NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Massachusetts

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: Traditional Marriage Achieves Overwhelming Victory Across United States

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 5, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"In red states and blue, candidates who supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman won election and those who didn't were rejected by voters. The Republican Party should take note that their nominees who favored gay 'marriage' were opposed by NOM and they were resoundingly defeated." —Brian Brown, President, NOM—

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today said that their efforts to support candidates who supported traditional marriage and oppose those who favored gay 'marriage' were overwhelmingly effective and played a pivotal role in the Republicans capturing control of the United States Senate. NOM won all the races in which they were engaged.

"Marriage won an overwhelming victory last night," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "In red states and blue, candidates who supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman won election and those who didn't were rejected by voters. The Republican Party should take note that their nominees who favored gay 'marriage' were opposed by NOM and they were resoundingly defeated."

The NOM Victory Fund spent more than $200,000 on television advertisements and mailers supporting successful US Senate candidates Thom Tillis (NC) and Tom Cotton (AR). NOM also mounted extensive grassroots efforts in support of newly-elected Senators Joni Ernst (IA) and Ben Sasse (NE), in addition to Governor Sam Brownback (KS) and Senator Pat Roberts (KS).

A major storyline emerging from the election was the rejection of Republican candidates who abandoned marriage and instead supported redefining marriage. NOM actively opposed Richard Tisei (MA6), Carl DeMaio (CA52) and Monica Wehby, the GOP candidate for US Senate in Oregon. Tisei and Wehby were defeated, and the outcome of the CA52 contest was too close to call on election night.

"It's time for the GOP elite and consultant class to wake up and realize that marriage is a winning issue, in red states and blue," Brown said. "Traditional marriage amendments have received 50 million votes across America, and candidates who embraced marriage this election won, while Republicans who rejected marriage were themselves rejected. The election results tonight were a stunning rebuke of those who wish to redefine marriage. We look forward to working with Congress to advance the cause of 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).

"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


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


"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.

Religious Americans Will Keep Fighting for Marriage

Star Parker, the President of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), wrote in the Washington Examiner last week that religious Americans will not give up their defense of marriage.

Same-sex 'marriage' activists have not won, Parker says, despite claims that defending marriage is pointless and the efforts of activist judges to overturn state laws protecting marriage.

Family Saying Grace before MealParker writes:

In 1831, a French aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville arrived in America and spent several years traveling and studying life in the communities of the new nation...

Tocqueville wrote, “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.”

And he wrote, “Of the world’s countries, America is surely the one where the bond of marriage is most respected, and where they have conceived the highest and most just idea of conjugal happiness.”

As we know, today times are changing. Religion and the institutions of traditional marriage and family are being challenged and, rather than being seen as enablers of our freedom, are now regularly portrayed as obstacles to it.

Since same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts 10 years ago, it has become legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia and is now recognized by the federal government.

The onslaught continues where laws protecting traditional marriage in many states are being overturned by courts and lawsuits are now pending in 30 states.

Even the Bible Belt has been penetrated, and recently, a judge in Arkansas struck down state law protecting traditional marriage...

However, despite the argument that “gay rights” is today’s signature civil rights battle as racial equality was the civil rights battle of the 1960’s, blacks are generally not buying it.

Newlyweds on Church StarcaseAccording to the Pew survey, support for legal same sex marriage among black Protestants at 43 percent indicates that support has increased in this community, but remains far below the national average.

A coalition of 100 black pastors in Michigan now stands in vehement opposition to a federal district court ruling in March overturning a voter-approved measure which amended the Michigan constitution in 2004 to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The pastors, along with other Christian groups, are filing an amicus brief in support of the appeal of the court decision by Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette.

Blacks, on average, attend church with greater frequency than any other ethnic group in the country. And blacks take Scripture seriously.

It is a no-brainer for many church-going blacks that discrimination because of race is very different from choices in sexual behavior.

Only 32 percent of Republicans, according to Pew, support same-sex marriage legalization. This issue, along with abortion, is not going away as a source of tension in the Republican Party.

Black pastors know first hand how moral relativism destroys communities. They are not about to buy into it.

Nor are Christian evangelicals who represent a meaningful portion of the Republican Party.

Although most blacks and Christian evangelicals have probably not read the words of Tocqueville, they appreciate the truths that he identified in 1835 about the importance of religious values to American freedom.

