NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Oregon

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.

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!

National Organization for Marriage Statement on the 9th Circuit's Ruling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 28, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

"We are of course disappointed with the Ninth Circuit's decision today. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the appeal of the denial of motion to intervene, holding instead that even if NOM had been allowed to intervene on behalf of its members (including Oregon voters, wedding services providers, and a county clerk), it had no standing to appeal the judgment below even though the elected officials of the state refused to provide any defense of the marriage amendment adopted by a strong majority of Oregonians.

"We believe that the decision conflicts with a prior Ninth Circuit opinion specifically recognizing that a County Clerk with the duty to issue marriage licenses likely would have standing to intervene and appeal an adverse judgment. NOM alleged under oath that it had among its members just such a county clerk, and it sought to intervene on the clerk's behalf under the Supreme Court's well-established precedent in the case of NAACP v. Alabama allowing membership organizations to pursue the interests of their members when there are substantial hurdles to the members litigating in their own name, such as the real threats of harassment and violence that have been manifested elsewhere in the country around the marriage issue. Because of that conflict, we will certainly be exploring whether to file a petition for rehearing en banc with the full Ninth Circuit or whether we will seek review in the Supreme Court itself.

"Ultimately, though, NOM remains concerned that a sovereign act of the people of Oregon went entirely undefended by the elected officials of Oregon, an abdication of duty that resulted in the long-standing understanding of marriage in Oregon being rewritten by a single federal court judge. The policy fight over the definition of marriage is something that should ultimately be resolved by the people, not unelected judges. For now, Oregonians have been denied their voice on that important policy issue, and that is truly regrettable."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Statement by the National Organization for Marriage on the Decision of the US Supreme Court to Deny Its Request to Stay the Decision of a Federal Judge in Oregon to Redefine Marriage

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


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute:

"We are disappointed that the US Supreme Court has declined to issue a stay of a federal judge's order redefining marriage in Oregon. Because the state Attorney General has worked in concert with the plaintiffs to deny the people of Oregon a defense of their state marriage amendment, and because the trial judge refused our request to defend the amendment, the people have at least temporarily lost their common-sense law which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It's important to recognize that the Supreme Court has not decided the merits of the underlying issue. NOM has filed an appeal of the trial judge's decision to prevent us from intervening in the case to defend Oregon's marriage amendment. That appeal is on track, with briefs due in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in August and September, and oral argument sometime afterwards. We will continue to press this case because we believe that the people of Oregon are entitled to a vigorous defense of marriage, and because it is in the public interest to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

###

To schedule an interview with John Eastman, Chairman 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).

EWTN Covers March for Marriage

In case you missed it, on May 28 NOM President Brian Brown was on EWTN Nightly News to talk about the upcoming March for Marriage.  He also discussed the motion NOM filed with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asking him to stay the imposition of same-sex marriage in Oregon.

Watch him here:

Majority Say Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Issue Should Go Before Voters

A majority of Oregonians say that voters, not a lone judge, should decide the fate of marriage in Oregon.  Fifty-two percent of adults surveyed say the issue of marriage should go back before the Oregon voters.  KATU.com reported:

OregonAbout 52 percent of the 600 adults surveyed said voters should vote on the issue while 45 percent said the issue has been decided.

On Monday, a federal judge struck down a 2004 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in Oregon.

In the same poll, 66 percent said a judge should not have the right to “in general” overturn the will of voters.

More specifically, pollsters asked whether a judge has the right to overturn the voters’ will on the same-sex marriage issue. In that case, 64 percent said no – a judge does not have that right.

Judge Michael McShane's ruling to redefine marriage has drawn harsh criticism from opponents of judicial activism and has strengthened the zeal of marriage supporters to continue fighting for the right of every child to be raised by a mother and a father.

Teresa Harke of the Oregon Family Council noted, "Hundreds of thousands of Oregonians have been ignored in this entire process."

ICYMI: Oregon Catholic Conference Blasts Ruling to Redefine Marriage

The Oregon Catholic Conference, which represents the Archdiocese of Portland and the Diocese of Baker on issues of public policy, expressed their strong disapproval of Judge Michael McShane's ruling to redefine marriage:

Gavel in MotionThe Oregon Catholic Conference is deeply grieved by Judge Michael McShane's ruling to redefine marriage. It is a travesty of justice that marriage, as the foundation of society, received no defense in the U.S. District Court. Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, in an extreme dereliction of her sworn duty to uphold the law, refused to represent the interests and the people of Oregon. It is a sad day for democracy when one federally appointed judge can overturn, without any representation, the express will of the people of Oregon.

