NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Oregon

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).

Reject Monica Wehby's Campaign For Gay 'Marriage' and Abortion...And for the US Senate

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It wasn't long ago that Monica Wehby was riding high, having captured the Republican nomination for US Senate and being looked at by leaders in Washington as a new face for the Republican Party. A highly educated physician, considered a moderate, she was just the type of candidate many in the GOP Washington elite like to support.

Consistent with her own views, she then made a move that some of these Republican leaders in Washington praised, but countless others, especially those of us in the grassroots, rejected:

She embraced same-sex 'marriage' with a vengeance, even paying for a statewide television commercial featuring two gay men who had sued to overturn the votes of Oregonians in favor of the state marriage amendment.

That was the beginning of the end of Monica Wehby's chances of winning election to the US Senate.

Now her campaign is in tatters. If you have not already sent in your ballot, I urge you refuse to vote for Monica Wehby. Just skip the race entirely and refuse to let someone who abandons principle get your support.

Wehby's defeat will also send a powerful message to Republican leaders and the elite who wish to abandon principle and back candidates like Wehby. Not only has she abandoned the truth of marriage, she also has embraced abortion.

As you well know, in endorsing same-sex 'marriage' Wehby threw a sop to the left, hoping to attract support from Democrats and Independents who, she calculated, would favor this move. And she figured that Republicans would have no choice but to stay with her.

The calculation was fatal to her campaign, for two reasons.

First, she apparently forgot that Oregon's marriage amendment was passed with strong support among Democrats and Independents. She also failed to appreciate that all citizens regardless of party affiliation rightly resent the state of Oregon refusing to defend their vote for marriage and allowing gay activists to redefine marriage by default. This behavior by people like state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum was totally disrespectful of voters and an affront to democracy itself. Yet Wehby embraced this duplicity.

Second, Wehby miscalculated in believing Republicans and conservatives had no choice but to support her. Actually we have the choice of refusing to support her.

And that is exactly the choice we are asking you to make. Skip the race. Send a Message. And then let's look for a real Republican, someone who represents all our values of liberty, economic prosperity, national security and support for the family to support in the future.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to the rejection of Monica Wehby's policies, and candidacy, on Tuesday.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


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).