This fight is far from over.

Read more.

State's Rights and the Defense of Marriage

The battle to defend marriage, and the faith communities that sustain it, is increasingly coming down to one’s view of the Constitution and particularly what the Founding Fathers intended as the balance between state’s rights and the powers of the federal government.  Activist judges and an overreaching Obama administration continue to attempt to curtail the right of states to define marriage as they see fit.

Judicial ActivismHowever, Jennifer Hickey of Newsmax wrote yesterday reminding each of us that protection of state’s rights continues to gain supporters in the US House of Representatives.  She reports on Congressman Weber’s (R-TX) “State Marriage Defense Act” and the growing number of co-sponsors the bill has.

Congressman Weber introduced the bill so that,

If state law recognizes two people as married, federal law will recognize them as married; if state law does not recognize them as married, federal law will not recognize them as married.

"We do not want to apply Massachusetts law in Texas, any more than Massachusetts wants Texas law applied there," U.S. Rep. Randy Weber, who in January introduced the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014, told Newsmax.

The Texas Republican's legislation currently has 38 co-sponsors and is supported by the Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Concerned Women for America, and Heritage Action.

The congressman acted in the wake of widespread confusion among states on how to react to the Supreme Court's decision last year to strike down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Weber said his bill would "provide clarity to federal agencies seeking to determine who qualifies as a spouse for the purpose of federal law.

Congressman Randy Weber (R-TX)

"This legislation is not about denying anyone the right to marry, but it is a states' rights issue with the goal of helping to clarify the confusion among federal and state agencies."

Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation told Newsmax, “[T]hat Weber's bill protects ‘the sovereign authority of states to recognize marriage as they see fit. It does not say what marriage has to be defined as in any particular state. I do think the Justice Department's decision to ignore the Utah law highlights the need for this law.’”

The State Marriage Defense Act will "restore proper legal order to the scene and correct the administration's unlawful practice," Notre Dame law professor Gerald Bradleywrote, saying that federal agencies "have no inherent legal authority to define marriage. Neither does the president or his attorney general, so long as Congress has exercised its paramount authority to do so."

To urge your Congressman to support the State Marriage Defense Act, follow this link and send her or him an email.

Obama and Romney on Marriage: Words & Actions

As pro-marriage voters prepare to participate in the presidential election, the Baptist Press has done an invaluable service by charting out the concrete actions Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have taken as well as what they have said about marriage.

Here, for instance, is what they found Mitt Romney's actions on marriage to be while Governor of Massachusetts:

-- November 2003: The same day that Massachusetts' highest court issued its first-in-the-nation decision that would legalize gay marriage, Romney endorses a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman.

-- March 2004: Announces his desire to ask the court to prevent its ruling from going into effect until after citizens can vote on a state constitutional marriage amendment. Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, though, declines to make such a request to the court. (The court had "stayed" its ruling for 180 days, meaning it did not take effect until May 2004.)

-- April 2004: Files an emergency bill with the state legislature that would give him the power to ask the state's high court to delay its ruling until after citizens can vote on a constitutional marriage amendment. (The bill fails.)

-- April 2004: Announces that because of an obscure 1913 law, out-of-state gay couples won't be able to marry when the court's ruling takes effect in May 2004. Romney's interpretation goes further than the interpretation of the attorney general, who had limited the application of the law to only the 38 states that had explicitly defined marriage in the traditional sense. Romney said couples from any state that doesn't recognize gay marriage are ineligible.

-- May 2004: Announces he will veto any bill that allows out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts.

-- June 2004: Appears before a U.S. Senate committee, urging passage of a federal constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman. Such an amendment would overturn the gay marriage ruling in his state.

-- November 2006: Speaks before 7,000 people at a rally in Boston supporting a state constitutional marriage amendment.

-- November 2006: Sues state legislators to try and force them to vote on a state marriage amendment. Citizens had gathered 170,000 signatures to place the amendment before the body, and the constitution requires a vote. (The court sided with Romney. The legislature subsequently passed the amendment in January 2007, although it failed to pass it again during the next session, as required. The state constitution requires the amendment to pass twice before being placed on the ballot.)

-- December 2006: Threatens to withhold a pay raise from state legislators if they fail to vote on a marriage amendment.