Despite the judge's ruling, authentic marriage remains what it has always and only been according to God's design: the loving union between one man and one woman for the mutual benefit of the two who have become one flesh and any children born of their union. Redefining marriage confuses the true purpose and meaning of marriage. An act deliberately ensuring that more children will grow up motherless or fatherless is not an act of love. The Oregon Catholic Conference will continue to uphold the true meaning of marriage and advocate for genuine marriages and families in Oregon, and it urges all people of good will to continue to reject the flawed notion that a pairing of two people of the same gender constitutes a marriage.

National Organization for Marriage Files For Emergency Stay of Federal Court Proceedings in Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 19, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The people of Oregon are entitled to a defense of their decision on marriage rather than being abandoned in Court." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (https://www.nationformarriage.org/) (NOM) today filed an emergency appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking the higher court to stay the same-sex marriage proceedings in Eugene so that NOM can argue that it should have been granted intervention status in the case in order to present a legitimate defense of the marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the district court judge rules today as expected to invalidate the amendment, NOM also asked the Ninth Circuit for a stay of such a ruling.

"This case is an ugly example of inappropriate cooperation between the Attorney General and the gay marriage lobby, both of whom want to redefine marriage in contravention of the overwhelming decision of the people to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president. "The people of Oregon are entitled to a defense of their decision on marriage rather than being abandoned in Court."

NOM filed to intervene in the case on behalf of its members as well as a country clerk and members of the wedding industry who will face injury if marriage is redefined. The emergency filing today seeks a halt to the proceedings in Eugene so that the Ninth Circuit can determine whether NOM's motion to intervene should be granted. Additionally, if Judge Michael McShane were to invalidate the marriage amendment as the Attorney General and the plaintiffs have requested, NOM's motion also includes a requested stay of such a decision.

"The law makes clear that a group like NOM has a right to intervene in this case so that a meaningful defense can be mounted of the people's decision to define marriage as a man and a woman so that children benefit from having a mother and a father," said John Eastman. "Whatever someone's view of marriage might be, we hope that everyone can agree that major constitutional decisions like this should be decided only when there are actual adversaries in the lawsuit. We were disappointed in Judge McShane's denial of our motion to intervene and we look forward to presenting our case to the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, to the US Supreme Court."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, or John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

NOM Responds to Oregon Ruling Denying Its Motion to Intervene in Defense of Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 14, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute and Professor of Law and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law:

"We are disappointed in the ruling today denying the National Organization for Marriage the ability to intervene in this case. We believe that our members in the state and the people of Oregon are entitled to a vigorous defense of the marriage amendment adopted overwhelmingly by Oregon voters. We disagree with the Judge's finding that our motion was untimely. Although her unwillingness to defend Oregon's law has been known for some time, the state Attorney General made clear only in April that she would not appeal a ruling invalidating the marriage amendment. We believe it is imperative that a party be able to appeal any adverse ruling and that we are entitled under the law to intervene to defend the measure and appeal any adverse ruling. For this reason, we will be filing an appeal of today's ruling with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a reversal of this decision."

###

To schedule an interview with John Eastman, chairman 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).

Because No One Else Will

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I don't know if you have been following what has been going on in Oregon this week.

Gay marriage activists have brought suit seeking to overturn Oregon's duly enacted Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And, as has happened in so many other places recently, state officials — the Attorney General and the Governor — are abandoning their oaths of office and sworn duty to defend the state's laws.

But someone is stepping up where these officials have backed down: NOM. And I'm asking you to stand with us: please click here to make a generous, fully tax-deductible donation today!

In a hearing earlier this week, all participants — two sets of plaintiffs and two sets of defendants, including the Governor and the Attorney General — all argued that Oregon's marriage law served no rational purpose. Furthermore, the attorneys for the government announced that they could not even conceive of any argument in favor of marriage between one man and one woman.

This is collusion, pure and simple. What is occurring here is the plaintiffs are colluding with the government to get a pre-ordained result that fits with their political agenda notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Oregon voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as one man and one woman.

But just this past Monday, NOM filed in federal court seeking to intervene in this case to serve as a genuine adversary to the plaintiffs and the state, and to represent our members and the voters who firmly believe that marriage between one man and one woman serves the public interest.

We're very pleased that the judge has agreed to hear us out! On May 14th, we get to make our argument before the court! And we look forward to mounting a vigorous defense of traditional marriage, making the strong arguments in favor of marriage that no one else is willing to make in this case, and defending the right of the people of Oregon to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today I'm asking you to stand up with us against this rising tide of radicalism seeking to redefine marriage at any cost — liberty, free speech, democracy.

