to make sure we protect those ideals. The days of segregation and discrimination marked by “Whites Only” signs on shop doors, water fountains and restrooms must remain deep in our past. We must never return to any semblance of that time. America must be a land of opportunity for everyone.

Tim Cook is wrong on many accounts (our Founding Fathers built America on the idea of equal opportunity, NOT equal outcome), but more importantly, Tim Cook is a hypocrite.

In a commentary piece on The Daily Signal, Ryan Anderson succinctly explains why Tim Cook is the only person in favor of discrimination in this whole debate:

ThinkstockPhotos-124679702It is Tim Cook who favors laws that discriminate against people of faith who simply ask to be left alone by government to run their businesses and their schools and their charities in accordance with their reasonable belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It is Tim Cook who would have the government discriminate against these citizens, have the government coerce them into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding and penalize them if they try to lead their lives in accordance with their faith.

...Indeed, Apple itself has exercised this freedom (or is the proper word, according to Cook, “discrimination”?). After all, Apple removed the Manhattan Declaration app from its App Store. Apple decided that a Christian app bearing witness to the dignity of unborn life, the nature of marriage as the union of husband and wife and the centrality of religious liberty was incompatible with its mission. So they “discriminated” against the Manhattan Declaration.

No one suggested that this should be made illegal. Even if we thought it a misguided decision, we thought Apple should be free to decide its own values and live according to them.

Tim Cook called on the nation to stand up to discrimination, and that is exactly what Ryan Anderson, Sarah Torre, Mike Pence, and many others have done: they have shown that it is not the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is pro-discrimination, but opponents like Tim Cook who are actually advocates of discrimination.

The full article by Ryan Anderson can be read here.

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.

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).

Marriage and Social Conservatives Win Big In Indiana Primaries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 7, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The National Organization for Marriage and its allies have once again demonstrated that abandoning marriage is a disastrous decision for any politician." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) hailed yesterday's primary results from Indiana as another clear message that defending marriage is a winning issue, and seeking its redefinition is a political graveyard. In Indiana, NOM and its allies sent a very clear message to the legislature while it still debated the Indiana Marriage Amendment (HJR3) — if they failed to pass the question on to the people this year there would be political repercussions. And now the coalition has carried through on that promise unseating two incumbents who led the effort to kill the Resolution, while also protecting marriage champions like Eric Turner, the Resolution's sponsor.

"The National Organization for Marriage and its allies have once again demonstrated that abandoning marriage is a disastrous decision for any politician," declared Brian Brown, president of NOM. "At a time when many local Republican party committees are under pressure from elites to remove support for marriage and life from their platforms, the results of the Indiana primaries should be a warning sign — abandon marriage at your own peril."

These victories continue the streak of successes that NOM and local allies have had in states like New York, Maine, and New Hampshire where the organization has been instrumental in electing pro-marriage candidates and defeating incumbents of both parties who have voted to abandon marriage. For example, NOM was instrumental in defeating four state Senators in New York who voted to redefine marriage.

The coalition in Indiana was led by the Indiana Family Institute Action, and included the American Family Association of Indiana, NOM, CitizenLink, and FRCAction among others.

###

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).

Marriage Wins Big at the Indiana Primaries

The headline speaks volumes, “Social conservatives post wins in Indiana legislative races,” once again proving that supporting  marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a winning political position.

According to the IndyStar,

Indiana State CapitolSocial conservatives won several key Statehouse races in Tuesday's primary, ousting two incumbents and successfully defending others…

…Two Republican House members — Kathy Heuer, Columbia City, and Rebecca Kubacki, Syracuse — were defeated by wide margins by Christopher Judy and Curt Nisly, respectively. The incumbents were targeted by social conservative groups after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. [Emphasis added]…

"The overall message is that if you oppose marriage in Indiana, you take huge political risks," said Curt Smith, president of Indiana Family Action. "If you want to thumb your nose at the pro-family groups, you do so at your own risk."

NOM, the Indiana Family Institute, the American Family Association of Indiana, Citizenlink, and Family Research Council  Action had warned politicians before the marriage amendment vote in the legislature that if they did not give the people the chance to vote on marriage this year, there would be political repercussions.  After the failure of the legislature to pass the question to the voters, the coalition worked together to choose its targets, particularly the ousting of Heuer and Kubacki while protecting marriage champions.

National Organization for Marriage Calls On Indiana Attorney General To Investigate Reported Offer From Former State Republican Chairman Of Campaign Funding To Make Marriage Amendment 'Go Away'

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 4, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The promise of money in exchange for official action is a serious felony that undermines the very integrity of the legislative process itself." — John Eastman, Chairman of NOM —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called on Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to investigate whether the former Chairman of the Indiana Republican Party, Jim Kittle, offered the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives a bribe in exchange for making the proposed marriage amendment then pending before the House to, "go away." The Associated Press reported on March 2nd that Kittle was the individual whom Speaker Brian Bosma was referring to when he told the media that someone had offered him unlimited campaign funding to make the issue go away.

"The promise of money in exchange for official action is a serious felony that undermines the very integrity of the legislative process itself," wrote John Eastman, NOM’s Chairman and a prominent law school professor and former dean. "Any credible allegation that the legislative process may have been subjected to improper influence threatens the integrity of government and must be treated seriously."

Eastman made his comments in a letter to Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, in which he asked that a formal investigation be launched to examine the matter.

When HJR3, the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was pending before the state House of Representatives, House Speaker Brian Bosma told the media that he had been offered "unlimited campaign funding" if he would make the issue "go away." Bosma refrained from identifying the individual who made the offer, saying at the time that the individual may have violated state or federal law.

On March 2nd the Associated Press reported that the individual who reportedly made the offer to Bosma was Kittle, the former state GOP Chairman.

Eastman wrote in his letter, "Mr. Kittle is a politically sophisticated individual. Surely a person with his experience knows that an offer of money in exchange for official legislative action is a serious criminal offense. It simply strains common sense to think that he was unaware of the implications of what he was apparently proposing to the top member of the House."

Eastman made clear that NOM was not alleging that Kittle had committed a crime, but rather requesting that the serious allegations originally raised by Bosma and recently reported by the media be investigated. "To safeguard the integrity of government, the people of Indiana are entitled to a fair and transparent examination of the facts by way of an independent, official investigation of this matter," he said.

###

To schedule an interview with John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [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).