Massachusetts Gay Couple Sue Bishop Over Dropped Plan to Host Same-Sex Weddings on Purchased Property

The Boston Globe:

James Fairbanks and Alain Beret, married business partners from Sutton, had been searching for the perfect property for nearly two years when they discovered Oakhurst, an aging mansion on 26 beautiful acres in Northbridge. The former retreat center, which was affiliated with the Diocese of Worcester and had been on the market for some time, would be the ideal spot for their next venture: an inn that would host weddings and other big events.

When the Diocese of Worcester unexpectedly dropped out of negotiations with them in June, Fairbanks and Beret were shocked — and flummoxed. Then, they say, a church attorney inadvertently forwarded their broker an e-mail from Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, chancellor of the diocese, advising a church broker that he was no longer interested in selling to Fairbanks and Beret “because of a potentiality of gay marriages” there.

Beret, 59, and Fairbanks, 57, plan to file a lawsuit Monday morning in Worcester Superior Court against Sullivan, the bishop, the church’s real estate agent, and the nonprofit retreat center, the House of Affirmation, alleging they discriminated against Beret and Fairbanks on the basis of sexual orientation in the course of a real estate negotiation, violating state law.

“I have lived quietly in the mainstream for nearly 60 years, and I expected to continue that,” Beret said in an interview yesterday. “But I will not continue that at the expense of my dignity.”

Sullivan, in a phone interview yesterday, said he did not even know Fairbanks and Beret were gay, and that his e-mail was taken out of context. The talks fizzled, he said, because the men could not secure financing for their first offer, and their second offer was unacceptable to the church.

“They didn’t have the money, that was it,” he said.

It was not until weeks after the financing fell through, he said, that the church’s broker told him that, in her presence, Fairbanks and Beret had mentioned hosting same-sex weddings at Oakhurst.

Sullivan said, however, that the church, as a matter of policy, will not sell properties where Masses have been celebrated to people who plan to host same-sex weddings. The church will not sell to developers who plan to transform them into abortion clinics either, he said — or to bars, lounges, or other kinds of uses that church officials deem inappropriate.

“We wouldn’t sell our churches and our properties to any of a number of things that would reflect badly on the church,” he said. “These buildings are sacred to the memory of Catholics.”

Brian Brown on FoxNews: Romney Is Pro-Marriage

John Roberts of Fox News reports:

Our President Brian Brown tells him about Romney's record on marriage:

"If you go back to Massachussetts some people want to say '[Romney] wasn't strong on [marriage]' -- if you actually look at what he did he stood up for a state constitutional amendment. He's always said he knows in his heart that marriage is the union of a man and a woman that it's in the best interest of his state and of the country."

Video: What Has Happened After SSM in Massachusetts?

Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains some of the consequences after seven years of same-sex marriage:

"Town clerks who were ordered to solemnize same-sex marriages or be fired. Catholic charities was forced to close its adoption agency as it could not abandon its teaching in order to comply with state rules requiring placing children with same-sex couples. After this man's six year old son was exposed to instruction about homosexual relationships in kindergarten, David Parker was arrested for trespassing for protesting the instruction. He spent the night in jail and was taken to court in handcuffs..."

Three Easy Steps to Protect Marriage Today!

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Below are three important (and easy!) steps that I'm asking you to take to defend marriage today. It will only take a few minutes of your time, and when you're finished, please forward this message on to your friends. Together we're making a difference!

STEP ONE: National Eat at Chick-fil-A Days!

Thanks to the many of you who have enthusiastically responded to my call to stand up and support Dan and Truett Cathy. There are a number of groups joining together in the effort to thank the Cathy family for their courage and grace under fire.

With Mike Huckabee calling on the listeners of his show to go out and eat at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1, we're extending our effort to include both this Wednesday and next! So, please head out to your local Chick-fil-A restaurant this Wednesday, the 25th, and next Wednesday, the 1st, and let the manager know that you're there to thank the Cathy family for their bravery and for all their good work!

STEP TWO: Send a message to the out-of-control Mayor of Boston

"You don't belong here."

That's what Boston's mayor, Thomas Menino, has told Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A: "You don't belong in Boston."

The mayor's reasoning? Because Boston is "an open city… a city that's at the forefront of inclusion."

The hypocrisy is ludicrous.