Won't you please make a tax-deductible donation right now of $35, $50, $100, $500 or more to help us finance this critical litigation?

As you know, right now NOM has many immediate cash needs. But this opportunity to defend marriage and our democracy is just too important to pass up. We must make the case — since the appropriate elected officials refuse — that marriage as the union of one man and one woman is good for children and good for society.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

PS: There is nothing inevitable about the future of marriage in America. What happens will depend on what ordinary people like you and I do in its defense. The one thing we cannot abide is losing because the side of right gave up. We need champions for marriage to stand up and defend it — which is why NOM took action in Oregon this past week when no one else would. Won't you please stand with us today by making a generous, tax-deductible donation in support of our legal efforts?

National Organization for Marriage Files Motion Seeking to Intervene in Oregon Marriage Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 21, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"We are acting to protect the interests of our members in Oregon who support traditional marriage, including government officials, voters and those in the wedding industry, who will be directly impacted by this collusive lawsuit which the state has refused to defend." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) said it will file a motion in federal court later today seeking to intervene in the case challenging the constitutionality of the 2004 state ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NOM seeks to protect the interests of its members in Oregon which include a County Clerk, professionals in the wedding industry and voters who supported the 2004 amendment to the state constitution. The group said the intervention filing became necessary when the state Attorney General refused to mount a defense of the amendment, a situation that creates a "collusive" lawsuit where the public's interests are unrepresented.

"Marriage in Oregon is worthy of defense, yet the Attorney General has abandoned her duty to defend the marriage state constitutional amendment enacted overwhelmingly in 2004 and in effect has switched sides," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "As a membership organization, we speak on behalf of our members, including a County Clerk in the state, several professionals in the wedding industry, and voters. All of these individuals have a particularized interest in the outcome of the litigation, yet their interests are not being represented. We are working to protect the interests of our members who support true marriage against a collusive lawsuit that has the state joining with the plaintiffs against the interests of our members, and the state's voters."

The challenge to Measure 36, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage, is currently scheduled for oral argument in federal district court in Eugene on Wednesday, April 23rd.

NOM's lead legal counsel — its chairman John Eastman — will tell the federal court in the filing today that NOM's members in Oregon include a county clerk who must perform marriages and certify them, professionals in the wedding industry, and voters who cannot defend their interests in upholding the law themselves due to legitimate fear of reprisal.

"It is precisely for this reason that federal law has a strong premise that organizations like NOM should be able to intervene to defend the interests of their members who cannot adequately defend those interests themselves," said John Eastman, NOM's Chairman and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at The Claremont Institute. Eastman, a noted constitutional law scholar and former clerk to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, added that, "even the simple fact of having to publicly identify themselves as supporters of traditional marriage would subject them to reprisals. This is obvious and well-documented from what's occurred to businesses in Oregon and elsewhere."

In 2009, the Heritage Foundation published a report, "The Price of Prop 8," detailing numerous examples of harassment, boycotts and other threats against supporters of the 2008 constitutional amendment in California, nearly identical to Oregon's amendment, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Since then many further examples have been widely reported, including an Oregon baker whose business has effectively been shuttered, and most recently a woman whose new natural food business is being boycotted over her support for true marriage.

Eastman also said that news reports over the weekend that Judge Michael McShane is in a long-term relationship with another man and that the two are raising a child together raise serious ethical questions about whether the judge should continue to hear the case.

"These recent news reports suggest that Judge McShane is in the same position as the two gay men challenging the marriage amendment, raising troubling questions about his impartiality," Eastman said. "But regardless of what judge eventually hears this matter, it is wrong that a challenge to Oregon's marriage law would proceed in federal court with no meaningful defense of the constitutional amendment adopted overwhelmingly by voters. Their interests, and the particular interests of those involved in performing or celebrating wedding ceremonies deserve a defense. If our motion to intervene is granted, we intend to fully and aggressively defend the state constitutional amendment."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or John Eastman, chairman 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).

Statement from the National Organization for Marriage Regarding Oregon Attorney General's Decision to Abandon Defense of Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 20, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon. She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following may be attributed to Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

"Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon. She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with. The people are entitled to a vigorous defense of the laws they enact, and the marriage amendment is no exception to that solemn obligation. Further, Ms. Rosenblum is dead-wrong in her conclusion that the amendment cannot be supported by rational legal arguments. Just last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that regulating marriage is the purview of the states, not the federal government. Most recently, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ordered a decision to invalidate Utah's marriage amendment to be stayed, strongly signaling that the Court believes there is a good likelihood that the state will win its appeal against the ruling issued by an activist federal judge. Marriage is our only institution that exists to bring men and women together to benefit the couple and to provide an ideal environment for any children produced by their union. It can and must be defended as a unique, essential and profoundly good institution."

###

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).

Grappling With the Arguments

Oregon PolitiChick State Director Maggie Wilson-Mars writes at the PolitiChicks blog about "The Very Real Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage." Wilson-Mars is a Mormon woman and a conservative with a homosexual son with whom she often argues about same-sex marriage - with him arguing against it, and her in favor.

Throughout her piece she is dismissive of many of the arguments in favor of traditional marriage that we here at NOM know are based in greater logic and evidence that she seems willing to credit them. Nonetheless, despite her reasoning and convictions in these matters, she wrote her article to admit that there's one argument that can't be so easily dismissed -- even though, ironically, it's the one most frequently waved off in our society: namely, the so-called "slippery slope." She writes:

Sweet CakesHere in Oregon, a bakery refused to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. They will sell to anyone, but draw the line at providing wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. The community was outraged. Portland/Gresham is a liberal, pro-gay town and they weren’t having it. It caused such a ruckus that the Oregon Attorney General opened an investigation. [...]

A few days ago, the Oregon bakery ... decided to operate from home. The emails, messages, phone calls and threats are so bad they can’t take it. Remember, they’re still the focus of an investigation by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries into possible violation of the states discrimination laws. There’s no reassurance for churches, etc. if businesses are already being forced to participate in ceremonies that they are morally opposed to or face fines, attacks and shutdown. Just in my own personal life, I know many conservatives who have no problem with gay marriage itself, it’s just that supposedly non-existent slippery slope that rears that its ugly head time and time again. I can’t help but look into the future when I see things like bakeries getting investigated and terrorized.

Of course, just like we here at NOM have more evidence and reasons to support the arguments Mrs. Wilson-Mars rejects, we (sadly) have more proof of this danger that follows in the wake of marriage redefinition as well.

Oregon Bakery Owners' Decision Aligned with State Constitution

Before the owners of "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" were forced to close their very successful Oregon bakery, voters in their state had approved a referendum to define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. In other words, same-sex unions were not even legally recognized in Oregon.

Why then would Aaron and Melissa Klein be harassed to the point of closing their business just for declining to support a ceremony that was technically illegal in their state anyway? NewsBusters has more:

Sweet CakesFollowing a voter-approved referendum in 2004, Oregon's constitution (Article XV, Section 5A) has stated that "... only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

For some reason, that doesn't seem to matter in the "Sweet Cakes" controversy over Aaron and Melissa Klein's refusal earlier this year to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple's (not legally recognized) "marriage." The turned-down couple has filed a civil-rights complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Department of Labor and Industry. In the meantime, the Kleins, who have experienced ongoing harassment and threats against anyone and everyone who might refer business to them, have closed their storefront business and are operating it out of their home. Aaron has taken employment elsewhere.

No press coverage that I have seen has raised the seemingly valid issue of how the Kleins can be forced to do something in support of a ceremony, i.e., same-sex "marriage," which is not legally sanctioned and could construed to be an illegal act.

It seems like a stretch to assert that the 2007 law trumps the language hard-wired into the state's constitution and forces the Kleins to support something the state doesn't formally recognize.

Oregon Official Says Bakers Who Support Traditional Marriage Need 'Rehabilitation'

Despite the fact that Oregon bakers saw a huge boom in business after standing up for their belief in marriage (proving that many other Oregonians feel the same way), Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian says the state government's goal is to "rehabilitate" them:

A lesbian couple filed a formal complaint against “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” in Portland after the owners – Aaron and Melissa Klein – declined on the basis of their Christian faith to provide services for a lesbian “wedding.”

Sweet Cakes Owner

The Oregonian quotes Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian as saying: "The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate."

“To say that this couple needs to be ‘rehabilitated’ for believing and practicing the values on which this nation was founded is entirely beyond the pale,” says [Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association].

“This sounds like Stalinist Russia or China under Mao, where those who thought for themselves were forced under government coercion into re-education camps. This is not the America that was given to us by our Founders.”

Matt Barber [vice president of Liberty Counsel Action] says the “rehabilitation” remark connotes some kind of ailment, mental illness or physical ailment. “You know, we rehabilitate criminals,” he explains. “Are they saying that Christianity is criminal here and we have to rehabilitate those who embrace the Christian sexual ethic? That's what this official in Oregon is saying.”

Wildmon wonders what might follow if the bakery owners refuse to be “rehabilitated.” -One News Now