Menino, of course, is an outspoken promoter of same-sex marriage, just another out-of-touch politician ignorant of the fact that the American people have consistently rejected same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Luckily for Mr. Menino, the people of Massachusetts haven't been allowed to vote on marriage; but they will be allowed to vote on him—and if he isn't nervous, he probably should be.

What kind of mayor denies a large and flourishing company from settling in his city, just because that company's president disagrees with the mayor's own radical same-sex marriage agenda? A mayor who cares neither for his constituents or the Constitution!

Menino has allowed his own bias to cloud his judgment, and he is sending a very poor signal to any prospective business that doesn't want politicians' meddling for the sake of scoring points with their wealthy donors and lobbyists. Besides that, Menino has insulted faith-based business owners and the majority of Americans who don't want to be forced to compromise their moral integrity to serve the whims of the same-sex marriage camp.

Join me in letting Mayor Menino know that his bullying of Chick-fil-A is out of keeping with his Office as Mayor!

Click here to send your own message to Mayor Menino to voice your outrage at his unjust attacks on Mr. Cathy and Chick-fil-A. I hope you'll send a message right away—it only takes a minute! The mayor needs to know how out of touch he is with the majority of voters who recognize marriage as the unique and sacred union of one man and one woman, and that he cannot get away with bullying those who won't step in line with his own radical agenda.

STEP THREE: Tell Congress to Stand Firm on DOMA

Last Thursday, the United States House of Representatives voted 247-166 to adopt the King Amendment, which prohibits the use of Department of Defense funds to violate the Defense of Marriage Act.

This was a very important vote, halting at least one part of the continuous effort by the White House and certain members of the Legislature to chip away at DOMA piece by piece. Over the past year, a continuous battle against DOMA has been building at the highest levels of the Obama administration's Defense Department, producing new Navy "sensitivity guidelines" requiring chaplains to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies and a Department of Defense memo requiring that all military facilities be available for same-sex weddings.

We've put together an action center where you can send a customized message to your own Representatives and Senators, either to thank them for standing firm in support of DOMA or urging them to respect the voice of the American people in the future with respect to this important issue. A thank you message will also be sent to Rep. Steve King for his leadership in passing the amendment. Click here to send your important message to Congress today!

I hope you will take some time out today to accomplish these quick action steps. Thanks again for all you are doing to protect marriage!

Boston Mayor Promises to Stop Chick-Fil-A Opening In Town

After SSM, what next? Banning family-owned companies that believe in marriage:

The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company's president spoke out publicly against gay marriage.

Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday that he doesn't want a business in the city "that discriminates against a population."

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press this week that his privately owned company is "guilty as charged" in support of what he called the biblical definition of the family.

The fast-food chicken sandwich chain later said that it strives to "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A has more than 1,600 stores nationwide but just two in Massachusetts, both located in suburban malls. - AP

The Boston Herald relays Mayor Menino's exact words:

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

William Duncan on 1st Circuit Appeals Court Finding DOMA Unconstitutional

The Associated Press covers the news. We will have a press release issued shortly.

In the meantime, William Duncan comments at National Review:

This morning a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion holding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The court rejected the implausible argument of the trial court that that principles of federalism prevented Congress from defining terms used in federal law. It also declined the invitation to treat a law that considers the category of “sexual orientation” as equivalent to race (i.e. by employing strict or intermediate scrutiny judicial review). The court very clearly says that under the normal approach the courts would use to determine whether Congress had a “rational basis” in passing a law, DOMA would be upheld.

... So, why is DOMA unconstitutional? The court concludes that there is a new legal standard that has been emerging in the law whereby the U.S. Supreme Court has “intensified scrutiny of purported justifications where minorities are subject to discrepant treatment and have limited the permissible justifications.”

... To recap: Three judges on a federal appeals court purported to apply two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth and Fourteenth, to Congress’ definition of marriage which forecloses same-sex marriage for federal-law purposes. The panel said the law did not exceed Congress’ power and would be valid under any analysis used between the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and 1973. The panel said, however, that since 1973 the implications of a handful of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have newly invested the federal courts with a power to second-guess Congress’s purposes. In this case, these three judges decided Congress’s rationales for preserving in law what has been the overwhelming norm of marriage (probably unanimous) for millennia just didn’t measure up.

Video: Pro-SSM Protestors Gather Outside MA Catholic Church

The local CBS affiliate with an update on the story we mentioned earlier this week: